IRC log of bpwg on 2008-04-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:58:23 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #bpwg

13:58:23 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-irc

13:58:25 [trackbot-ng]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:58:25 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #bpwg

13:58:27 [trackbot-ng]

Zakim, this will be BPWG

13:58:27 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes

13:58:28 [trackbot-ng]

Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

13:58:28 [trackbot-ng]

Date: 17 April 2008

13:58:54 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started

13:59:08 [Zakim]

+ +0207031aaaa

13:59:35 [jo]

zakim, code?

13:59:52 [Zakim]

the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo

14:00:10 [francois]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0054.html

14:00:14 [Zakim]

+francois

14:00:33 [miguel]

miguel has joined #bpwg

14:00:47 [francois]

Regrets: PhilA, EdM, nacho, shah, kemp, MartinJ, Bryan, Yeliz

14:00:59 [francois]

Regrets+ rob

14:01:01 [srowen]

srowen has joined #bpwg

14:01:10 [dom]

zakim, who's on the call?

14:01:20 [Zakim]

+Dom

14:01:22 [Zakim]

+??P1

14:01:30 [jo]

zakim, ??P1 is probably me

14:01:40 [Zakim]

+drooks

14:01:43 [Magnus]

Magnus has joined #bpwg

14:01:46 [Zakim]

On the phone I see +0207031aaaa, francois, ??P1, Dom, drooks

14:01:51 [adam]

zakim, aaaa is me

14:01:57 [Magnus]

zakim, code?

14:02:00 [jeffs]

Zakim, please mute me

14:02:04 [Zakim]

+jeffs

14:02:06 [Zakim]

+jo?; got it

14:02:19 [Magnus]

Zakim, code?

14:02:26 [SeanP]

SeanP has joined #bpwg

14:02:39 [Zakim]

+adam; got it

14:02:41 [Zakim]

the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Magnus

14:02:43 [jo]

Chair: Jo

14:02:47 [Zakim]

jeffs should now be muted

14:02:51 [Zakim]

+[W3C-Spain]

14:03:03 [Zakim]

+Sean_Owen

14:03:14 [Zakim]

the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Magnus

14:03:24 [Zakim]

-[W3C-Spain]

14:03:26 [Magnus]

yeah, I'm in here already, Zakim

14:03:52 [Zakim]

+Magnus

14:04:00 [hgerlach]

hgerlach has joined #bpwg

14:04:18 [Zakim]

+hgerlach

14:04:49 [jo]

zakim, who is making noise?

14:05:22 [hgerlach]

noise or voice???

14:05:26 [manrique]

manrique has joined #bpwg

14:05:48 [AlanT]

AlanT has joined #bpwg

14:06:06 [Zakim]

jo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jo? (38%), Magnus (5%), hgerlach (81%)

14:06:14 [Zakim]

+SeanP

14:06:21 [Zakim]

+Carlos_Iglesias

14:06:23 [jo]

zakim, mute hgerlach

14:06:32 [Magnus]

I can't be making noise, I'm muted

14:06:37 [miguel]

Zakim, Carlos_Iglesias is me

14:06:55 [Zakim]

hgerlach should now be muted

14:06:59 [Zakim]

+miguel; got it

14:07:43 [jo]

zakim, pick a victim

14:07:43 [Zakim]

Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jo?

14:07:54 [jo]

zakim, pick anohter victim

14:07:55 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'pick anohter victim', jo

14:08:06 [jo]

zakim, pick a victim

14:08:06 [Zakim]

Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose francois

14:08:21 [francois]

Scribe: francois

14:08:24 [francois]

ScribeNick: francois

14:08:38 [jo]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0054.html Agenda

14:08:46 [francois]

Topic: Content Transformation

14:08:54 [Zakim]

+berrueta

14:09:20 [jo]

FD: CT Document was published in FPWD earlier this week

14:09:20 [miguel]

Zakim, berrueta is probably manrique

14:09:20 [Zakim]

+manrique?; got it

14:09:22 [francois]

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/ CT guidelines FPWD

14:10:06 [jo]

FD: Have received one comment so far, and we are continuing to work and to publish a document in Last Call before or at the F2F in June

14:10:15 [dom]

i/FD: CT/ScribeNick: jo/

14:10:22 [dom]

ScribeNick: francois

14:10:27 [francois]

jo: questions?

