W3C

Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

15 May 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
francois, DKA, jeffs, Adam, Bryan_Sullivan, abel, Heiko, Martin, miguel, jo, manrique, SeanP, Kai, seungyun, Pontus
Regrets
drooks, murari, scott, EdM, PhilA, nacho, dom, rob
Chair
DKA
Scribe
Bryan, francois

Contents


CT TF progress

Francois: explaining issue with the CT TF, by charter we agreed CT would be informative, but this has consequences. It means we can't identify which parts are normative.
... also state conformance. The big problem is the patent policy, in a normative document any patent issues that conflict must prevent the related aspects from being included

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to ask Francois if it is also a consequence that the idea of a "conformance claim" does not apply?

Francois: otherwise there are implications on the status of the patent if the functions are included
... same issue occured with BP, the link to mobileOK and tests is a normative recommendation and conformance is per mobileOK, but there is no conformance claim against BP itself

Dan: that was acceptable as BP was per existing standards, but in mobileOK we needed the additional standing provided by normative status.
... in CT we are working with specific HTTP semantics for signaling and headers etc. This gets into potential patent realms, and represents a risk. An important issue.

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to observe that this is a "curate's egg" in that on the one hand we are slightly bending HTTP and so it's best to be non-normative, but on the other hand we'd like

Francois: Agrees, the CT should be a normative recommendation, which requires a charter change, or a new charter i.e. recreate the BPWG

Jo: rechartering would waste time, we should avoid it. patent policy should also be avoided. we need conformance though. Could we use a 2nd document as a conformance checker?

Francois: that doesn't change that to add the other document as normative we need a charter change

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to add that perhaps we could have a TranformingOK Basic

Dan: thus to the final point; we could roll the change into charter extension if we seek it. Francois has indicated we may need an extension and 6 mos will probably be needed.
... to the conclusion that we should table this and amend the charter at extension time, and release it then (doing the work now but republish it as normative then)

<jo> [think we should aim to bring the work to a conclusion within the charter and not mess around leaving it in limbo]

Bryan: could an interim publication be done per the IPR issues?

Francois: we could take it to last call but not publish it

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to reiterate what I just typed into IRC

Dan: the question is whether the IPR issues are important for the long term, and whether it will inhibit implementations in the meantime

Jo: we should conclude with a non-normative document and leave it at that

Dan: a question to the vendors here; what is your stance per implementation if the status is normative, any risks that would delay implementation?

<seungyun> sorry noise for seungyun

<seungyun> ok

Sean: don't have a clear understanding of the normative vs informative issue; inclination is that it probably doesn't matter much

Dan: it relates to IPR and patent infringement, an important topic; if non-normative, any patents that are essential to the implementation of the recommendation do not have to be clearly stated
... thus implementors could be liable for payments after the fact, whereas if normative these patents dependencies must be declared during publication

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to point out that the patent disclosure only applies to members of the group so the protection is limited

<DKA> zakim DKA.a is DKA

Jo: patent disclosures only apply to group members, and outside patents don't get disclosed so there are still risks of infringement. the W3c rules are there to prevent deliberate/covert patent dependencies created by members.
... what guarantee is there of protection against patents even if the document is normative? not much

Francois: agree, this is limited to members.

<jo> [conclusion being that we should seek qualified/competent legal advice]

Dan: an opinion from W3C legal is good, but opinions from vendors are also helpful

Sean: may be able to get an opinion
... don't want to hold up the work though

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to say that we should hold off on further discussion and to defer till we have more info via FD

Dan: that's a motive for rechartering the group

<jo> ACTION: daoust to seek further legal advice on the patent issues around CT [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-756 - Seek further legal advice on the patent issues around CT [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2008-05-22].

