IRC log of bpwg on 2008-06-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

06:55:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
06:55:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-irc
06:55:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
06:55:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #bpwg
06:55:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be BPWG
06:55:19 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
06:55:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
06:55:20 [trackbot]
Date: 18 June 2008
06:59:20 [adam]
adam has joined #bpwg
07:00:03 [abel]
abel has joined #bpwg
07:00:12 [manrique]
manrique has joined #bpwg
07:00:32 [JonathanJ]
JonathanJ has joined #bpwg
07:03:59 [SeanP]
SeanP has joined #bpwg
07:06:19 [achuter]
achuter has joined #bpwg
07:06:39 [Sunghan]
Sunghan has joined #bpwg
07:06:45 [Kai]
Kai has joined #bpwg
07:06:55 [SeanP]
SeanP has joined #bpwg
07:07:04 [zakcohen]
zakcohen has joined #bpwg
07:07:15 [francois]
Scribe: francois
07:07:20 [francois]
ScribeNick: francois
07:07:28 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
07:07:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html francois
07:07:46 [jo]
jo has joined #bpwg
07:07:59 [francois]
Chair: jo, DKA
07:08:25 [francois]
Agenda: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd3jk8v_114tkbg6kgj
07:08:32 [dom]
Present: Manrique, Miguel, Abel, Rob, SeanP, Francois, Dom, Jonathan, Sunghan, Kai, DKA, Zack, Adam, Ed
07:09:37 [francois]
Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group - F2F Sophia-Antipolis - Day 3/3
07:09:40 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
07:09:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html francois
07:10:32 [dom]
s/Teleconference/ - F2F Sophia-Antipolis - Day 3 on 3/
07:10:37 [achuter]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/
07:10:43 [francois]
Topic: Relationship between accessibility and Mobile Web Best Practices
07:10:56 [edm]
edm has joined #bpwg
07:11:01 [francois]
dka: alan, could you walk us through the current status?
07:11:08 [rob]
rob has joined #bpwg
07:11:17 [francois]
... I'd like to get to the decision to publish a new draft of this document.
07:11:48 [francois]
... so, what I'd really like to know is what the status of the doc is, and how EOWG feels about it.
07:12:51 [francois]
alan: The overview document maps to 5 other documents.
07:13:22 [dom]
Present+ Scott
07:13:36 [francois]
... the initial doc promoted the adoption of BP by, for instance emphasizing that some of them also helped people with disabilities
07:13:52 [francois]
... but this was confusing, so we decided to split it up in two different documents.
07:14:23 [francois]
... The benefit part was moved to another document not referred to from this document
07:14:25 [achuter]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-helps-20080612/
07:15:40 [francois]
alan: This other document was built on the ashes of the initial complete document, but is not our main focus at the time.
07:16:11 [francois]
... Back to the 13 June overview doc
07:16:30 [francois]
... The structure is simpler, it needs to be reviewed, but it's much more complete
07:16:30 [dom]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/mwbp-wcag20.html
07:16:57 [francois]
... For instance, from MWBP to WCAG 2.0
07:17:16 [francois]
... Take a look at "Addressing WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria"
07:17:44 [francois]
... You'll see the title of the SC, the definition, and what you've already done for it if you've followed the BP
07:17:53 [francois]
... It's much clearer now!
07:18:25 [dom]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/wcag20-mwbp.html
07:18:54 [francois]
dka: and from WCAG 2.0 to MWBP, it's organized by best practices
07:19:15 [francois]
alan: yes, it's organized by the recommendation you're moving towards, which makes more sense
07:19:46 [francois]
dan: so what about the best practices that don't have any text? That's because they don't address any SC?
07:20:06 [francois]
alan: yes, I guess we should remove them or annotate them in some way
07:20:21 [francois]
dka: what do we still need to do?
07:20:30 [francois]
alan: quite a few editorial updates
07:20:44 [francois]
... and the EOWG needs 2 more weeks to review the document
07:21:05 [francois]
dka: are you pretty happy in terms of the current structure of the document and the number of documents?
07:21:09 [francois]
alan: yes
07:21:18 [francois]
dka: 7 documents?
07:21:34 [francois]
dom: actually, it's just 7 pages of the same document
07:21:43 [francois]
dka: OK, I was afraid this could lead to 7 TR documents
07:21:48 [francois]
dom: no, only one
07:22:05 [francois]
dka: what was the feedback from the EOWG on the structure?
07:22:15 [francois]
alan: they like it better as well
07:23:03 [dom]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/
07:23:08 [dom]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences
07:23:14 [Scott]
Scott has joined #bpwg
07:23:22 [francois]
... the overview is short, but it contains before any other links 2 links to more detailed documents on the matter
07:23:47 [dom]
[+1 on moving up the ToC just after the Status section]
07:24:24 [francois]
... and we'll shift things around to have links moved to the top of the document as much as possible
07:25:40 [francois]
[going through the two mentioned documents]
07:26:22 [francois]
dka: has EOWG specifically required feedback from us on the document that compares mobile devices and people with disabilities?
07:26:30 [francois]
alan: no, but that would be interesting
07:27:01 [achuter]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/together.html
07:27:22 [francois]
dka: it seems the best thing to do would be to action someone (not you alan) to review the document.
07:27:32 [francois]
alan: yes.
07:27:59 [francois]
... Another issue is how to do MWBP and WCAG at the same time?
07:28:22 [francois]
... It's fairly complicated to present both at the same time in a document
07:28:47 [francois]
dka: is this document part of the suite of documents?
07:28:50 [francois]
alan: yes
07:29:19 [dom]
Present+ Jo
07:29:35 [francois]
... A lot of people have to do it: government sites for instance have to do both
07:30:24 [francois]
dka: stepping back for a second. To move something to working draft, then I think we need to consider this part as a stand-alone document, and publish the rest.
07:31:17 [francois]
... "When you have an elephant, you have to eat it one byte eat a time"
07:31:26 [francois]
s/eat a time/at a time/
07:31:49 [francois]
... issue a public working draft and having some press coverage might be useful
07:32:20 [francois]
... dom, do you think we could package this with the huge press release we're about to make?
07:32:32 [francois]
dom: well, it's going to be confusing, at best
07:33:33 [francois]
... I'm not sure press coverage is what we need. Blogging about it. Also guys from CTIC which have a tool to help build such content might be of some help.
07:34:14 [francois]
dka: my suggestion is that we unlink this part from the rest, and that we publish the rest as a public working draft.
07:34:25 [francois]
alan: right.