14:10:44 [francois]

... no question, fine.

14:11:10 [francois]

... We discussed last week about having a workshop-like event for CT

14:11:33 [francois]

... The GSMA has kindly offered to host such an event, so we now need to setup a date for that to happen

14:11:48 [francois]

... I'll work with francois, dan, dom, and marie-claire on that

14:12:04 [francois]

... The likely date: the week immediately after the F2F meeting

14:12:34 [francois]

... the general idea being for people coming from far away to stay over the weekend and attend the event as well

14:12:46 [dom]

zakim, who's on the call?

14:12:46 [Zakim]

On the phone I see adam, francois, jo?, Dom, drooks, jeffs (muted), Sean_Owen, Magnus, hgerlach (muted), SeanP, miguel, manrique

14:12:51 [dom]

zakim, who's on the call from the US?

14:12:51 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, dom.

14:12:51 [francois]

... 23 June 2008 or 24 June 2008 are the likely dates for the moment.

14:13:02 [francois]

... Any comment on the date?

14:13:13 [francois]

... Is it convenient?

14:13:29 [SeanP]

I'm from N.A., I think it will be OK, I'll check on it however.

14:13:47 [francois]

... OK, so we'll consider this was an excellent idea we came up with ;-)

14:14:15 [francois]

... We should get back with news within a week or less hopefully.

14:14:28 [francois]

Topic: mobileOK issues

14:14:31 [Seungyun]

Seungyun has joined #bpwg

14:14:37 [Zakim]

+??P48

14:14:38 [Zakim]

-??P48

14:14:41 [francois]

jo: dom, would you like to introduce the topic?

14:14:45 [jo]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0047.html Dom on mobileOK

14:14:51 [francois]

dom: basically 4 open issues on mobileOK Basic

14:15:07 [Seungyun]

hi this seungyun from Korea

14:15:11 [francois]

... and none of them are waiting for new inputs, so we need to decide for resolutions on these issues

14:15:21 [Zakim]

+??P48

14:15:26 [francois]

... For each of them, I proposed 2-3 possible resolutions

14:16:32 [Kai]

Kai has joined #bpwg

14:16:57 [francois]

... First issue: ISSUE-230: OBJECTS_AND_SCRIPTS

14:17:10 [francois]

... and the problem of multiple objects children

14:17:15 [jo]

ISSUE-230?

14:17:15 [trackbot-ng]

ISSUE-230 -- OBJECTS_AND_SCRIPTS needs to address <object> with multiple children -- OPEN

14:17:15 [trackbot-ng]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/230

14:17:25 [achuter]

achuter has joined #bpwg

14:17:54 [francois]

... Currently, we assume that the nesting can only be done as one object inside another one, whereas it can be done recursively.

14:18:00 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:18:06 [achuter]

zakim, IPCaller is me

14:18:07 [Zakim]

+achuter; got it

14:18:08 [francois]

... That's not pretty usual, but it may

14:18:18 [francois]

... Few options on the table:

14:18:26 [francois]

1. ignore this, we'll fix it later

14:19:12 [francois]

2. new algorithm suggested by Jo and Sean

14:19:31 [francois]

... I think it would suit us fine

14:19:51 [francois]

[scribe says to take a look at Dom's email for more details on the algorithm]

14:19:51 [jo]

the proposed algorithm:

14:19:53 [jo]

For each object element that has no object element ancestor

14:19:55 [jo]

Request the object (ingoring the type attribute)

14:19:57 [jo]

Apply the Object Processing Rule

14:19:59 [jo]

Object Processing Rule

14:20:01 [jo]

If the content type of the retrieved object is not image/jpeg or image/gif

14:20:03 [jo]

If it is empty, warn

14:20:03 [francois]

... 3. remove object parsing

14:20:04 [jo]

If it consists only of white space, FAIL

14:20:06 [jo]

For each of its descendant object elements that is not a descendant of another descendant object element, apply the object processing rule

14:20:26 [francois]

dom: my proposed resolution would be to use the new algorithm

14:20:35 [francois]

s/[scribe says to take a look at Dom's email for more details on the algorithm]/

14:20:38 [francois]

s/[scribe says to take a look at Dom's email for more details on the algorithm]//

14:20:51 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt algorithm above as Resolution to ISSUE-230

14:21:00 [francois]

jo: comments on that?

