See also: IRC log
<dom> [my regrets for next week, while I'm at it :/]
discussion of face-to-face meeting upcoming
<dom> Registration for F2F meeting in Sophia
reminder to reply to the questionairre ASAP
<dom> Responses to the Registration, 24 answers
<dom> (14 persons)
jo: chair for next meeting needed... francois?
francois: agrees to chair next mtg
jo: reminding folks anybody can raise an issue, and this is probably the best way to do so
<jo> Raise an Issue
francois: report no real
progress
... will send summary of discussion to clarify
jo: how many topics still open?
francois: thinks just 1 or 2 issues left to close out
jo: new draft of Pro
... please read
... should have new draft of accessibility next week
... MobileOK algprithms
algprithms/algorithms
francois: as far as can tell is
mostly okay now
... objects w/o any type attributes now part of testing
... example problem... primary image not MobileOK, fallback is
okay, doc should test out okay
<francois> Problem with Included resource and CONTENT_FORMAT
jo: probably relatively easy to fix by tidying up definitions
francois: agrees
jo: will redraft
<jo> ACTION: jo to redraft definition of Included resources according to the points noted by Francois [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-761 - Redraft definition of Included resources according to the points noted by Francois [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-29].
jo: any thoughts about discrepancies? was the original reason for raising the ISSUE
<dom> +1 on the current algorithm being correct
jo: concerned to make sure we get this right this time
<dom> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008May/0043.html
dom: discusses license
<dom> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-mobileok-policy.html
<dom> current discussion: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/250
jo: not sure if this should go to offline conversation
dom: need to separate legal issue(s) from actual policy or technical issues
jo: agrees
... what about where someone puts on page not really qualified?
tech issue or policy issue or...?
dom: both tech and legal issues
involved
... lists what it takes to put MobileOK on page
jo: discussion of how to write
this up in simple fashion
... thinks discussion is really about legal issues and under
ISSUE 250
... which do we need to resolve as technical issues, and wish
not?
<jo> ACTION: Charles to review ISSUE-250 with a view to how this affects content of mobileOK scheme [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-762 - Review ISSUE-250 with a view to how this affects content of mobileOK scheme [on Charles McCathieNevile - due 2008-05-29].
dom: more on license
... current thinking: pass tests, get badge... discussion?
jo: cannot imagine rush of
products into this space
... progress on this is good
jo: asks adam to talk about scope
adam: questions being
discussed... what is a web application? bring in widget
containers? redrafted scope section and sent out
... wants conclusion on in/out of scope for widget
containers
jo: can we accomplish this today?
adam: wants to de-scope issue and
simplify discussion
... how can we include BP in that area
<jo> ack
jo: asks Bryan for comments
bryan: says sig stds activities
and products out there
... we will lose our leadership position if we do not address
this issue
jo: how to accomplish this
best?
... asks opinion of chaals
<chaals> CMN: Don't see that these need to be out of scope, but don't think that there is a massive amount there
jo: what is minimum we need to
accomplish on this?
... asks for resolution text
adam: wants enumeration of what to address for browsers, what for widget containers
<chaals> [think the text would say that widgets should use W3C widget standard, and then meet other requirements of BP/BP2 (since there is a big escape clause in adapting to your host]
bryan: talks about multithreading
browser environments and similarity of issues w what happens w
widgets
... took out characteristics list
... issues developers face is equivalent
adam: did not like list, not sure
what it added in terms of clarity
... agrees w bryan that much of this also appies to widget
containers
bryan: doesn't want to discourage people reading this who are developing for non-browser environments
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Widgets are in scope of BP2, we will call out specific best practices that only apply to Widgets
discussion of how to word this
<Zakim> chaalsXO, you wanted to say widgets are apps
adam: say they are in scope and I will rewrite
<chaals> CMN: The only special thing about widgets is the container format, for management, and I think we will say that certain kinds of application should be available packaged as widgets. For the rest, they are just web applications, and should be treated as such, conforming to BP.
jo: reservation... wants to leave resolution as-is to leave room to work
<jo> ACTION: Adam to reword scope section ref Widgets to clairy and introduce caveats [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-763 - Reword scope section ref Widgets to clarify and introduce caveats [on Adam Connors - due 2008-05-29].
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Widgets are in scope of BP2, we will call out specific best practices that only apply to Widgets
<aconnors> +1
+1
<jo> +1
RESOLUTION: Widgets are in scope of BP2, we will call out specific best practices that only apply to Widgets
jo: back to family resemblance list
adam: list too wordy and does not
add clarity
... cut it out entirely
jo: likes list, but point is hard to define things sometimes
bryan: is intent to collapse this
list?
... discusses items on list that could be represented
<dom> chaals: I don't think we can make a list that'll match the real world for long enough to make that exercice worth it
chaals: does not think we can make definitive list, and we must work with what we can write
<Zakim> chaalsXO, you wanted to say no
zzakimj, unmute me
<Bryan> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080514
<Bryan> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080521
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We back off from the list of Web Applicaiton characteristics originally proposed by Jeffs in favour of the less definitve text currently under scope
RESOLUTION: We back off from the list of Web Application characteristics originally proposed by Jeffs in favour of the less definitive text currently under scope
jo: thinks removal in favor of brevity good idea
<jo> [agreed to remove 1.4.4 and 1.4.5 in present draft]
bryan: discussion of moving text
around and renumbering
... took "requirement" part and put as part of "introduction"
to "best practices" section
... focus on tweaking 4.1 - 4.6 to make clearer
... 4.6 incorporates more input
... context- and device-info core of new input
jo: timing means many folks have
not had a chance to review draft yet
... how close are we to publishing a 1st working draft of
this?
bryan: we are close, need to
address if structure is meeting needs?
... do we want to put in objectives? or is that just "more
words"
adam: likes rearranging, thinks
more in-scope, thinks pretty close but wants to re-read
end-to-end
... do we still need a requirements section?
jo: discussion of document
wording
... review it over the next 1-2 weeks
... how are we going to organize meeting?
<jo> ACTION: Jo to remind DKA that he was going to book a room at Vodafone for the Editorial Meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-764 - Remind DKA that he was going to book a room at Vodafone for the Editorial Meeting [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-29].
jo: reminder to register for f2f ASAP
<dom> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-June-2008/
<jo> Registration
jo: closing out meeting
<manrique> see you