See also: IRC log
Jo: Judging from correspondence we are close to a conclusion.
Miguel: The checker code is
updated to the latest ...
... With this update we have closed all the critical bugs -
some enhancements still open - but this doesn't mean the
checker is finished
... it just means we've moved to the testing stage.
Jo: to be clear, you're saying we have a complete set of test cases for everything we know about for all the outcomes of mobileOk as of draft 44 and all test cases pass?
Miguel: not exactly. We're
finished coding and now we're going to do the tests.
... Now we are going to review the test suite, make sure that
all new tests are covered in the tests suite...
Jo: Thanks for clarification. How long will the process take?
Miguel: We could split testing
into 2 categories.
... Within 2 weeks are so we could review all the test suite
and make sure it corresponds to the latest draft.
... Users in general could try this new version that
corresponds to the last call of the [mobileok] document.
Jo: that sounds good -- any resolutions possible?
<francois> q
Jo: We've taken a resolution that
the checker TF should (once it's achieved conditions set out in
the f2f that the test coverage is complete and successfully
passed) that you can declare it's done. As far as I'm
considered MobileOK basic tests is done at vers. 44.
... there shouldn't be any more changes to MobileOK basic
tests. So in 2 weeks tests should be up to date.
... Do you want to user testing before you declare release 1.0
or are you happy to declare it done once the test coverage is
passed?
... At what point do we say "it's release 1.0"? How much user
testing do you want to put this through before we declare
release 1.0?
Miguel: the plan would be to launch a new Beta with the current code and start a review process at coding level from abel, miguel, francois and perform user testing. If all is as we expect then by July 22 there will be a release [for user testing].
Francois: there are actually 3 levels of testing - the first is at the code level (the test suite) what the task force is working on; the second level is participants of BP group doing tests - treating checker as a black box; the third is the user level - public testing - for this we will update the validator at w3.org - will allow us to use the logs. Goal is to have release 1.0 at July 22 - when the user testing will begin - public release.
Jo: You will put a call out to the group to tell them to test the cheker.
Francois: yes.
Jo: We look forward to that.
Francois: making progress on the remaining issue - covered the possible arguments for the remaining diverging points. Now about to release a new draft. I'd say we're in good shape.
Jo: I don't think there's much in
the updated draft - I've inserted a note on caching. People
will have to read through that text. The document is
substantially new. A diff will not be useful - needs to be
re-read in its entirety.
... Will be available in the next couple of days.
... Any questions.
[no questions]
[no update - no reps from Korea]
Jo: Congratulations to Alan and Yeliz for getting this document out with our EOWG friends. Any update?
<francois> Second WD of the Accessibility document
Yeliz: It would be good to discuss the timeframe. Can we do that next week? Best thing to do now would be to review the content of the 4 documents - read the content in detail.
Jo: Ok - that makes sense - to have a focused session on it. Not sure looking at the contents in detail would be best but let's take it offline with Yeliz, Alan, Francois, Dan and myself.
DKA: Any additional feedback from EO we need to discuss?
Yeliz: no nothing from EO group we need to consider.
Jo: I've looked at it. They look a great deal improved. They're a lot clearer.
DKA: I've reviewed it - it looks good to me but I'm not as familiar with the WCAG checkpoints as some.
Yeliz: yes - those who are familiar with both documents need to review.
Jo: Let's try to think about how we can get review in an offline way.
Yeliz: EO working group is planning to organize some focussed sessions for these documents but the date hasn't been arranged yet.
Jo: Let's publicize that - let's try to have some representations from BPWG in those sessions.
Yeliz: I'll let you know.
Jo: Thanks, Yeliz.
DKA: Will anything be happening at the TPAC?
Jo: Hopefully we will be done with these by now.
Francois: You just mentioned last call for these document but if you're going to publish a working note then a LC won't be needed. We can just issue a note when we want to.
DKA: Think they need to be normative. KIDDIN!
[har har]
Jo: Don't know if we can make any progress without Adam on the call. Any comments from anyone?
Francois: no comment on the content - think it's going in the right direction. Good to publish it as a FPWD. But for the transition of the BP 1.0 to Rec we'd like to be able to tell the story that we're working on an enhanced BP - so it would be good to publish BP 2.0 at the same time. So strongly support a resolution as FPWD with minimum number of changes.
DKA: I support putting a FPWD out there pending editorial review.
Jo: Adam has said he has a
further version available. I'm not sure that in the absense of
seeing that a resolution is meaningful. Also I have
pedantic^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h spelling and grammar fixes I'd like to
see implemented.
... [unminuitable]
... we get the next draft from adam - we then say we want to
take a resolution on next week's call. Anyone who's got any
objections needs to state them.
Jeff: I can help with editorial if needed.
Jo: Thanks, Jeff.
DKA: So that meet our need with regard to the press release?