14:21:07 [jo]

+1

14:21:13 [dom]

+1

14:21:19 [Kai]

+1

14:21:24 [adam]

+1

14:21:55 [francois]

RESOLUTION: Adopt algorithm above as Resolution to ISSUE-230

14:22:16 [francois]

Second issue: ISSUE-231: MINIMIZE should take into account whitespace in CSS

14:22:18 [jo]

ISSUE-231?

14:22:18 [trackbot-ng]

ISSUE-231 -- MINIMIZE should take into account whitespace in CSS -- OPEN

14:22:18 [trackbot-ng]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/231

14:22:57 [francois]

dom: whitespaces are currently not counted in CSS, only in the markup, so we could extend it.

14:23:07 [francois]

... actually, that was already implemented in the checker

14:23:18 [jo]

s/whitespaces are/whitespace is/

14:23:26 [francois]

... 2 possibilities:

14:23:31 [francois]

... 1. we include CSS white space in the test

14:23:37 [francois]

... 2. we leave that for a next version of mobileOK basic

14:23:57 [francois]

... I suggest to wait for next version. It's not a broken test, we should keep things simple.

14:24:27 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Leave mobileOK as is and look at CSS redundant whitespace in a new version of mobileOK

14:24:27 [Kai]

I had written a technique on that, which could be used by the checker

14:25:06 [jo]

q?

14:25:33 [francois]

jo: kai, before you comment, the checker already has some dormant code that is not executed, so it's more about changing the code, but rather the document

14:25:42 [francois]

kai: ok, understood

14:25:48 [francois]

jo: any other comment?

14:25:53 [francois]

... ok.

14:25:57 [jo]

s/more about/less about/

14:26:04 [francois]

RESOLUTION: Leave mobileOK as is and look at CSS redundant whitespace in a new version of mobileOK

14:26:04 [jo]

+1

14:26:07 [dom]

+1

14:26:09 [Kai]

+1

14:26:11 [jeffs]

+1

14:26:13 [miguel]

+1

14:26:14 [adam]

+1

14:26:43 [jo]

ISSUE-234?

14:26:43 [trackbot-ng]

ISSUE-234 -- PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT Should Objects Tasted count towards the overall page weight -- OPEN

14:26:43 [trackbot-ng]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/234

14:27:11 [francois]

Third issue: ISSUE-234 Counting the bytes that travel through the network in case an object is not supported by the browser

14:27:26 [francois]

dom: the most controversial one

14:27:48 [francois]

... jo suggested we should actually count that as part of the total page size, given the 20K limit test.

14:28:10 [francois]

... we did a bit of experimentation to see in which cases a browser downloads objects it doesn't support

14:28:13 [Seungyun]

agreed

14:28:37 [francois]

... 2 options again:

14:28:41 [francois]

... 1. we add that algorithm in our calculation of PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT

14:28:46 [francois]

... 2. we keep it for the next version of mobileOK basic

14:28:58 [jo]

q?

14:29:01 [francois]

I personally prefer option 2, but I know there were some discussion on that

14:29:14 [francois]

s/I personally/dom: I personally

14:29:49 [francois]

jo: I fear that this might end up labelling mobileOK pages that actually downloads 10s and 100s of Kb of code

14:30:35 [Kai]

q+

14:31:05 [francois]

... I would prefer that we count objects that don't set a media type

14:31:22 [dom]

s/media type/type attribute:

14:31:29 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add the size of ojects referenced without a type attribute indicating what type they are

14:31:30 [dom]

s/attribute:/attribute/

14:32:06 [jeffs]

srowen: /ojects/objects

14:32:08 [francois]

dom: [convinced by jo's crying]

14:32:22 [jo]

+1

14:32:27 [dom]

+1

14:32:29 [jeffs]

+1

14:32:49 [Seungyun]

+1

14:32:54 [francois]

RESOLUTION: Add the size of objects referenced without a type attribute indicating what type they are

14:33:18 [jo]

ISSUE-240?

14:33:18 [trackbot-ng]

ISSUE-240 -- Remove requirement of validity to self-declared DTD -- OPEN

14:33:18 [trackbot-ng]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/240

14:33:22 [jo]

q?

