See also: IRC log
<francois> Updated draft of the doc
francois: updated document for publication
<francois> Shawn's comments
some comments made by Shawn which delayed the publication
Alan: Shawn sent some comments that she doesn't mind
<achuter> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080702/
Alan: correcting the names at the
top of the document, Liam made CSS to make the navigation look
better
... put the sub-heading with the overview to make it clearer to
identfiy the document
... long list of BP that has not been checked which I don't
remember the page they belong to
... so it's more complete
... there was a confusion about the together document so that
now stayed in
... is there any reservation, please say so
Francois: I think the document is
fine
... trying to put the publication today and it might be delayed
up until Monday
but otherwise we are on track and thank you for updating
Francois: Jo published a new version
but didn't publicise it
<francois> Updated BP 1.0 draft
there are very few changes since proposed recommendation
<francois> diff file between PR and this draft
Francois: there are few changes,
those agreed
... suggest you all look at the document, there will no be
resolution
if you really have some points to make it's now or never
Francois: two comments were made, one from me and one from Dom
<francois> first comment from Dom
<francois> second comment from fd
Francois: send comments
... we won't be able to resolve today
<francois> Jo's proposals
we can start to look at them though
basically the problem is again with the object processing
there is a bit inconsistency in the current document
we say that the checker has to donwload the ...
to check the object, regardless of the...
so it's a bit inconsistent, we don't count the objects as if we don't retrieve the object
it would be good
if everyone can look at the proposal
Jo: there are, as a result of the comments made by dom and Francois
there are clarifications
in the latest, I am proposing solution
as Man. pointed out
we don't check the absence of an object, in the case of a valid image
we should clarify that we are planning to do that
<francois> Ex: <object src="img.gif" type="image/gif" /> is currently valid, but there should be an alternative text, some fallback text
if the object doesn't type attribute then we need to issue a worning
According to Dom's tests
some borwsers do
scribe:
I think it is worth maintaining the object processing
it's worth worning that they will behave that way
<francois> Ex: <object src="huge_img_of_several_MBs.png" type="image/png"> is retrieved by some user agents
We say that if the type attribute is specified, then don't count in those resources
the reason is that
that thing won't be retrived
that was missing in the last draft
Mobile OK tests will change with this
it won't effect the pass or fail
overall result of the test will not change
<dom> +1 to change being non-substantive
we do need this to be right
I am gooing ahead and change this unless there are comments
Francois: any comments from
object procvessing experts?
... suggest that people take a close look at the proposed
update
we will then approve the document next week
Jo: Francois fault to raise this
issue
... text needs to be changed for this section
... I am hoping that it won't be substantive change
... failed docs will pass, hoping
... minor clarifiction of that, 406 means that server does not
have a compatible to serve
... there is an issue here that external resources would have
failed, 406
... if the URI does not resolve that will call a failure
... Kai, it would be good if you give your comments
kai: not sure what you mean
Jo: 406 means the server look at
the header, and it doesn't have a suitable resource
... as things stand if the document links to somewhere..
kai: we had already cleared
that
... what about the areas in the document that you link to
Jo: link resources is not
examined
... if links broken, that should not cause a failre
... we had such a long discussion
Kai: I agree that;s a good
soslution
... you can be responsible from where you link to
Jo: right, OK. Just to be
completely clear about this
... link resources for which the URI does not resolve will
result in failure
I believe we have discussed in the pass and agreed on this, but I just wanted to make sure that we agree
Kai: I believe the discussion cannot be brought to its full conclusion, but this seems reasonable.
Jo: I am happy with this, anybody has any views you should fail MobileOK for URLs not reolves then they need to speak now or keep quite forever
Francois: I agree with the
suggested changes
... If you have any comments, please tell them. Please review
the proposed changes and we will resolve next week
... any other comments on Mobile OK?
... Jo, can we get an updated draft next week
Jo: I will get it done tonigh, that will be draft 41
Francois: can we make a press release that we are working on enhanced best practices.
adam: I am definetely going to circulate on Monday
and a working draft next wed.
Adam: sorry for running late, I will circulate Monday
Francois: CTG, we are addressing
the remaining issues
... it would be easier if we get the workign draft
... Checker?
Miguel: we are making
progress
... we haven't finished the...