Jo: That's the missing piece - we're unclear as to when the BP1 press release is going to be made.
Francois: It won't happen next
week -- we're targetting July the 22nd.
... there are a number of things happening at the same
time.
Jo: We're ont he 10th - by the 17th we should be able to make a resolution to go to FPWD which should be in time [just].
Francois: comment on this document- about the title of the best practices. Here we have statements as headings which is different from bp1. I think it's better [the way bp2 is].
Jo: My view, Jeff, is that in fact the section structure is orthoganal to the bp structure. Right at the moment we have 1 statement per section - but it's up to the editors to decide if that makes sense.
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: It's all good.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG is done with this doc and would like the
<jo> Team to progress to PR (please)
<francois> +1
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves to request MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 and would like the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation.
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 draft 44 is the final and definitive version of the document and would like the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation.
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 draft 44 is the final and definitive version of the document and, having received no substantive comments on the 2nd last call of the document, would like the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation.
<jeffs> +1
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 draft 44 is the final and definitive version of the document and, having received no substantive comments on the 4th last call of the document and made no subtantive changes since this time, would like the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation.
<jo> +1
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 draft 44 is the final and definitive version of the document and, having received no substantive comments on the 4th last call of the document and made no subtantive changes since this time, would like the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation. Amen.
<francois> +1
<jeffs> +1
+1
+44
RESOLUTION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 draft 44 is the final and definitive version of the document and, having received no substantive comments on the 4th last call of the document and made no subtantive changes since this time, would like the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation.
[hurrah!]
Francois: to prepare the PR - we need to prepare some official responses to the comments.
Jo: We should do that but there was one official comment and that was Dom's.
Francois: Mine was in the comment period but that was small.
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to prepare official responses to the two comments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-809 - Prepare official responses to the two comments. [on François Daoust - due 2008-07-17].
Jo: We need to choose 10 well known sites - but I think we have enough on that.
Francois: I think we do -
<francois> implementation report
We could add dev.mobi in there.
Francois: If someone else has a 10th site then that would be completely done. I think the tools are worth many sites.
Jo: Done on that then?
Jo: AFAIK no progress, right?
Jo: No progress.
Jo: We have a poll on whether we should meetings through the summer. Please answer the poll - and we will take a resolutuion next week on which meetings we will hold in the summer [largely August] if any.
<jeffs> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/
<jo> Oct F2F Poll
Jo: Please also answer the TPAC poll .
Jo: Francois has done a good standing run - those on the call have good standing. We need to keep the group vibrant and enjoyable. [We are WATCHING YOU.]
Francois: We are about to re-create the group - everyone will rejoin the group in August. As far as good standing rules go we will re-set all the counters.
<jeffs> BRB
<jo> Pending Review
<francois> ACTION-665?
<trackbot> ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665
ACTION-665
Jo: ATION-786
<jo> ACTION-786?
<trackbot> ACTION-786 -- Jo Rabin to draft wording for an appendix that identifies the aggregators and operator roles that are different in the mobile ecosystem. -- due 2008-06-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/786
Jo: Don't think this holds up publication of first WD. Suggest we keep this in pending review.
<jo> ACTION-800?
<trackbot> ACTION-800 -- Jo Rabin to remove references to mobileOK Pro in the mobileOK Basic Tests Document -- due 2008-06-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/800
Jo: Suggest we close.
[no objections]
Jo: Closed.
<jeffs> I'm back
ACTION-665?
<trackbot> ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665
<jo> ACTION-665?
<trackbot> ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665
Jeff: no nothing's happened. I
can email Alan about it.
... Let's try to kill it off next week.
Jo: Remaining onese on CT guidelines - we'll deal with them on CT call.
Francois: yes.
Jo: Shall we call it a day?
<jeffs> yes
Francois: On the ongoing call for review of xHTML basic 1.1 and xhtml modu... - they are about to move to Rec. The more support they get from A.C. members the better. Please reply to these calls for review.
Jo: Also - We have been asked to review the widget requirements spec.
<francois> Call for review for XHTML Modularization: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xhtmlmod11-2008/
<francois> Call for review for XHTML Basic 1.1: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xhtmlbasic2008/
Jo: ETSI liaison.
DKA: Yes - we haven't sent that along to the group yet.
Jo: Let's make a resolution next week.
DKA: I will circulate the material (an email) to the member list for working group review.
<jo> ACTION: Dan to circulate ETSI liaison request to member list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-810 - Circulate ETSI liaison request to member list [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-07-17].
<francois> ACTION-806?
<trackbot> ACTION-806 -- Bryan Sullivan to send initial comments on Widget Requirements -- due 2008-07-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/806
Jo: Let's put widget spec on the agendum for next week.
DKA: I will chair next week and will chase.
Jo: AOB?
... We close.
<yeliz> bye
Bye!
<abel> bye
<jeffs> bye