14:33:26 [jo]

ack k

14:33:26 [francois]

Fourth issue: ISSUE-240 validation to the declared DTD

14:34:08 [francois]

dom: currently, mobileOK Basic says you have to be noth valid to the declared DTD and the XHTML Basic 1.1 or MP1.2 DTD

14:34:34 [jo]

s/noth/both

14:34:48 [francois]

... the problem is in terms of implementation, it's a pain to do SGML-validation for HTML 4.x and ancestors docs

14:35:19 [jeffs]

IMHO validity testing should be there

14:35:29 [francois]

... If the declared DTD is external, that means the checker has to download the DTD from an unknown server

14:36:17 [francois]

... So I think we should remove the validation to the declared DTD, while still keeping the XHTML Basic1.1 or MP1.2 DTD

14:36:44 [francois]

... Second option is to validate only on well-known DTDs (OMA, W3C)

14:36:58 [francois]

... Little consensus for the time being.

14:37:33 [jeffs]

IMHO option 2 is okay

14:37:37 [dom]

q?

14:37:51 [jeffs]

zakim unmute me

14:37:51 [francois]

jo: even if you are valid to your declared doctype, then you won't be mobileOK if you're not also valid to XHTML Basic 1.1 or MP1.2

14:38:36 [jeffs]

zakim, unmute me

14:38:36 [Zakim]

jeffs should no longer be muted

14:38:54 [francois]

... I don't quite see the point of validation agains well-known DTDs, because that's not coherent.

14:39:34 [francois]

... for the sake of simplicity, my preference would be that we drop the test on the declared DTD

14:39:45 [francois]

jeffs: I can see your argument

14:40:14 [francois]

... The only thing I'm concerned is the future

14:41:05 [jeffs]

zakim, mute me

14:41:05 [Zakim]

jeffs should now be muted

14:42:03 [jeffs]

can live fine with "validate only on well-known DTDs (OMA, W3C)"

14:42:23 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Drop validation against declared DOCTYPE as it does not represent sufficient added value compared with the complications it introduces

14:42:31 [jo]

+1

14:42:34 [dom]

+1

14:42:35 [jeffs]

-1

14:42:35 [Kai]

+1

14:42:36 [francois]

srowen: no further comment, I agree.

14:42:50 [jeffs]

okay

14:42:52 [jeffs]

+1

14:42:57 [jeffs]

sorry

14:43:06 [francois]

RESOLUTION: Drop validation against declared DOCTYPE as it does not represent sufficient added value compared with the complications it introduces

14:43:54 [francois]

dom: that's it. But we need to discuss the implications in terms of W3C process for the doc.

14:44:23 [francois]

... The changes could be substantive enough, IMO, to require another Last Call draft

14:44:49 [francois]

... ISSUE-230: it's just a reword, so we'd be safe on that one

14:45:44 [francois]

... ISSUE-234 (counting tasted objects) and ISSUE-240 (validation against DTD): substantive changes because you could be mobileOK before and not anymore (well, for ISSUE-234 only actually)

14:46:00 [Kai]

q+ to ask about potential changes resulting from mobileOK Pro work

14:46:11 [jo]

ack k

14:46:11 [Zakim]

Kai, you wanted to ask about potential changes resulting from mobileOK Pro work

14:46:22 [francois]

... Given that this would be the 4th Last Call, so the plan could be that we go to Last Call, wait for 4 weeks, and then jump directly to Proposed Recommendation

14:46:51 [francois]

Kai: I wanted to know if we should address potential changes that work on mobileOK Pro may bring

14:46:52 [dom]

s/4 weeks/3 weeks/

14:47:23 [francois]

srowen: Kai, I thought you were talking about Best Practices in your email

14:47:31 [francois]

kai: yes, indeed.

14:48:42 [francois]

jo: Best Practices should soon be cleared to go to Rec, since XHTML Basic is likely to move soon to PR

14:49:01 [francois]

... so mobileOK Basic Test could be cleared to go to PR shortly after that.

14:49:02 [dom]

[just a reminder that to go to PR we still need to complete our CR exit criteria]

14:49:46 [francois]

... there's a possibility that both BP1 and mobileOK Basic be Rec before June's F2F

14:50:16 [francois]

dom: yes... that would be possible

14:50:26 [francois]

jo: I don't think we should do that, kai.

14:50:38 [francois]

kai: that's fine, I just wanted to bring that point.