07:35:53 [francois]
dka: We need to decide whether we need to omit the blank bits from the document or provide some text around the BP that don't have any SC match (and vice versa)
07:36:08 [francois]
alan: I think it should just go as a list at the top of the page
07:37:08 [francois]
dka: OK. Plus 2 weeks for the EOWG to review. I'd like to be in a position to agree to publish the doc on 26 June 2008.
07:37:31 [francois]
... do you think you can address the bits we just talked about in the next few days?
07:37:34 [francois]
alan: yes.
07:38:36 [francois]
jo: I'm midly concerned as dom, that the publication be buried if we publish it among many others.
07:38:49 [francois]
dka: understood.
07:38:53 [francois]
q+
07:40:42 [francois]
dka: alan, could you ask EOWG to ask us for feedback with a time limit?
07:40:46 [francois]
alan: yes
07:40:51 [dom]
q?
07:40:58 [dom]
ack francois
07:40:59 [francois]
ack francois
07:40:59 [DKA]
q?
07:42:32 [francois]
francois: wondering about the "do it both" document. Shouldn't we leave it in as a placeholder to ask for public feedback?
07:42:48 [francois]
... It doesn't prevent publication as a Public Working Draft.
07:43:04 [francois]
... an we may still remove the page later on if we end up not having time to work on it.
07:43:09 [francois]
dka: agreed.
07:43:18 [francois]
... alan, is everything clear?
07:43:21 [francois]
alan: yes.
07:43:51 [francois]
dka: congratulations alan. It's a lot of work, obviously, and pretty useful.
07:44:31 [francois]
alan: thank you. It would be great if participants from the group could review the document. I understand we don't have time here to review it point by point.
07:45:12 [francois]
dka: I was at a conference some weeks ago, and while mentioning the best practices, the first question I got was: "how does that relate with accessibility?"
07:45:22 [francois]
dom: yes, I have the same question over and over again.
07:46:40 [francois]
dka: in another conference, talking to people that are managing web sites for big companies, there was a lot of interest in both mobile and accessibility areas. In short, I think this document will be well received.
07:47:18 [francois]
Topic: mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0
07:47:48 [francois]
dom: The doc was published as Last Call last week. One LC comment so far... er... mine.
07:48:08 [francois]
... Basically, it's just more clarification on the document
07:48:24 [francois]
... and francois replied with suggestions that are close to proposed resolutions.
07:48:45 [francois]
... So, I'm still fairly optimistic that this Last Call will be an easy one.
07:49:04 [francois]
... I don't think we should resolve the items right now.
07:49:37 [DKA]
q?
07:49:58 [francois]
... 2 items to address: 1. the entrance criteria to Proposed Recommendation phase. We have a test suite, we nearly have a checker, and the remaining criterium is the 10 mobileOK highly visible web sites.
07:50:22 [francois]
... Jo created an issue re. that topic, we already have a few sites, but I'm not sure we have 10 sites yet.
07:50:38 [francois]
... and 2. discussion on mobileOK Scheme
07:51:01 [francois]
dka: are we suggesting that we change the entrance criteria?
07:51:25 [francois]
dom: no. I was just wondering if people knew about some more web sites that could be part of the list.
07:51:56 [francois]
... One thing we haven't talked about is tools that produce mobileOK, and as a matter of fact, I know about 3-4 tools that produce mobileOK content
07:51:59 [dom]
ISSUE-256?
07:51:59 [trackbot]
ISSUE-256 -- Call for 10 mobileOK sites -- OPEN
07:51:59 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/256
07:52:14 [francois]
... and that's even more important in my mind than the list of 10 web sites
07:52:46 [francois]
jo: Could we make a statement to our HTML5 friends that objects processing is really hard?
07:53:05 [dom]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/embedded0.html#the-object
07:53:26 [francois]
... It's not clear to me when, from an architectural point of view, W3C recommends the use of adaptation on the client side.
07:53:53 [francois]
dom: well, one of the goals of HTML5 is that it explains how to process object elements
07:54:55 [francois]
... one improvement that HTML5 brings is video, SVG embedding, and the like, so you don't really need object elements in most common cases.
07:55:17 [francois]
... I'm not sure we have sufficient experience with this to send something useful
07:56:04 [francois]
jo: we've observed that it brings the issue of tasting content which is something you want to avoid in the mobile world.
07:56:14 [francois]
dom: right, but there's a precise way to avoid that.
07:56:20 [francois]
jo: not widely implemented
07:56:32 [francois]
dom: right, but it exists.
07:56:37 [francois]
q+ to mention XHTML2
07:56:52 [DKA]
q?
07:56:55 [dom]
ack f
07:56:55 [Zakim]
francois, you wanted to mention XHTML2
07:57:00 [DKA]
ack fr
07:58:49 [francois]
francois: I just wanted to mention that XHTML2 generalized the fallback behavior of object elements to ANY element
07:59:54 [francois]
dka: what is your plan to get 10 mobileOK web sites?
08:00:16 [francois]
dom: well, content providers around the table may check that their highly visible web site is mobileOK for instance.
08:00:40 [francois]
dka: could we create a contest of some kind?
08:01:46 [francois]
... same as the XPrize contest to reach space
08:02:18 [dom]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jun/0014.html
08:03:19 [francois]
francois: wondering if we could go through the list and see how many mobileOK web sites we still need
08:04:09 [francois]
dom: [going through the list and emphazing the different sites and tools we already have]
08:04:41 [francois]
... I think we already have a strong story to tell, but if we could complete that list, that would be great.
08:04:56 [francois]
dka: so, that's "great".
08:05:18 [edm2z]
edm2z has joined #bpwg
08:05:22 [francois]
... what can we do today to create an action plan to reach the target?
08:06:00 [dom]
[checking http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/gmast/mob/-/mobile/ ...]
08:06:15 [francois]
... I'm thinking about BBC for instance, that are very mobile-friendly, but that may just lack awareness on mobileOK and thus fail a bit. I would be happy to take an action to try to contact them.
08:06:19 [dom]
[5 error types http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fgo%2Fgmast%2Fmob%2F-%2Fmobile%2F ]
08:06:33 [francois]
... Would other people be willing to do the same with other content providers?
08:07:15 [francois]
dom: the twitter web site has only two minor errors. Anyone with contacts over there?
08:07:17 [dom]
[2 very simple errors on m.facebook.com too http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=m.facebook.com%2F ]
08:07:37 [dom]
[http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fm.twitter.com ]
08:08:25 [francois]
ACTION: dan to contact BBC to see if they can make their mobile web site mobileOK
08:08:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-796 - Contact BBC to see if they can make their mobile web site mobileOK [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-06-25].