Dan: let's take an action to get vendor internal legal opinions (at least from Sean) and come back with results, and from W3C via Francois

<jo> ACTION: Patterson to seek opinion on CT Patent issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-757 - Seek opinion on CT Patent issue [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-05-22].

accessibility document status

Dan: may have to push this to next week as Alan is not here

MobileOK status

Dan: need to take resolution to move this to last call again as substantive changes have occured

Jo: there was discussion on this that can be referenced

<jo> Last (4) Call Draft discussion on MobileOK Basic

Jo: it was related to object size and tasting requests

Miguel: recommend to use the same algorithm for both test, for page size limit its OK, for embedded objects e.g. scripts it's complicated and needs simplification
... correction, we should use two algorithms (not one)

<jo> The Publication Notice on Last Call Draft (4) of MobileOK Basic

Dan: the document is long overdue, the request seems an optimization of the current document. this could be done but am reluctant to reopen the discussion
... the one substantive change is the point of the 2nd last call; if we reopen general comments, worried about where this goes

Jo: asked for input on this as the algorithms are different, based on that they are different use cases
... the change is an attempt to fix an incorrect text. it may be OK for the algorithms to be different thoughas browser behavior is different for the use cases
... as editor I feel that I have made the right change, but group discussion may be helpful to be sure

Dan: if we want to change this, them Miguel should explain in great detail what is requested with a specific proposal, and discuss this on the next call

Miguel: can do that

Dan: should raise an issue for this

<jo> ACTION: Jo to raise an Issue on the differences between the algorithms in OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-758 - Raise an Issue on the differences between the algorithms in OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-22].

Dan: any other things we can resolve on the last call, other than just to resolve to move it back?

Jo: there is a need to to review the algorithm for OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT as it is not what we resolved as a correction to the CR version of the algorithm

checker TF status

Francois: the checker TF has no leader; DOM is busy and said no. Nominate an active member is another approach.

Abel: have talked to Nacho, but he can't take this role; but Miguel and I have offered to chair the TF

Dan: any other contenders?
... we should take a resolution

Abel: the point of co-chairing is to ensure availability of one of us at least

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group accepts Miguel's and Abel's offer to co-chair the checker task force.

+1

<francois> +1

<jeffs> +1

<seungyun> +1

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group accepts Miguel's and Abel's offer to be co-leaders of the checker task force.

<francois> +1

<jo> +1

<jeffs> +1

<MartinJ> +1

RESOLUTION: The group accepts Miguel's and Abel's offer to be co-leaders of the checker task force.

report from the Korean TF

<seungyun> I try but...

<seungyun> yes

<seungyun> my microphone has some problem I will check

Korean TF status

<seungyun> see --> http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_20hqnfq7fr

Seungyun: sent an email status to the list; we had the 1st meeting on May 8, discussion on consensus of deliverables list and milestones
... three deliverables for this year; gap analysis, new standard proposals, and mobileOK trial service report
... discussed how to make a gap analysis and new standard proposal. we have a lot of documents in BPWG, so we needed to categorize them first prior to gap analysis
... also the gap analysis should address the Korean market. 1st draft of gap analysis will be reviewed in the next meeting.
... We have a request for the BPWG to update the TF milestones and TF home page editing ability.

<francois> [I will handle home page update and request edition rights as needed]

Seungyun: the 1st meeting was F2F, the 2nd will be a call next week (5/20).
... we have assigned the work items to the members as the scope is broad, to prepare the work for next week.

Dan: Francois will take care of the web site editing and roadmap requests

<francois> ACTION: daoust to update home page roadmap with the Korean TF documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-759 - Update home page roadmap with the Korean TF documents [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2008-05-22].

Dan: any input that the Korean TF can provide to us re the pending issue on the MobileOK last call?
... as the status of MobileOK for Korea is a question, this could be a topic for the next TF call.
... also need to know if there will be a TF rep at Sophia Antopolis

Seungyun: unclear at this point

Jo: how far has the gap analysis gone, and any idea how big the gap may be?

Seungyun: this is unclear (how big) at this point; many people want W3C standards to be useful in Korean market, so the gap analysis is just the starting point

Jo: in the Seoul meeting it was clarified that MobileOK is not something to aim for, but is a minimum possible exerience and web sites should aim higher.