... we are finishing the object processing
... we hope to commit the latest changes tmorrow morning
and finish the scripts, and CSS stuff
Francois: depending on whether there is an objection to Jo's proposal to Object processing
Miguel: depending on your changes, we have to make some modifications to the code
Francois: it will just be adjustments, fine-tunning
Miguel: yes
Francois: thank you, any comment
on checker?
... MobileOK Pro?
Kai: no, there is no to do
<dom> ACTION-798?
<trackbot> ACTION-798 -- Kai Scheppe to work proposed changes into the mobileOK Pro document and then turn it over to the group -- due 2008-06-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/798
Francois: action to address the comments dicussed in F2F
Kai: I haven't looked at that
Francois: you have one or two actions
<francois> ACTION-798?
<trackbot> ACTION-798 -- Kai Scheppe to work proposed changes into the mobileOK Pro document and then turn it over to the group -- due 2008-06-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/798
Francois: to be precise these are
the actions
... thanks
<francois> Request for comments on Widgets
Francois: let's look at the review requested
the document is in last call, we were asked to review
Francois: action someone to take a look at the document
<dom> ["The Last Call period ends on 1 August 2008."]
Francois: an report to the document, is there a specialist?
Jo: I am not going to offer to do that
I have other fish to fry
someone could take an action to raise an issue
and then we would be able to discuss on the list
Francois: would like to do both: to raise an issue and have someone to look at it
Jo: it depends what the final
comments are
... I am happy to respond to that
... what I cannot promise to do review on time and then take it
further
any volunteer?
Francois: anybody?
Brian: I just gona say to make initial comments?
Francois: initial comments to trigger the discussion in the mailing list?
Bryan: not sure what is raising an issue?
Francois: we could do it right
now
... creating an issue now
Dom: I guess if we have someone owning an action, issue is unneeded, overhead
Pontus: I will be on vocation for 4 weeks
so may be you are not the right victom
Francois: Bryan, volunteer?
Bryan: I can send some comments to the list
<dom> ACTION: Bryan to send initial comments on Widget Requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-806 - Send initial comments on Widget Requirements [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-07-10].
Francois: initial comments would be good
Thanks Bryan
Francois: already some open actions are closed
<francois> Obsolete actions already closed
<dom> 12 pending review action items
Francois: some pending review actions
Jo: I just wanted to mention that we had a discussion about if we will have calls in August
Francois: you are both away in August
I was planning to create a poll and send the link to the list
Jo: why don't we do it with a poll
Francois: I will create a little
poll and see where that leads
... some calls won't happen in August
... pending actions?
<dom> ACTION-637?
<trackbot> ACTION-637 -- Alan Chuter to check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. -- due 2008-02-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/637
Action 637?
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
related to mobile OK pro, we are not stressing this ..
any objection to close this?
<dom> close ACTION-637
<trackbot> ACTION-637 Check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. closed
<dom> ACTION-677?
<trackbot> ACTION-677 -- Daniel Appelquist to create an issue to start bringing together potential test cases. -- due 2008-03-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/677
Action 677
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
<dom> ISSUE-268?
<trackbot> ISSUE-268 -- Test cases to illustrate mobile web application best practices -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/268
<dom> close ACTION-677
<trackbot> ACTION-677 Create an issue to start bringing together potential test cases. closed
Francois: to advertise the examples on caching dynamic, etc. I am a bit late on my action
<dom> ACTION-688?
<trackbot> ACTION-688 -- Charles McCathieNevile to check if Opera supports WBXML in and/or out of its WML support -- due 2008-03-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/688
Francois: has any impact mobile
Web best practices?
... Charles never replied, don't need anymore?
any comment?
Jo: what about leaving it open
Francois: how does that affect
mobile web application best practiices?
... Why?
Jo: he didn't do it, did he?
Dom: we put it in pending even
though it is not complete
... it is not relevant anymore
Bryan: I don't know about Opera's
support for .... But
... most common xml encoding is WBXML
... every device that has SMS suport, they do WBXML
... not sure about Opera, but it is a useful thing for MWBP
<dom> reopen ACTION-688
<trackbot> ACTION-688 Check if Opera supports WBXML in and/or out of its WML support re-opened
Francois: let's switch it to open
then
... WBXML can be used for compression...
<dom> ACTION-720?
<trackbot> ACTION-720 -- Daniel Appelquist to raise an issue on extending BPs on ADC and seamless Korean inputs -- due 2008-03-27 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/720
Francois: I don't think it is relevant anymore
any objection to close this action?