08:08:56 [jo]
present+ bruno_von_neimann(ETSI_observer)
08:10:03 [francois]
kai: would be worth contacting content providers that have only one or two errors. It doesn't cost much, and they would most probably appreciate the feedback.
08:11:31 [Kai_]
Kai_ has joined #bpwg
08:12:28 [Kai_]
test
08:13:00 [jo]
present- bruno_von_neimann(ETSI_observer)
08:13:12 [francois]
[bruno introducing himself, ETSI, and liaison between W3C and ETSI]
08:13:13 [jo]
present+ bruno_von_niman(ETSI_observer)
08:13:20 [francois]
Topic: mobileOK Pro
08:13:22 [adam]
Scribe: Adam
08:13:26 [adam]
ScribeNick: Adam
08:13:32 [achuter]
achuter has joined #bpwg
08:13:34 [dom]
ScribeNick: adam
08:13:43 [Kai_]
latest draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080610
08:14:28 [adam]
kai: Task Force has gone through the document in detail. Status is now waiting for feedback.
08:14:52 [adam]
Kai: Several questions that need to be answered. Discussions this wk may have changed things.
08:15:05 [adam]
Kai: What kind of document should this be?
08:15:26 [adam]
... What form of document is will impact overall message for working group.
08:16:13 [adam]
... Checker deals with machine testable part, this doc focusses on human testable page.
08:16:35 [adam]
... But because of this the tests we can run are subjective.
08:16:45 [adam]
... We have reworked tests to try and increase repeatability.
08:17:32 [adam]
jo: Lets run through document in detail to refresh our memories.
08:18:27 [jo]
q+ to mention the testing environment
08:18:34 [adam]
Kai: [ Describing Test Format ]
08:18:46 [adam]
... For example, 4.1 Access Keys
08:18:55 [DKA]
q?
08:18:57 [DKA]
ack jo
08:18:57 [Zakim]
jo, you wanted to mention the testing environment
08:19:48 [adam]
jo: Test format is pretty clear, but test environment is missing. Some tests presuppose use of DDC and some don't, this is quite an intricate question.
08:20:01 [adam]
Kai: Intention was to use DDC, but there is not an emulator.
08:20:28 [adam]
jo: So there is a question of how tests are carried out. But there are also some tests which specify *not* using the DDC.
08:20:36 [dom]
Test on device capabilities: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080610#device_capabilities
08:20:54 [adam]
... Recommending with a number of devices immediately makes the tests difficult to repeat.
08:21:12 [adam]
s/Recommending/Recommending to test/
08:22:33 [dom]
PROPOSED ISSUE: What is the testing environment for mobileOK Pro: DDC or not, and if not, how does it affect repeatibility
08:22:35 [adam]
dka: Key point is that if you are not using DDC then there is an issue with repeatability. Do we need an issue to track this.
08:23:00 [adam]
kai: General thrust was to use the DDC emulator but we don't have it yet.
08:23:28 [dom]
PROPOSED ISSUE: What is the testing environment for mobileOK Pro: DDC or not, and if not, how does it affect repeatibility
08:24:02 [adam]
dka: We could consider restructuring document around: tests that use DDC, and tests that don't.
08:24:10 [dom]
PROPOSED ISSUE: Which mobileOK Pro tests needs the DDC and which don't?
08:24:20 [dom]
ISSUE: Which mobileOK Pro tests needs the DDC and which don't?
08:24:20 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-266 - Which mobileOK Pro tests needs the DDC and which don't? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/266/edit .
08:24:49 [dom]
ISSUE-266: in particular, when the tests require that it's not DDC, how does it affect repeatibility?
08:24:50 [trackbot]
ISSUE-266 Which mobileOK Pro tests needs the DDC and which don't? notes added
08:25:41 [adam]
kai: [back to Access Keys]
08:26:13 [adam]
... This is about primary navigation links on the page. You can't have access keys that change from page to page so only makes sense to assign access keys to primary navigation links.
08:26:31 [DKA]
q?
08:26:36 [DKA]
q+ jo
08:27:09 [adam]
kai: [Going through 4.1 Access Keys requirements]
08:27:09 [DKA]
ack jo
08:27:57 [adam]
jo: We all agree that access keys are good, the difficult thing is to turn such things into actionable statements.
08:28:21 [adam]
... In web applications, for example, there are very few pages so this might be a moot point.
08:29:19 [adam]
... This might introduce too many caveats and cloud the issues.
08:30:20 [adam]
kai: Consistency can still be required in web applications regardless of whether or not there are multiple pages.
08:30:39 [adam]
jo: Agreed. But the definition as it is written doesn't capture the essence of this.
08:30:57 [DKA]
q?
08:31:26 [edm]
edm has joined #bpwg
08:31:58 [adam]
jo: We probably know what you mean by "Link declaration summary page" but if we are making "pass/fail" demands a general understanding isn't enough. We need to be more precise in the language.
08:33:33 [adam]
jo: The "identical across all pages" is probably not really what you mean. This is very difficult to word in a way that can't be refuted.
08:34:12 [adam]
kai: We can't provide an exhaustive list of examples. What degree of detail do we need to go into?
08:34:48 [adam]
jo: Agree. But how much should be provide is an open question. I am trying to anticipate the kind of comments we will receive on this.
08:34:56 [adam]
s/be/we/
08:36:36 [adam]
[break for coffee]
08:50:29 [marie]
marie has joined #bpwg
08:50:36 [marie]
hell
08:51:03 [marie]
fyi, the sommelier's email address is: christine@franckthomas.fr
08:51:09 [marie]
s/hell/hello
08:53:49 [dom]
s/fyi, the sommelier's email address is: christine@franckthomas.fr//
08:54:45 [marie]
s/hello//
09:00:59 [yeliz]
yeliz has joined #bpwg
09:02:12 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:02:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html francois
09:02:32 [adam]
kai: We will look at a few tests to get a feel for the document and then lead back into the broader discussions.
09:03:22 [adam]
kai: 4.6 Device Capabilities is a good place to start discussion.
09:04:04 [adam]
... we cannot cover all possibilities and there may be devices that have capabilities not supported by the DDC, so we have turned this test around
09:04:40 [adam]
... the test condition is that the content should not be artificially limited to the DDC on devices that have greater capabilities.
09:05:11 [adam]
... for example, if the width is limited to the DDC screen-width on devices that have more real-estate then this is a fail.
09:06:18 [DKA]
q?
09:06:24 [adam]
jo: Under test procedure you refer to "unadapted, original content"... The presupposes that the original content wasn't intended for the DDC. Some more careful wording is needed.