Seungyun: Understand; we expect BP2 will be more useful for the Korean market and will provide input (have done so already)

Dan: proposes Jo send an email to clarify the point about MobileOK not being the expected experience as the baseline for gap analysis

<jo> ACTION: Jo to reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-760 - Reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-22].

BP2

Dan: proposes we step back and review the current document as it is, and take actions for volunteers for changes etc

Dan: proposes to provoke discussion about the existing document areas and where we want it to go

Dan: from a scratchpad into a document which represents group consensus
... perhaps list the BP and get direct feedback on any issues remaining related to it

<francois> ScribeNick: francois

<scribe> Scribe: francois

Dan: jo, wisdom? Bryan suggested we hold a separate meeting

jo: we should probably do that
... to get the group's input on what is wrong, missing, etc...
... we're mostly concerned about stuff that may be wrong or may be additional
... we don't want to go to FPWD with something that we know is wrong
... As for things missing, that's the point of getting external comment with a FPWD

<jo> [general assessment criteria: what's missing? what's additional (out of scope)? Anything wrong, or uncertain? Typographic Errors.

Bryan: the way the document is structured very much grew out of what was BP1.
... I made some proposals regarding restructuring back in November
... Question of scope: I don't think anything is wrong. But perhaps some things are out of scope. We may need to define what we mean by Web for instance
... We should settle those first.

Dan: not sure there's such a great divergence of opinions, but I may be overly optimistic

<jeffs> agree it seems to me as new to group that there may indeed be some basic diff of opinions about what we mean by "Web" and "mobile"

Bryan: in the draft I sent last night, I would like to give a quick overview of the changes
... We had a discussion on what could constitutes a best practice.
... I eliminated the issue with persistent storage. I think we'll have to deal with that, but that does not constitute a real best practice for the time being
... I think I improved section 2.1 to 2.5, to bring a network service provider perspective.
... That's why, we, AT&T, try to promote these kinds of documents.

Dan: I agree with these comments.
... I sent an email to adam to flag sections that require changes, more work.
... I'll paste it to the mailing-list

Adam: I think they are very subtle differences on the way we see "mobile web", so I would like to contribute with specific wording to settle scope
... No big dissensions
... Title: Mobile Web Application Best Practices, should we change it?

Bryan: my mistake, I didn't make that change, we resolved on that

Adam: Other general question. I think the document is quite wordy. Sections 2 and 5, is this the normal way to go?

Dan: based on the structure of BP1. I think that having the list of BPS on top of the document allows people that consume the doc to access BPs directly.

Adam: yes, I just don't really understand the differences in intent between both sections

Bryan: 1. come from with BP1, 2. typical of technical docs. I agree, I think we should consolidate section 2 and section 5.

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to say that we need to express clearly "what are the questions we are trying to answer" and "what are the answers"

Dan: editorial meeting?

jo: can I just say, that re. section 2. and 5., I don't think the structure has to be the same, but we should express clearly the questions we are trying to answer, and then the answers
... I agree that devs being what they are, they speed up to BPS, but they are wrong.

<jeffs> agree that 2 & 5 should *not* be consolidated, Q's and avail A's are not the same things

Bryan: Recraft section 2 in terms of what you're talking about, shifting some details to consolidate section 5.

Dan: we could try to organize this editorial meeting. I could organize a room here in London. Next week is not good for me. Let's try to fnid a date on the mailing-list.
... Editorial meetings are opened to anyone who is willing to attend

Registration for F2F

-> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-June-2008/ F2F questionnaire

-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/Sophia/logistics.html F2F logistics

fd: respond to the questionnaire!

<hgerlach> bye, thanks!

<seungyun> thanks bye

<manrique> bye

<DKA> Thx, Francios!

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: daoust to seek further legal advice on the patent issues around CT [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to update home page roadmap with the Korean TF documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to raise an Issue on the differences between the algorithms in OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Patterson to seek opinion on CT Patent issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/05/15 15:43:11 $