14:51:23 [francois]

jo: in that case, I would acknowledge your point kai, but propose we don't do anything for that

14:52:36 [dom]

[the publications moratorium ends on April 28; so we should try to have mobileOK basic ready to go to LC by then]

14:52:53 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Basic to be changed in the three ways noted above, to re-enter last call for the minimum period, and then to seek transition to PR as soon as possible given CR exit criteria met

14:53:10 [jo]

+1

14:53:14 [jeffs]

+1

14:53:16 [dom]

+1

14:53:19 [Kai]

+1

14:53:23 [achuter]

+1

14:53:38 [francois]

RESOLUTION: mobileOK Basic to be changed in the three ways noted above, to re-enter last call for the minimum period, and then to seek transition to PR as soon as possible given CR exit criteria met

14:53:51 [jo]

ACTION: Jo to enact changes to mobileOK as noted above

14:53:51 [trackbot-ng]

Created ACTION-736 - Enact changes to mobileOK as noted above [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-24].

14:54:20 [francois]

Topic: BP2

14:54:50 [francois]

jo: lots of things to talk about BP2, but I'm not sure we'll be able to make much progress in Bryan's absence.

14:55:06 [francois]

... Let's put the comments on one side.

14:55:26 [francois]

... and discuss two issues that I raised yesterday

14:55:54 [francois]

... But before we do that, let's talk about the Korean TF

14:55:59 [francois]

Topic: Korean TF

14:56:04 [Seungyun]

thanks

14:56:35 [francois]

-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/ Korean TF home page

14:56:52 [jo]

[francois just giving perspective on set up of home page etc.]

14:56:55 [Seungyun]

I sent a email to all of you with updated proposal link --> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddkw3489_18gg7zjk57

14:57:51 [Zakim]

-manrique

14:57:53 [francois]

public-bpwg-korean@w3.org

14:58:13 [francois]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-korean/ archives of the Korean mailing-list

14:58:32 [jo]

Seungyun, we'll review your note separately, do you want to make some comments via IRC on current status?

14:58:43 [Seungyun]

sure

14:59:14 [Seungyun]

we have disscussed about TF operation with mobile web 2.0 forum members yesterday.

15:00:04 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:00:04 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-minutes.html francois

15:00:14 [Seungyun]

so you can see the results from http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddkw3489_18gg7zjk57

15:00:20 [DKA]

+1

15:01:00 [jo]

OK, thanks, Seungyun,

15:01:07 [DKA]

(just catching up with previous resolutions -- sorry)

15:01:10 [Zakim]

-drooks

15:01:11 [Seungyun]

please review them and comment me

15:01:14 [francois]

zakim, list attendees

15:01:14 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been +0207031aaaa, francois, Dom, drooks, jeffs, jo?, adam, [W3C-Spain], Sean_Owen, Magnus, hgerlach, SeanP, miguel, manrique, achuter

15:01:22 [Zakim]

-Magnus

15:01:34 [jo]

OK Seungyun, we'll aim to comment and close this issue next week

15:01:43 [jo]

thanks for the update

15:01:47 [Seungyun]

ok thanks

15:02:04 [francois]

Topic: mobileOK Pro TF

15:02:27 [francois]

kai: lately, not much had happened. We've had had no feedback, so nothing is happening.

15:02:46 [dom]

q+

15:02:54 [francois]

jo: ok. So what would you suggest to stimulate progress on this subject?

15:03:26 [dom]

ack me

15:03:28 [Zakim]

+ +00044122347aabb

15:03:30 [francois]

... ok, I think we should aim for resolving for publication as FPWD within 2 weeks

15:04:09 [francois]

dom: kai, you said there was no feedback, but from my understanding, you added new tests recently. Is there a new draft available?

15:04:31 [francois]

kai: yes and no. I was willing to wait until we have all tests finished.

15:05:12 [francois]

dom: I haven't sent feedback on current version as I sent feedback on previous version and am waiting for the next one.

15:05:26 [francois]

kai: your feedback was the only one and was taken into account

15:05:29 [dom]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/716

15:06:04 [francois]

kai: I think we have fairly improved the reliability of the tests

15:06:31 [francois]

dom: I think we should have a clear picture of this before moving to FPWD

15:06:49 [francois]

kai: suggestion on the best way to proceed?

15:07:08 [francois]

... should I post the doc as it is? should I wait until it is finished?