<dom> close ACTION-720
<trackbot> ACTION-720 Raise an issue on extending BPs on ADC and seamless Korean inputs closed
<dom> ACTION-724?
<trackbot> ACTION-724 -- Jo Rabin to raise discussion on list as to clarification of 2.5.2 "In cases where user preferences contradict server preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the user specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of the server." -- due 2008-04-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/724
<dom> ISSUE-242?
<trackbot> ISSUE-242 -- User expression of persistent and session preferences -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/242
Francois: you didn't do the action, but because of the issue, we can close the action, do you agree Jo?
<dom> close ACTION-724
<trackbot> ACTION-724 Raise discussion on list as to clarification of 2.5.2 "In cases where user preferences contradict server preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the user specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of the server." closed
Francois: close then
<dom> ACTION-748?
<trackbot> ACTION-748 -- François Daoust to check what we need to do about a conformance section in BP2 -- due 2008-05-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/748
Francois: any comment on this action?
<dom> close ACTION-748
<trackbot> ACTION-748 Check what we need to do about a conformance section in BP2 closed
Let's close the action
Bryan: we already moved those section from the doc anyway
<dom> ACTION-753?
<trackbot> ACTION-753 -- Jo Rabin to contact Tom Hume of Future Platforms about use of microformats -- due 2008-05-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/753
Francois: let's close the action
<dom> ISSUE-248?
<trackbot> ISSUE-248 -- Can mobile device browsers make use of microformats? -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/248
Dom: we don't have any action
open on Microformats
... need to assign action to somebody to explore microformats?
we need somebody to explore it, anybody?
Francois: we switch this to pending action this morning
<Kai> I think it is interesting, but I can't devote time to it
we can live it open but need somebody to work on it
Francois: mobile browsers support microformats, and can we suggest it in MWBP?
<dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: microformats are not deployed enough today in mobile browsers to deserve inclusion in MWABP (ISSUE-248)
to explore this and find out whether mobile browsers support microformats?
<jo> -1 to proposed resolution, I don't think we know
<dom> ok, sounds fair
<dom> let's leave it open then
Francois: we need further
investigation
... lets switch back to open
<dom> close ACTION-753
<trackbot> ACTION-753 Contact Tom Hume of Future Platforms about use of microformats closed
dom: we can close the action
<dom> ACTION-760?
<trackbot> ACTION-760 -- Jo Rabin to reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce -- due 2008-05-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/760
<dom> close ACTION-760
<trackbot> ACTION-760 Reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce closed
<dom> ACTION-773?
<trackbot> ACTION-773 -- Jo Rabin to send his concerns to the mailing-list re. ISSUE-242 -- due 2008-06-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/773
Jo: no response from Korean task force
<dom> close ACTION-773
<trackbot> ACTION-773 Send his concerns to the mailing-list re. ISSUE-242 closed
<dom> ACTION-775.
<dom> ACTION-775?
<trackbot> ACTION-775 -- Jo Rabin to enact the RESOLUTION on OBJECTS or script and other updates to the references required as a result of other documents being in new revision -- due 2008-06-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/775
Jo: I have done it three times
<dom> close ACTION-775
<trackbot> ACTION-775 Enact the RESOLUTION on OBJECTS or script and other updates to the references required as a result of other documents being in new revision closed
Francois: change it under human
<dom> ACTION-795?
<trackbot> ACTION-795 -- Daniel Appelquist to see if R&D colleagues from Spain can help for developing/maintening mobileOK checker -- due 2008-06-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/795
<dom> close ACTION-795
<trackbot> ACTION-795 See if R&D colleagues from Spain can help for developing/maintening mobileOK checker closed
<dom> ACTION-803?
<trackbot> ACTION-803 -- Kai Scheppe to get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil Archer -- due 2008-06-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/803
Francois: he did find some people, so close
Bryan: I would like to keep it open
<dom> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0063.html
<dom> ACTION-803: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0063.html
<trackbot> ACTION-803 Get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil Archer notes added
\Bryan\Kai
Kai: I haven't seen that, I would like to keep it open
<dom> reopen ACTION-803
<trackbot> ACTION-803 Get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil Archer re-opened
<dom> close ACTION-803
<trackbot> ACTION-803 Get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil Archer closed
Kai: close this and open an action to follow on that
Francois: that closes the pending review actions
<Kai> ACTION: Kai to check on discussion of mobileOK pertinent issues in POWDER [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-807 - Check on discussion of mobileOK pertinent issues in POWDER [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-07-10].