09:06:50 [adam]
... this document needs to encourage people to think of mobile representation as the natural one.
09:06:56 [SeanP]
Scribe: SeanP
09:07:03 [SeanP]
Scribenick: SeanP
09:08:41 [SeanP]
jo: Another comment: it is OK to offer an alternative to something like video to the DDC
09:10:35 [SeanP]
kai: Alan had posted this comment as well. [Comment made on the mailing list]
09:11:14 [SeanP]
kai: 4.4 Background Image Readability
09:11:48 [SeanP]
...patterned or photographic bg image discouraged but not prohibited
09:12:40 [SeanP]
...Use a test for color blindness that tests for color contrast--test is fairly deterministic
09:12:42 [DKA]
q?
09:13:20 [SeanP]
jo: Is this an average contrast or each and every pixel?
09:13:29 [SeanP]
kai: Each and every one.
09:13:51 [SeanP]
... probably permissible to use the extremes.
09:14:09 [SeanP]
kai: 4.5 Balance
09:14:29 [SeanP]
... weren't exactly sure what to do with this test, so we just picked a value.
09:14:33 [dom]
q+ jo
09:14:55 [SeanP]
...example is a sitemap--may have well over 30 links.
09:15:12 [DKA]
q?
09:15:15 [dom]
ack jo
09:15:15 [DKA]
ack jo
09:15:20 [SeanP]
...how many links does the user have to click through without being annoyed--30 was picked.
09:15:39 [SeanP]
jo: Should make a note about the different navigation models for this test.
09:16:01 [SeanP]
dom: Safe to assume that we are using a scheme that we have to go through every link.
09:16:22 [SeanP]
dka: worth stating that we are using a nav model that requires all links to be traversed.
09:16:48 [SeanP]
dom: this is a case where we need to make clear that there is no pointing device
09:17:04 [SeanP]
kai: if we are going to redfine the DDC...
09:17:17 [SeanP]
dka: not redefining--clarifying
09:17:33 [SeanP]
s/clarifying/refining/
09:17:49 [SeanP]
kai: this is a big step...
09:18:36 [SeanP]
dka: we want to say that the DDC has a keypad and supports access keys
09:18:54 [SeanP]
... and is focus based
09:19:21 [SeanP]
kai: What is the feeling on a test like this where a number is just picked?
09:19:48 [SeanP]
jo: We did that in other cases and we had justification in doing that--not arbitrary.
09:20:13 [SeanP]
kai: Google had some information, but had some odd numbers.
09:20:38 [SeanP]
jo: nytimes had 500 links on the home page.
09:21:12 [SeanP]
kai: So is it OK to just pick a value?
09:21:24 [SeanP]
dom: should be backed up by some data.
09:21:40 [SeanP]
... 30 is not a bad number.
09:22:08 [SeanP]
jo: Shouldn't have to scroll over more than 2 screens of links.
09:22:23 [SeanP]
... could use this to compute a number.
09:22:43 [SeanP]
kai: Could come up with a way to construct a number, but would still be contrived.
09:23:00 [SeanP]
... would be great to have data, but don't have it.
09:23:11 [SeanP]
adam: Will check into whether Google has data on this.
09:23:49 [dom]
ACTION: Adam to check on availability of data about the number of acceptable links in a focus-based browser
09:23:49 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-797 - Check on availability of data about the number of acceptable links in a focus-based browser [on Adam Connors - due 2008-06-25].
09:24:07 [SeanP]
scott: Some devices could be 10 links, other devices could be 30 links because of differences in devices.
09:24:16 [SeanP]
jo: We're assuming the DDC.
09:24:20 [DKA]
q?
09:24:41 [SeanP]
kai: Another example: 4.3 Avoid Free Text
09:24:53 [dom]
[I think we should look at least at one test that already exists in mobileOK basic but that mobileOK pro completes]
09:25:18 [SeanP]
...How do you deal with this? There will be forms where you have to type in your name.
09:25:44 [SeanP]
...think of anything where you have to type in an unknown value.
09:26:31 [SeanP]
... you can make lists of possible values. Where do you decide when the list is too big?
09:26:43 [SeanP]
jo: good example.
09:27:05 [SeanP]
kai: Really cannot put a limit on these lists--just needs to be finite.
09:27:29 [SeanP]
dom: Something around 30 should be the max since you'll need to click through all of them.
09:28:00 [SeanP]
... should think of a way to trim the list if it is over 30.
09:28:13 [SeanP]
... or use free text.
09:28:48 [SeanP]
kai: 4.15 Deficiencies
09:29:08 [SeanP]
... one of the wishy-washy tests that are difficult.
09:29:26 [SeanP]
... how do you deal with future changes to devices?
09:30:16 [SeanP]
...try to bracket the test to: look for deficiencies that impinge significantly on the usability of hte content being offered.
09:30:38 [SeanP]
s/hte/the/
09:31:04 [SeanP]
dka: Out of time but these items are good examples of the work that has gone into the document.
09:31:18 [SeanP]
...would like to have a plan for getting this document out there.
09:31:33 [SeanP]
...what do you think we should do, Kai?
09:31:48 [DKA]
q?
09:31:54 [SeanP]
Kai: Does the group think this document make sense?
09:32:19 [SeanP]
...we need feedback from the public. Should put it out there as a public working draft.
09:33:02 [SeanP]
dka:2 questions to ask: Does the material in the document make sense? Does the stated goal of the document make sense?
09:33:19 [jo]
q+ to support the notion that the content of the document is extremely useful
09:33:22 [SeanP]
...Is this a rec track document or a note? What should it be called?
09:33:32 [dom]
+1 on usefulness of the content of the document
09:34:18 [DKA]
q?
09:34:24 [SeanP]
...I think there is a lot of valuable material in this, but these questions need to be answered.
09:35:35 [SeanP]
dka: I've already expressed some concerns about mobileOK Pro. Some of the problems are extremely difficult. What you have come up with could be extremely useful.
09:35:42 [jo]
q+ to add something to what Dom stole of my thunder
09:36:11 [SeanP]
...Given the amount of work required, I don't think it is reasonable to develop mobileOK Pro within the time left in the charter.
09:36:26 [jo]
q+ to add that Dom just stole that bit too
09:36:39 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the work required to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards creating mobileOK Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse the material that has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new document, such as an addendum...
09:36:47 [jo]
ack me
09:36:47 [Zakim]
jo, you wanted to support the notion that the content of the document is extremely useful and to add something to what Dom stole of my thunder and to add that Dom just stole that
09:36:48 [SeanP]
...I suggest creating an addendum to another document like MobileOK Basic.