15:07:38 [francois]

dom: my concern was more on how we want to position mobileOK Pro compared to mobileOK Basic, what public are we targetting

15:08:00 [francois]

kai: I understood the discussion would be headed by having a document at hand

15:08:32 [jo]

ACTION-716?

15:08:32 [trackbot-ng]

ACTION-716 -- Phil Archer to summarise discussion on Pro subjectivity and to get ball rolling for a PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the subject -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN

15:08:32 [trackbot-ng]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/716

15:08:40 [francois]

kai: so the action is there, but the issue needs to be raised?

15:08:59 [francois]

dom: yes, and more than raised, we need to discuss it, and find a consensus on that

15:09:42 [francois]

jo: the real test of subjectivity is probably not what the WG thinks, but what the community thinks

15:09:49 [dom]

[re assigning ACTION-716 to Kai]

15:10:19 [srowen]

(I apologize, I need to drop off early today)

15:10:45 [francois]

kai: if it's ok that the doc is not completely finished, then I'll update a fresh version of the doc

15:10:46 [Kai]

i will

15:10:48 [dom]

[I'll be away the next 2 weeks]

15:11:02 [francois]

Jo: btw, how many people will be in Beijing?

15:11:10 [achuter]

I won't

15:11:18 [jo]

PROPOSOED RESOLUTION: Hold a call next week, as only a few people will be in Beijing

15:11:21 [jo]

+1

15:11:23 [dom]

[note that the following Thursdays after next May 1st and 8 may be closed in a few European countries]

15:11:24 [francois]

+1

15:11:25 [jeffs]

+1

15:11:26 [Seungyun]

I will be there :)

15:11:36 [miguel]

+1

15:12:28 [francois]

RESOLUTION: Hold a call next week, as only a few people will be in Beijing

15:12:42 [Zakim]

-Sean_Owen

15:12:49 [francois]

Topic: Back to BP2

15:13:19 [francois]

jo: 2 issues I raised based on discussions on the mailing-list

15:13:23 [jo]

ISSUE-245

15:13:26 [dom]

ISSUE-245?

15:13:27 [trackbot-ng]

ISSUE-245 -- ADC, A Wooden Stake and Some Garlic Needed -- OPEN

15:13:27 [trackbot-ng]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/245

15:14:18 [francois]

jo: kai, as a proponent of the idea of the ADC, would you like to speak in favor of it?

15:14:38 [francois]

... as I have explained, I'm not much in favor of defining the ADC, would be impractical

15:15:26 [francois]

kai: If I transpose the DDC into the ADC, it gives the public a mean to shoot for

15:15:58 [francois]

... for people that are not inclined to use content transformation, then the ADC gives a delivery context that would work on most devices

15:16:59 [francois]

... We're answering the call of the public for something more modern.

15:17:15 [francois]

jo: other comments?

15:17:53 [adam]

q+

15:17:57 [francois]

kai: I'm amazed that nobody has anything to say about that.

15:18:07 [jo]

ack adam

15:19:03 [francois]

adam: I'm wondering if there's something that would not be called ADC that could be used in the doc.

15:19:13 [francois]

... in BP1, we said "don't rely on this"

15:19:30 [jeffs]

the more we can tell people concrete things they can actually do to exploit dev caps, the better

15:19:34 [francois]

... in BP2, it's more "to rely on this, do that"

15:19:53 [Kai]

Sean had a few things to say on the ADC, but he had to leave the call

15:20:46 [francois]

jo: provided we can name the capabilities and features of a device, and how to tell if the capabilities are there or not, then we get a clearer doc and useful document

15:21:17 [francois]

... I strongly support the idea that each BP we advocate may not apply to all devices

15:21:28 [jeffs]

how to test for caps, how to exploit what you find... expect to find this in a document entitled "Best Practices"

15:21:38 [francois]

... BP2 as an extension to BP1 on "exploit device capabilities"

15:22:06 [dom]

+1 to Jo's approach

15:22:28 [francois]

... Agreeing on an ADC would take too much time and market goes fast as Adam points out

15:22:32 [Kai]

q+ to ask what it would mean then to be mobileOK

15:22:38 [francois]

... and I think that's just not needed.

15:23:21 [jo]

ack k

15:23:21 [Zakim]

Kai, you wanted to ask what it would mean then to be mobileOK

15:23:57 [francois]

kai: what form would mobileOK take with BP2?