<francois> Overdue actions
there are some open actions, all take a look at these actions
<dom> (still 36 overdue actions)
Francois: goal is to have 5
minutes before the call and update the due that and put some
rationale
... some actions go back to March so it would be good if they
were addressed timely
I will remind you these actions
so if you can't please let me know that you cannot complete them
not talking about the overdue actions from ...
There is one for yeliz related to ARIA
Yeliz: I don't think I have a definete answer this
Francois: ARIA would be useful
but ...
... please have a look at the actions and update the listed
actions
... can we look at the open issues?
<francois> Open issues
Francois: there are very old
issues
... what do you think about the old actions?
Kai, we need to make sure that we don't forget anything
Francois: important point is that
issues don't have actions associated to them, they don't
trigger any discussion
... we have an issue for example that sms....
... can we come to conclusion on that?
<dom> ISSUE-253?
<trackbot> ISSUE-253 -- Binding to Incoming SMS from Script -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/253
Francois: talking about issue 253
Adam: I don't know any way of doing this
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to say I only raised the issue because no one else was willing to when it was raised in Seoul
Adam: there was a comment to me, at the document it says... specific ways of doing it, and may be we need to cut this and say we cannot do this
<jo> have nothing to add on this subject ...
Bryan: wrt generic web
applications...messaging is still under develeopments and
Widget dev. is ...
... is there a way to arbitrarily bind an application to an
incoming SMS, other than specific device API
... quite well supported....but from a generic, W3C
perspective, may be quite early
<jo> +1 to closing issue
Francois: it already says push
Adam: there is no standard way of
doing it
... I am happy to close this issue
Francois: there are 3 other issues, marked as pending
<francois> ISSUE-239?
<trackbot> ISSUE-239 -- We still have not found a suitable home for the Techniques. -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/239
Francois: dom checked the w3C copyright, and need to move the techniques to anywhere else
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG is not responsible for transferring the techniques any longer. Close ISSUE-239.
<Kai> +1 to closing it
and suggest that it is not the problem of the working group
Jo: I guess this means that the
techniques are forever...
... before closing this
Francois: techniques is still opened
Jo: I think we need an issue that the whole thing will be shut down
<Kai> We should shut it down properly.
Jo: I prefer if we kill it
... I mean turn it off, sorry guys it's gone
<francois> Techniques Wiki
Francois: it's already done, it's no longer maintained
Jo: it is possible that it contains info. inaccurate
<Kai> q
Jo: can we have it disappeared
Francois: I am not sure about the doc.
<hgerlach> heiko has to leave- sorry, bye
Kai: I agree with Jo, it has to go, nobody is maintining and can be embarrassing
Francois: we like to have consistency
Kai: that's what jo suggested
<jo> ACTION: daoust to arrange the funeral of Techniques [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-808 - Arrange the funeral of Techniques [on François Daoust - due 2008-07-10].
<francois> ISSUE-249?
<trackbot> ISSUE-249 -- Should we include information use of DCCI in BP2? -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/249
Francois: last issue?
<francois> discussion during Sophia's F2F
Francois: we had a discussion in F2F meeting
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: DCCI is not implemented yet. We should not create any dependency on it. Don't mention DCCI in this version of MWABP.
<jo> +1
Francois: don't create dependency on something that has not been implemented yet
<Pontus2> +1
Francois: any objection on that?
<aconnors> +1
RESOLUTION: DCCI is not implemented yet. We should not create any dependency on it. Don't mention DCCI in this version of MWABP.
<francois> ISSUE-252?
<trackbot> ISSUE-252 -- Currency of Scope Document -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/252
Francois: mostly already done
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: remove reference to scope of BP1 from BP2
Francois: Adam, do you remember this?
Adam: I think we talked about this at the F2F
<jo> +1
<aconnors> +1
Francois: any objection
RESOLUTION: remove reference to scope of BP1 from BP2
Francois: that's all the issue I wanted to address
<jo> [thanks Francois for chairing which was a great help :-)]
Francois: thanks for attending, we will discuss the future of the mobile Ok tests
<jsmanrique> see you