09:36:50 [Zakim]
... bit too
09:37:08 [DKA]
q?
09:37:08 [dom]
ack jo
09:37:39 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the work required to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards creating mobileOK Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse the material that has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new document, such as an addendum to BP 1.
09:37:58 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the work required to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards creating mobileOK Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse the material that has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new document, such as an addendum/clarification/explanatory text to BP 1.
09:38:15 [SeanP]
jo: Agree with Dom. Has been 18 months since BP 1 was released. Should be thinking about releasing explanatory text about BP 1.
09:38:49 [SeanP]
...This is would be useful for doing this.
09:39:44 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the work required to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards creating mobileOK Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse the material that has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new document, such as an addendum/clarification/explanatory text to BP 1, closing the gap between BP1 and BP2.
09:39:55 [SeanP]
kai: We have a big gap between BP 1 and BP 2. This document could be used as kind of a BP 1.5 to close the gap between BP 1 and 2.
09:39:55 [jo]
+1 to what Kai just said
09:40:51 [SeanP]
dka: I like the idea, don't support calling it BP 1.5.
09:40:57 [dom]
(I think this relates to ISSUE-185)
09:40:59 [dom]
ISSUE-185?
09:40:59 [trackbot]
ISSUE-185 -- What are the mobileOK Full deliverables? -- OPEN
09:40:59 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/185
09:41:17 [SeanP]
...I think it makes sense to have addendum to BP 1. Is it rec track or a note?
09:41:49 [DKA1]
DKA1 has left #bpwg
09:42:07 [SeanP]
dom: 2 options: Add kind of an addendum to update BP 1 and clarify them, or create a new document.
09:42:22 [jo]
q+ to think that it is too close to the publication of the BP doc to issue a 2nd edition
09:42:26 [SeanP]
kai: I think it would make the most sense to modify the current document.
09:42:44 [jo]
-1 to a 2nd edition
09:42:50 [SeanP]
dom: Probably the most logical solution even though it would be more work.
09:43:03 [jo]
-1000000 to a second edition
09:43:06 [DKA]
q?
09:43:15 [DKA]
ack jo
09:43:15 [Zakim]
jo, you wanted to think that it is too close to the publication of the BP doc to issue a 2nd edition
09:43:20 [SeanP]
dom: Biggest problem will be resources.
09:43:40 [francois]
q+ to wonder about new BPs
09:43:45 [DKA]
q?
09:44:16 [SeanP]
jo: Don't have the time to work on second edition of BP 1. Technically, BP 1 has not been published.
09:44:49 [SeanP]
... Best thing would be to issue a note.
09:45:39 [SeanP]
... probably too close to publishing BP 1 as a rec to create a second edition.
09:46:00 [DKA]
ack francois
09:46:00 [Zakim]
francois, you wanted to wonder about new BPs
09:46:09 [SeanP]
jo: Best to let BP 1 be a rec by itself for a while.
09:46:24 [DKA]
q+ francois
09:46:55 [SeanP]
dom: Rec always has a link to errata. One way to link to the mobileOK Pro stuff would be as errata.
09:47:12 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the work required to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards creating mobileOK Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse the material that has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new document, such as an addendum/clarification/explanatory text to BP 1, closing the gap between BP1 and BP2. Also publish an errata.
09:47:24 [SeanP]
jo: Value of this document goes further than errata.
09:47:36 [dom]
"Success criteria for MWBP"?
09:48:48 [francois]
q+ to wonder about new BPs and comparison with WCAG 2.0 quickref
09:48:57 [SeanP]
kai: What about treating Pro as as supplement and putting a link in BP 1 to it.
09:49:33 [DKA]
q?
09:49:37 [SeanP]
dom: Could put a link before it goes to rec, but don't think this new supplement would be ready yet.
09:49:48 [SeanP]
jo: Could link it as errata.
09:49:54 [DKA]
ack fra
09:49:54 [Zakim]
francois, you wanted to wonder about new BPs and comparison with WCAG 2.0 quickref
09:50:09 [SeanP]
francois: Are we planning on adding new BPs for BP 1?
09:50:51 [jo]
q+ to point out that an exegesis does not change the word ofGod, merely to explain it
09:50:55 [SeanP]
kai: Not new BPs, but were thinking of adding extensions for Pro, but decided not too.
09:51:43 [jo]
q-
09:52:00 [SeanP]
francois: WCAG document had side companiion doc about how to meed the requirements. Could we something like that? May not have enough time.
09:52:19 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the work required to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards creating mobileOK Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse the material that has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new document, such as an addendum/clarification/explanatory text to BP 1, closing the gap between BP1 and BP2 (and linked to from the BP1 Errata document).
09:52:22 [SeanP]
Kai: Side companion OK, not a quick reference.
09:52:51 [SeanP]
francois: WCAG quick reference is not really a quick reference.
09:53:37 [SeanP]
kai: If we have another document that is a side companion some people will look at one and not the other.
09:54:19 [SeanP]
dka: If we move Pro to being an addendum, what happens to the Pro task force?
09:54:37 [SeanP]
...I think it would make sense to bring this work into the working group.
09:54:48 [SeanP]
jo: Sure, why not?
09:55:37 [SeanP]
kai: Every time we talk about this in group issues come up, so we might as well have all our discussions with the entire group.
09:55:44 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTON: The group agrees to close the MobileOK Pro task force and bring the document (rebranded as BP1 addendum) into the main body of the working group. Kai to remain as editor.
09:55:48 [SeanP]
...I can continue editing the document.
09:55:50 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the work required to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards creating mobileOK Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse the material that has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new document, such as an addendum/clarification/explanatory text to BP 1, closing the gap between BP1 and BP2 (and linked to from the BP1 Errata document).
09:55:52 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTON: The group agrees to close the MobileOK Pro task force and bring the document (rebranded as BP1 addendum) into the main body of the working group. Kai to remain as editor.
09:56:24 [dom]
+1 on both
09:56:29 [adam]
+1
09:56:34 [jo]
q+ to argue in favour of the title of the docuemnt containing the word "exegesis"
09:56:46 [manrique]
+1
09:56:46 [DKA]
q- jo
09:56:52 [Kai_]
+1
09:56:59 [jo]
q+to raise a point of order
09:57:05 [DKA]
ack jo
09:57:05 [Zakim]
jo, you wanted to raise a point of order
09:57:06 [jo]
q-
09:57:30 [jo]
+1 to both
09:57:34 [SeanP]
RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the work required to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards creating mobileOK Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse the material that has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new document, such as an addendum/clarification/explanatory text to BP 1, closing the gap between BP1 and BP2 (and linked to from the BP1 Errata...