15:24:25 [francois]

jo: mobileOK Basic is simply an expression of how the content would display on a device with minimal capabilities

15:25:02 [hgerlach]

hgerlach has joined #bpwg

15:25:02 [francois]

... I don't have a mobileOK equivalent to BP2 on my agenda although that certainly needs to be discussed

15:25:25 [francois]

kai: if we expect people to go to a certain point, then we should give them a goal to shoot for.

15:27:00 [francois]

jo: that's not what BP2 are about. It's about saying: "get your nose up!"

15:27:25 [francois]

... It's perfectly ok to have the basic thing, that was needed.

15:27:44 [francois]

... BP2 need to be practical enough to be implementable.

15:27:46 [jeffs]

IMHO: mobileOK is minimum, not *best* practices...

15:28:39 [jeffs]

that is why we need both

15:29:04 [francois]

kai: the point I'm missing is why not providing a set of values that people should program against?

15:29:47 [francois]

... whether we have an ADC or not, if the ADC gets outdated, then the capabilities would be outdated, and so would be the doc

15:30:17 [francois]

... I think we're not giving the community something useful

15:31:03 [francois]

jo: DDC is representative of the minimum capabilities to render pages, it's not linked to any point in time.

15:31:11 [hgerlach]

hgerlach has joined #bpwg

15:31:30 [dom]

[related to device capabilities detection, screenshots of the recently released Web Compatibility Test for Mobile Browsers http://www.w3.org/2008/04/wctmb/ ]

15:31:31 [francois]

... It's all about Web experience: the minimum width, ...

15:31:42 [hgerlach]

sorry, I have to leave - bye

15:31:51 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We continue not to define an ADC but will treat each of the capabilities in its own right in BP2

15:31:58 [Kai]

-1

15:32:03 [adam]

+1

15:32:03 [dom]

q+

15:32:08 [dom]

ack me

15:32:11 [Zakim]

-hgerlach

15:32:24 [jo]

+1

15:32:32 [jeffs]

+1

15:32:42 [francois]

dom: I think Jo's approach is the right one: for each BP, what properties/capabilities are associated with it.

15:32:49 [DKA]

+1

15:33:02 [francois]

... I guess we can't resolve right now as there doesn't seem to be a consensus here.

15:33:45 [francois]

... kai, you probably should continue and make your points about how ADC will help the community at large on the mailing-list

15:33:58 [jo]

ACTION: Kai to take the discussion forward on ISSUE-245

15:33:58 [trackbot-ng]

Created ACTION-737 - Take the discussion forward on ISSUE-245 [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-04-24].

15:34:08 [jeffs]

I ust go

15:34:36 [francois]

jo: ok, thanks everybody, we'll resume on that next week.

15:34:40 [jeffs]

bye

15:34:42 [francois]

[adjourned]

15:34:44 [Zakim]

-Dom

15:34:44 [Seungyun]

bye all

15:34:45 [Zakim]

-adam

15:34:45 [Zakim]

-??P48

15:34:46 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:34:46 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-minutes.html francois

15:34:47 [miguel]

bye

15:34:47 [Zakim]

-SeanP

15:34:49 [Zakim]

-jeffs

15:34:50 [Zakim]

- +00044122347aabb

15:34:52 [Zakim]

-achuter

15:34:53 [Zakim]

-francois

15:34:55 [Zakim]

-miguel

15:35:04 [Zakim]

-jo?

15:35:05 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended

15:35:06 [Zakim]

Attendees were +0207031aaaa, francois, Dom, drooks, jeffs, jo?, adam, [W3C-Spain], Sean_Owen, Magnus, hgerlach, SeanP, miguel, manrique, achuter, +00044122347aabb

15:37:26 [francois]

i/Jo: btw, how/Topic: Next week's call/

15:37:31 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutse

15:37:31 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minutse', francois. Try /msg RRSAgent help

15:37:37 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:37:37 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-minutes.html francois

15:41:24 [francois]

Present+ adam

15:41:26 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:41:26 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-minutes.html francois

15:44:12 [jo]

jo has joined #bpwg

15:45:18 [francois]

RRSAgent, bye

15:45:18 [RRSAgent]

I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-actions.rdf :

15:45:18 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Jo to enact changes to mobileOK as noted above [1]

15:45:18 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-irc#T14-53-51

15:45:18 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Kai to take the discussion forward on ISSUE-245 [2]

15:45:18 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-irc#T15-33-58