See also: IRC log
jo: sean has sadly left the group so we need a new leader.
TF is near end of its lifetime but we should consider if we need a new leader.
francois: new leader should be one of the active participants of checker TF
jo: Prefer for Dom to take this on. We should ask him.
<jo> ACTION: Daoust to ask Dom if he can become TF leader for Checker for last couple of weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-743 - Ask Dom if he can become TF leader for Checker for last couple of weeks [on François Daoust - due 2008-05-01].
francois: Have only received one
piece of feedback. Currently resolving editorial notes one by
one.
... As discussed charter is for document to be informative and
not normative... But in practice document makes more sense as a
normative document.
jo: we should take a resolution to request amendment of the charter.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Request amendment to Charter if necessary to make the Guidelines Rec Track
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Request amendment to Charter if necessary to make the Guidelines Rec Track / Normative
<francois> +1
+1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: Request amendment to Charter if necessary to make the Guidelines Rec Track / Normative
<jo> Discussion on MobileOK Validation
jo: Has been discussion on list about resolution to remove DTD validation.
<jo> Revised Proposal on treatment of DOCTYPEs
miguel: [ sorry, i can't hear you very well, miguel. ]
jo: miguel believes that the doc looks okay and the known docs types basic1.0 -> basic1.1 and mp1.0 -> mp1.2 is okay.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref DOCTYPE checking, adopt the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.html and check against doctypes of basic 1.0/1 and MP 1.0/2
<francois> +1
<manrique> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref DOCTYPE checking in mobileOK Basic, adopt the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.html and check against doctypes of basic 1.0/1 and MP 1.0/2
RESOLUTION: Ref DOCTYPE checking in mobileOK Basic, adopt the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.html and check against doctypes of basic 1.0/1 and MP 1.0/2
jo: update on ACTION-734
progress, please.
... Currently unable to hear Alan so we will come back.
francois: Wondering about resolution to leave whitespace in css since we are moving back to last call. It is already in checker.
jo: Relatively small quorum to make that call. Lets raise it on the list.
jo: ISSUE-245, the discussion
about recreating the ADC.
... Kai highlighted some useful thoughts on this. Personally I
feel that ADC is non-starter. Categorization of devices from an
application perspective takes its place.
bryan: Overall, not so happy about setting targets for functionality since it narrows scope of discussion unnecessarily.
<francois> +1 to bryan and jo, same arguments...
achuter: Agrees that it's not a very good idea unless it's actually needed to make sense.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ISSUE-245 ADC goes back in coffin and close ISSUE-245
<achuter> +1
<Bryan> +1
francois: We should probably wait for Kai to join the call before taking the resolution.
jo: agreed.
... One additional point that was raised in discussion was that
BP2 should make some reference to adaptation.
bryan: Not sure. BP2 addresses direct intent to create contact services that are mobile friendly.
jo: By adaptation I mean the server creating different views depending on device type.
<jo> ACTION: Bryan to create a placeholder capturing discussion under ISSUE-245 on the need for adaptation (not transformation) to realise BP-2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-744 - Create a placeholder capturing discussion under ISSUE-245 on the need for adaptation (not transformation) to realise BP-2 [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-05-01].
ISSUE-246, and earlier thread on naming.
<jo> thread on naming
jo: ISSUE-246, and earlier thread on naming.
<jo> ISSUE-246
achuter: The name BP2 is ambiguous. BP2 implies an update to BP1.
jo: It is call "Mobile Web Applications Best Practices" we should be more consistent in using this name.
achuter: Yes, that name makes more sense.
jo: Bryan, is there scope to add some further explanation on relationship with BP1 ?
bryan: Can beef this up some more. Do we need to go so far as a table of references?
jo: No. Relevance is that BP1
applies when you don't know capabilities of device. BP2 is
about exploiting device capabilities.
... I can suggest the relevant text.
<jo> ACTION: Jo to contribute text about relationship between BP1 and BP2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-745 - Contribute text about relationship between BP1 and BP2 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-01].
<jo> [and close ISSUE-246]
jo: Next up, deer in headlights conversation :)
bryan: There have been a
substantial number of updates in response to comments. Some
points still need discussion before I make further
changes.
... Section on "One Web" could use some further input.
Regarding Section 5, constraints, we need to give more thought
to this too.
... Some sections have been removed as requested.
... Have added some text to non-browser web-runtime
environment. Further input on this would be
helpful.
<jo> ACTION: Bryan to start a discussion on list about what constitutes non-browser web runtime and example application [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-746 - Start a discussion on list about what constitutes non-browser web runtime and example application [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-05-01].
adam: haven't managed to read latest version of document yet, sorry. some concerns on what constitutes a non-browser web-runtime and that it is not possible to make statements that are equally applicable to browser web-application and non-browser web-applications.
bryan / adam: [ some further discussion ]
jo: Suggest that we start an
email thread on examples of non-browser web-runtimes.
... Hope that we will be ready for FPWD on next call if we can
clarify these remaining points.
francois: Agreed.
jo: Lets try to get this resolved by next week provided that works for Bryan.
bryan: That works for me so long
as we can get past the fundamental questions of scope.
... Two other things causing debate: 1) What is mobile
specific, how does that goal guide us?
... 2) What is web? And what is mobile web? Is mobile web in
some cases larger than mobile web?
... e.g. Push technology ?
... Want us to settle those two questions.
jo: We should raise these as issues so we can iron them out.
<jo> ACTION: Bryan to raise ISSUE(s) on what's mobile specific and What's Mobile Web [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-747 - Raise ISSUE(s) on what's mobile specific and What's Mobile Web [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-05-01].
jo: Wanted to raise issue regarding "how to test it" sections. BP1 "how to test it" didn't work well. Suggest dropping the how to test it section.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BP2 should not include How to test it sections
<achuter> +1
<jo> +1
adam: agree. "tests" aren't necessarily the correct formulation for the kinds of things we are trying to express.
+1
achuter: Then there should be a clarification in the document on this. So it is clear it will not be possible to make your site BP2 compliant.
<hgerlach> sorry I have to leave for a next call
RESOLUTION: BP2 should not include How to test it sections
<achuter> If BPs are not testable, it will not be possible for people to require compliance
<jo> ACTION: daoust to check what we need to do about a conformance section in BP2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-748 - Check what we need to do about a conformance section in BP2 [on François Daoust - due 2008-05-01].
jo: And another thing... Document is about exploiting capabilities. So document should contain structure: This is capability, this is how to exploit it, this is what to do if it's not there.
adam: Concerned that if doc is only about this, and this is baked into the doc structure, will there be enough to say. Can we enumerate device capabilities we are going to talk about.
jo: Concerned that we might be heading down a slightly vague route akin to BP1.
bryan: Agree on point about BP1 = a bag of topics related to mobile context. If we turn it around to "these are mobile specific" here's how you exploit them doc may be clearer but we will lose something.
jo: Lets see how discussion proceeds next week and come back to this.
<manrique> bye