09:57:35 [SeanP]
...document).
09:57:36 [manrique]
manrique has joined #bpwg
09:57:47 [SeanP]
RESOLUTON: The group agrees to close the MobileOK Pro task force and bring the document (rebranded as BP1 addendum) into the main body of the working group. Kai to remain as editor.
09:58:07 [Kai_]
s/RESOLTON/RESOLUTION
09:58:13 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The addendum to BP1 previously known as MobileOK Pro will be a working group Note.
09:58:24 [Kai_]
s/RESOLUTON/RESOLUTION
09:58:35 [Kai_]
+1
09:58:38 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:58:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html francois
09:58:40 [dom]
+1
09:58:41 [jo]
+1
09:58:47 [SeanP]
RESOLUTION: The addendum to BP1 previously known as MobileOK Pro will be a working group Note.
10:00:06 [SeanP]
dka: One more mobileOK agendum: Scheme and Licensing.
10:00:28 [SeanP]
RESOLUTION: The group agrees to close the MobileOK Pro task force and bring the document (rebranded as BP1 addendum) into the main body of the working group. Kai to remain as editor.
10:00:41 [jo]
Topic: obileOK Licensing
10:00:55 [francois]
s/Topic: obileOK/Topic: mobileOK
10:00:59 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
10:00:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html francois
10:01:07 [dom]
ISSUE-250?
10:01:07 [trackbot]
ISSUE-250 -- The mobileOK License -- OPEN
10:01:07 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/250
10:01:33 [SeanP]
dom: Issue 250
10:01:38 [Kai_]
ACTION: Kai to work proposed changes into the mobileOK Pro document and then turn it over to the group
10:01:38 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-798 - Work proposed changes into the mobileOK Pro document and then turn it over to the group [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-06-25].
10:01:52 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-mobileok-policy.html Proposed licenses for mobileOK Basic
10:02:46 [SeanP]
dom: mobileOK policy document summary
10:03:21 [SeanP]
...has the the mobileOK logo; protecting mobileOK in two ways: trademark and copyright for the logo
10:03:52 [SeanP]
... need to conform to spec to claim you are mobileOK.
10:04:26 [SeanP]
dka: simple, thanks for W3C for registering mobileOK as a trademark.
10:04:53 [SeanP]
jo: Still have the same problems with this that we had a year ago.
10:05:43 [SeanP]
...is not clear that mobileOK is on the representation of the resource and not the URI.
10:06:07 [SeanP]
... need to have the proper view on what mobileOK really means.
10:07:05 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: "This page" in the MobileOK license refers to a URI, not a representation.
10:07:21 [SeanP]
dom: We need to be clear as a group: My understanding that mobileOK refers to the URI and not the representation.
10:07:40 [SeanP]
...this is a legal document, not a technical one.
10:08:38 [SeanP]
kai: I think that Jo's point was good.
10:09:27 [SeanP]
dom: Should be on URI so you can put it on the desktop view.
10:10:00 [SeanP]
RESOLUTION: "This page" in the MobileOK license refers to a URI, not a representation.
10:10:14 [JonathanJ]
Should we need more clarification "mobileOK Logo" and "mobileOK Basic Logo" ? Can it be use in same condition ?
10:11:10 [SeanP]
jonathan: mobileOK logo and mobileOK basic logo are different.
10:11:52 [SeanP]
dom: since mobileOK Pro will no longer exist--mobileOK logo will be used for mobileOK basic.
10:12:13 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK logo will be used to represent conformance to MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 - there will be One Logo.
10:12:46 [jo]
+1
10:12:49 [DKA]
+1
10:12:54 [rob]
+1
10:13:07 [Kai_]
+1
10:13:15 [dom]
+1
10:13:22 [adam]
+1
10:13:34 [SeanP]
RESOLUTION: the MobileOK logo will be used to represent conformance to MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 - there will be One Logo.
10:13:38 [DKA]
q+ to wonder about the mobile-friendliness of this logo...
10:13:43 [edm]
edm has joined #bpwg
10:13:59 [SeanP]
dka: Is there small version of this logo?
10:14:05 [DKA]
q?
10:14:07 [francois]
[side node to jo: mobileOK Pro is mentioned in mobileOK Basic Tests document and will have to be removed (as a non-substantive change!) from the draft before it is published as a Proposed Recommendation]
10:14:09 [DKA]
ack dka
10:14:09 [Zakim]
DKA, you wanted to wonder about the mobile-friendliness of this logo...
10:15:14 [SeanP]
dom: excellent question: some people would like to different colors for the logo; I think we released some ones in with other color schemes. We could release several logos with different sizes, colors, formats, etc.
10:15:27 [manrique]
q+ about "licensed" mobileOK® checkers
10:15:38 [SeanP]
...we can still amend the document to put in other logos.
10:15:45 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group would like there to be multiple representations of the One MobileOK logo, including a version suitable for small screens.
10:15:49 [JonathanJ]
I suggest to change: in Chater 3, "use the mobileOK¢ç Basic logo as linked" to "use the mobileOK¢ç logo as linked"
10:16:02 [dom]
good point, JonathanJ
10:16:04 [SeanP]
...Need to decide how we want to use the logo to promote mobileOK.
10:16:15 [DKA]
q?
10:16:27 [dom]
queue=
10:16:28 [DKA]
ack ab
10:16:58 [SeanP]
manrique: How does this relate to checker?
10:17:34 [SeanP]
dom: You would prove to the W3C passed the checker and the W3C would allow you to use the logo.
10:18:00 [SeanP]
francois: How about an SVG version so you could scale it to any size.
10:18:12 [jo]
q+ ref the proposed resolution to note that the license advises that the logo should not be used on mobile pages
10:18:29 [SeanP]
dka: Hasn't MarieClaire done some logos?
10:18:43 [jo]
q+ to note ref the proposed resolution that the license advises that the logo should not be used on mobile pages
10:19:07 [SeanP]
dka: Lots of people I talk to want to make sure the logo will fit on a small screen.
10:19:35 [DKA]
q?
10:19:58 [DKA]
ack jo
10:19:58 [Zakim]
jo, you wanted to note ref the proposed resolution that the license advises that the logo should not be used on mobile pages
10:20:41 [SeanP]
jo: The license contains the terms that you should not use it on small screens. Need to be clear on how we want to use it.
10:21:16 [SeanP]
dka: Don't think the license should address where the logo should be displayed.
10:21:52 [SeanP]
...my point wasn't where the logo should appear--just that a small version of the logo should exist.
10:22:18 [SeanP]
ed: I think Chaals made that point that a favicon should exist for the logo.
10:23:04 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group requests that the MobileOK License document not include language on whether or not to use it on a mobile device.
10:23:58 [SeanP]
jo: Need to insert a note about this into the Scheme document. Should make sure that you only put the logo on the pages that are mobileOK.
10:24:20 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group requests that the MobileOK License document not include language on whether or not to use the logo on a mobile device.
10:24:43 [SeanP]
RESOLUTION: The group requests that the MobileOK License document not include language on whether or not to use the logo on a mobile device.
10:24:45 [jo]
[my earlier point was that the presence of the mobileOK logo may later the mobileOKness of the document]
10:25:39 [jo]
s/may later/may alter/
10:25:54 [SeanP]
MarieClaire: [Talking about mobileOK logo] Will have a small one (16x16).
10:26:08 [SeanP]
dka: Is there an SVG version of the logo?
10:26:15 [JonathanJ]
Do we need the international version of mobileOK license document ? (multi-language ?)
10:26:17 [SeanP]
MarieClaire: Yes.
10:26:55 [SeanP]
dka: The license document should include a link to the logos.
10:28:08 [SeanP]
dom: Regarding Jonathan's point, legal documents are not translated. It could be translated, but the "real" one is the English one.
10:28:39 [SeanP]
Time for lunch.
10:33:57 [achuter]
achuter has joined #bpwg
11:28:53 [edm]
edm has joined #bpwg
11:32:44 [edm]
ISSUE-250?
11:32:44 [trackbot]
ISSUE-250 -- The mobileOK License -- OPEN
11:32:44 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/250
11:32:55 [edm]
scribe: edm
11:33:03 [edm]
scribenick: edm2z
11:33:40 [dom]
ScribeNick: edm
11:34:13 [manrique]
manrique has joined #bpwg
11:34:32 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
11:34:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html francois
11:35:05 [edm]
dka: we need to revisit the checker licensing issue when the checker is ready
11:35:30 [edm]
jo: ...at some point in time
11:35:57 [edm]
jo: the license needs to refer to A valid mobileOK checker
11:36:29 [edm]
jo: we have not resolved on what basis the checker is a checker
11:37:26 [edm]
dka: also need to look at items e/ and f/ of issue-250
11:39:40 [edm]
jo: mobileOk claims would be made without any proof that would support the claims...
11:40:11 [edm]
jo: ... we need to make sure that checker license is worded consistemtly
11:40:34 [edm]
s/consistemtly/consistently/
11:42:05 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: use of the mobileOK logo is a sign that there is a claim (or statement) that the URI (when resolved in the manner described in ...) will, from the start of the claim, forward in time (to some specified? point) yield a representation than passes mobileOK basic tests
11:44:38 [edm]
dom: we should refrain from making any assertions about the duration of a claim
11:46:45 [edm]
jo: mobileOk claim must be some forward looking statemnt or else would be meaningless
11:48:02 [edm]
jo: ...has to have some level of assurance that the claim would remain valid for certain period of time
11:50:50 [edm]
dom: section 3 of the mobileOk license (section 3) states that the mobileOk string us to be used to make clains of conformance to the MOK Basic Tests 1.0 concerning a specific page...
11:51:17 [edm]
s/(section 3) //
11:51:34 [edm]
s/us to be/is to be/
11:54:22 [edm]
jo: we need to be clear when the logo should/could be used and the link between the claim and the checker
11:55:23 [dom]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we remain silent on the duration of claim and leaves that to judges to decide based on when/how the claim was made
11:55:51 [edm]
jo: use of the MOK logo is not necessarily a claim
11:57:53 [edm]
dom: MOK logo could be used only when bound to an URI
12:00:01 [dom]
ACTION: Dom to get back to rigo on updating the mobileOK license
12:00:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-799 - Get back to rigo on updating the mobileOK license [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2008-06-25].
12:01:40 [edm]
francois: relationship between the checker and the MOK claims is already spelled out in the license
12:02:36 [edm]
jo: we should clarify that each MOK test should be passed separately
12:02:55 [dom]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the checker is only a way to be comfortable that you're not breeching the license terms, but doesn't serve as a proof
12:03:39 [edm]
dka: now that we are done talking about license terms, lets talk about MobileOK Scheme
12:04:25 [edm]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/080408.html
12:06:22 [edm]
Kai: notes that references to MobileOk pro may need to be removed
12:06:46 [jo]
ACTION: Jo to remove references to mobileOK Pro in the mobileOK Basic Tests Document
12:06:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-800 - Remove references to mobileOK Pro in the mobileOK Basic Tests Document [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-06-25].
12:07:20 [rob]
Scribe: rob
12:07:27 [rob]
ScribeNick: rob
12:07:33 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Keep the name of mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 the same
12:08:36 [manrique]
q+ to keep mobileOK Basic as Basic, since it checks a small set of BP
12:08:38 [rob]
francoid: need to remove reference to MobileOK Pro if we're not keeping it as a document
12:08:41 [DKA]
q?
12:08:52 [rob]
s/francoid/francois/
12:09:09 [DKA]
ack man
12:09:09 [Zakim]
manrique, you wanted to keep mobileOK Basic as Basic, since it checks a small set of BP
12:09:48 [rob]
jo: we can keep mobileOK Basic tests, because they are only tests of a subset of mobileOK!
12:10:35 [rob]
manrique: exactly, the Checker only verifies a subset
12:12:17 [DKA]
q?
12:12:19 [rob]
jo: my concern on the Trustmark doc is that the use-cases and requirements shouldn't be in here
12:13:12 [rob]
dka: somebody needs to remove a lot of stuff, turning it into a wrapper doc for the other docs about mobileOK (about 1/4 of current length)
12:13:53 [rob]
... i can be the editor
12:14:43 [rob]
jo: Chaals has volenteered to edit, he just needs the feedback
12:16:09 [rob]
s/volenteered/volunteered/
12:17:28 [rob]
kai: also could reference POWDER
12:17:53 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be reduced to a "wrapper" document which will consist of pointers to MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, the checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER if appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER]. The document won't talk about certification.
12:18:17 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be reduced to an explanatory "wrapper" document which will consist of pointers to MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, the checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER if appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER]. The document won't talk about certification.
12:18:43 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be reduced to an explanatory "wrapper" document which will consist of pointers to MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, the checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER if appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER]. The document will remain silent on certification.
12:19:06 [rob]
kai: is this doc becomming a "primer"?
12:19:42 [rob]
dka: no, a primer would have more prose than we want here
12:20:27 [rob]
jo: purpose is to show where everything you want to know about mobileOK is
12:21:15 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be reduced to an explanatory "wrapper" document which will consist of pointers to MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, the Checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER if appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER]. The document will remain silent on certification.
12:21:33 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be reduced to an explanatory "wrapper" document which will consist of pointers to MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, the Checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER if appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER] (and maybe a nice little picture). The document will remain silent on certification.
12:21:49 [DKA]
+1
12:21:54 [francois]
+1
12:21:56 [jo]
+1
12:21:58 [rob]
RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be reduced to an explanatory "wrapper" document which will consist of pointers to MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, the Checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER if appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER] (and maybe a nice little picture). The document will remain silent on certification.
12:23:00 [rob]
jo: Dan, please convey our thanks to Chaals and convey our review feedback to him
12:23:41 [jo]
ACTION: Dan to thanks Chaals for producing the draft of mok scheme, to apologise on the group's behalf for not responding sooner and to draw his attention to the resolution taken on its contents
12:23:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-801 - Thanks Chaals for producing the draft of mok scheme, to apologise on the group's behalf for not responding sooner and to draw his attention to the resolution taken on its contents [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-06-25].
12:24:25 [rob]
Topic: Report from Korean task-force
12:25:01 [JonathanJ]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0052.html
12:25:09 [JonathanJ]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/att-0052/03._BP-KoreanTF-report-v1.0.pdf
12:25:17 [JonathanJ]
this is my report file
12:26:25 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:26:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html francois
12:32:37 [DKA]
Korean TF Proposal: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_18gg7zjk57
12:33:46 [edm]
Gap analysis http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dhpvgnmn_53c7h2stfp&hl=ko
12:34:44 [edm]
TF meeting minutes http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-korean-minutes.html
12:34:57 [edm]
...and http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-korean-minutes.html
12:36:03 [rob]
JonathanJ: trying to have TF meetings bi-weekly
12:36:34 [edm]
TF Roadmap: Requirements documents by the end of December 2008...
12:36:39 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #bpwg
12:36:53 [edm]
...and Report documents by the end of December 2008.
12:37:49 [DKA]
q+
12:37:55 [rob]
jo: thanks for the clear TF report
12:38:04 [jo]
ack d
12:38:28 [rob]
dka: are all the Korean companies in the TF officially members of the W3C WG?
12:38:43 [rob]
JonathanJ: yes
12:39:08 [rob]
dka: Good, because they will need to rejoin the WG when we change our charter
12:40:28 [rob]
francois: there are participants from NHN and TTA that are not WG members?
12:41:20 [rob]
JonathanJ: they are W3C MWI participants but not BPWG members
12:41:42 [jo]
action: francois to follow up on status of Korean TF members in respect of W3C and WG membership
12:41:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-802 - Follow up on status of Korean TF members in respect of W3C and WG membership [on François Daoust - due 2008-06-25].
12:42:02 [rob]
dka: they need to be wither BPWG members or Invited Experts so that the patent policy is tight
12:43:28 [rob]
jo: suggest we don't do Issues and Actions today
12:43:47 [rob]
dom: but everybody please look at your actions!!!
12:44:25 [rob]
francois: when you've done your action, change the status to "Pending Review"
12:45:23 [rob]
jo: last 2 items on today's agenda don't apply if we are rechartering.
12:45:26 [dom]
Topic: POWDER update
12:46:06 [rob]
kai: recent email from Phil - documents on-track
12:46:43 [rob]
... to go into last-call at the end of the month
12:47:53 [rob]
... rather than going through the doc detais, any questions?
12:48:08 [rob]
s/detais/details/
12:48:42 [rob]
jo: will there be delays in review?
12:49:10 [rob]
kai: don't anticipate delays because they have been well reviewed already
12:49:40 [rob]
dom: you have to show implementations, do you know if there are any yet?
12:50:02 [rob]
kai: several planned but none existing yet
12:51:07 [rob]
... we had some very large changes very late so documents have to be finished before any implementations can be successful
12:51:58 [rob]
dom: BPWG took a resolution in Boston to use POWDER
12:52:28 [rob]
jo: don't we need to publish a vocabulary document?
12:52:58 [rob]
kai: yes, it's a very small document, Phil is the editor
12:55:39 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will not have a separate mobileOK powder vocab document, its proposed contents will form part of the mobileOK scheme document.
12:55:43 [jo]
+1
12:55:48 [dom]
+1
12:55:55 [Kai_]
+1
12:55:55 [DKA]
+1
12:55:59 [rob]
+1
12:56:03 [rob]
RESOLUTION: We will not have a separate mobileOK powder vocab document, its proposed contents will form part of the mobileOK scheme document.
12:56:28 [rob]
jo: well done so far!
12:57:26 [rob]
Topic: Aspirational Level of mobileOK
12:57:30 [Kai_]
ACTION: Kai to get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil Archer
12:57:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-803 - Get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil Archer [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-06-25].
12:58:39 [rob]
dka: this is about having a mobileOK club - ie what can we do to promote the idea beyond the logo on compliant sites
12:59:16 [rob]
... we've already talked about having the logo outside of web-pages today
12:59:39 [rob]
jo: what about "I aspire to be mobileOK soon"?
13:00:31 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Drop the idea of an aspirational level of mobileOK, it seems to be included in the current understanding of mobileOK logo usage rules
13:00:40 [jo]
+1
13:00:42 [dom]
+1
13:00:43 [DKA]
+1
13:00:48 [rob]
dka: nothing prevents us all blogging about it a lot!
13:00:51 [abel]
+1
13:01:00 [rob]
RESOLUTION: Drop the idea of an aspirational level of mobileOK, it seems to be included in the current understanding of mobileOK logo usage rules
13:01:16 [rob]
jo: AOB?
13:01:58 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG Thanks W3C very much for its kind hospitality in hosting this F2F meeting
13:02:06 [DKA]
+1
13:02:06 [rob]
+1
13:02:09 [SeanP]
+1
13:02:12 [jo]
+1
13:02:13 [manrique]
+1
13:02:25 [rob]
RESOLUTION: BPWG Thanks W3C very much for its kind hospitality in hosting this F2F meeting
13:02:49 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:02:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html francois
13:02:53 [jo]
[meeting closed]
13:03:26 [rob]
rob has left #bpwg
13:04:22 [Kai_]
Kai_ has left #bpwg
13:06:16 [abel]
abel has left #bpwg
14:57:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #bpwg
16:04:13 [achuter]
achuter has joined #bpwg