See also: IRC log
<dstorey> I'm 3/4s reading...trying to get wikipedia to fix a broken handheld stylesheet
<dom> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Sep/0000.html
<dom> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/37584/discrepancies
dom: Reminders went out over the
weekend, if you have not been nominated by 13 Sept you will be
kicked out of the working group
... so those in the link above need to ping their ac reps
dka: how many outstanding?
dom: before re-chartering we had 33 member orgs, but now we only have 11, so we have 22 missing
dka: ugh
dom: in a certain number of cases this is for people that have not been active - anyway I expect this will sort itself out
dka: make sure you don't miss out on member benefits!
<jeffs> suggestion for F2F: Mobile Web for Social Development Interest Group is nowup and running (I am member), & F2F happening at TPAC... do we want to see if there are mutually supportive things can be done??
dka: I sent a link to a "list of
goals" in the agenda
... I would just like to run through those goals and see what
people think and have other to contribute
... jo and I thought that we wanted to have a substantial
discussion on CT and move to second last call
... ref accessibility we want to have everything done and
dusted, and possibly a joint session with EOWG
... ref BP2 we want to have discussion leading to a last
call
... that is a bit tentative but we do need to move along and I
want to make this the focus of the meeting
... for BP 1.5 we need to move this to a draft
... we want to hear from the the Korean Task force and
understand the Gap Analysis document that they are working on,
but not sure what Korean plans are for attending
<dom> MWBP registrants at TPAC
dka: we should have a POWDER presentation from Phil
<dom> [Jonathan Jeon and Kangchan Lee will be there]
dka: and a joint session with EO,
as discussed, and with the Webapps people on Widgets - we need
to establish that a mobile widget needs to be conformant with
BP (2.0)
... so we need an agreement on how we can reference their work
and/or vice-versa
<jeffs> suggestion for F2F: Mobile Web for Social Development Interest Group is now up and running (I am member), & F2F happening at TPAC... do we want to see if there are mutually supportive things can be done??
dka: and the other thing is having a BP Dinner on Monday night
dom: may be we need a session
with the TAG ref ISSUE-222
... could spend time on MobileOK Scheme, but a lesser goal than
the others
<jeffs> suggestion for F2F: Mobile Web for Social Development Interest Group is now up and running (I am member), & F2F happening at TPAC... do we want to see if there are mutually supportive things can be done??
<jeffs> Stephane Boyera stephane@w3.org is MW4D contact
dka: right jeffs, maybe we could have a presentation from Stephane?
<jeffs> would you like to contact steph? or me?
dom: yes makes sense to see if there is useful input, and I will ask him
<dom> ACTION: Dom to contact Stéphane to see if he is interested in presenting MW4D to BPWG at TPAC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-835 - Contact Stéphane to see if he is interested in presenting MW4D to BPWG at TPAC [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2008-09-11].
jo: nothing further to add
dka: so we'll come back with a concrete agenda, and Dom, any suggestions for a venue for Monday night?
<dom> ACTION: Dom to look into a restaurant for Monday night at TPAC - due 2008-10-01 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-836 - look into a restaurant for Monday night at TPAC [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2008-10-01].
dka: but contrary to Jo's wishes we might have to go back to the pizza place at Mandelieu and it is where we first made the Wikipedia entry onMobile Web (from a mobile phone)
jo: had meeting this week and are starting to address lc comments
miguel: No specific news from us
dka: how does it feel for you Kai?
kai: we are waiting for feedback
from the group
... as I mentioned last time
<Kai> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080731
dka: shall we discuss this a bit more than we did last time, like what changes have gone in since last f2f
kai: no that would be futile, people just need to read it,
dom: I did look at the format and
it looks OK, might need minor tweaks to make pubrules
compliant
... the real work is in turning it into the addendum rather
than mobileOK pro as it is today
dka: so what is that work then
<Kai> How about mobileOK Basic Tests Addendum?
dka: right now it looks more like
an addendum to the Basic Tests and I am struggling with what
we'd need to do to turn it into the addendum we need
... don't we need an awful lot more text and explanatory
verbiage (sic)
kai: I think it is an addendum to
the test doc
... we even have a preface saying that these are the human
testable bits
<dom> "Testing Mobile Web Best Practices"?
kai: we could do these tests as an addendum, and we could add "why will you want to do this"
<jeffs> agree, from "Abstract": "This document outlines a set of tests requiring human evaluation"
kai: that is the only thing that is really needed to make that happen
<jeffs> seems to me useful to make addendum to tests as it is the part that requires human intervention
jo: well we did say that it would be re-purposed as an addendum to BP 1 but it would probably be just as useful if we said its an addendum to mobileOK and less work
dka: well, yes, that's what I am saying
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to say we need someone to lead the work
<Kai> how about "mobileOK Basic Tests - with human intervention"
<jeffs> +1
dom: I think that as a title we
should have testing mobile web best practices
... the scope is very different to mobileOK
... not sure if Kai is available to do this
... at the moment we don't have anyone responsible so I don't
see it moving forward
dka: what?
dom: what I said is that we need an editor who makes a proposal for how to move forward
dka: that is Kai surely?
dom: well Kai said he's done but if he is able to move it forward?
dka: kai suggested some text so why don't we do that and move forward
kai: I can make the changes but I
have been beating my head on a brick wall and it won't move
forward without group input
... I can provide text for the new context but I need guidance
on what to do
... need directed feedback and I will implement that
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding BP 1.5 - new document title is "Additional Tests for Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0".
<jeffs> suggestion: add to title "Requiring Human Intervention"??
dom: I can understand your
frustration at the lack of feedback ... from my perspective the
current draft is a long way from what we discussed in June,
which is an addendum discussing further testing on BP
... I'd expect a bit more proposals on the new title and a bit
more re-organisation
kai: the document was completely re-worked as a result of your feedback
<dom> [The sections "Note to BPWG:" need to disappear]
kai: made lots of suggestions but
we need to decide on it
... no decisions made at Sophia on what I was supposed to do, I
will do the work if I am told what to do
<jeffs> want me to read through this weekend and email suggestions for text-content?? (not another issue pls <grin/>)
dom: one of the things I would have expected is an ISSUE on the new title and we need to have a discussion on it - independent of review
kai: that seems less important to me than discussion of the content
<jeffs> Abstract seems to establish scope: "This document outlines a set of tests requiring human evaluation"... am I wrong?
<Kai> ISSUE: What is the new name of document, currently called "mobileOK Pro Tests Version 1", which is supposed to be an addendum to the Best Practices document, to be?
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-272 - What is the new name of document, currently called \"mobileOK Pro Tests Version 1\", which is supposed to be an addendum to the Best Practices document, to be? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/272/edit .
<jeffs> given what the abstract says, how about establishing "human intervention req'd" as the scope??
<Kai> ISSUE: Is the mobileOK Pro Tests document supposed to be an addendum to the Best Practices document or to the Basic Tests document?
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-273 - Is the mobileOK Pro Tests document supposed to be an addendum to the Best Practices document or to the Basic Tests document? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/273/edit .
jo: I think that before we do anything else we need to make sure that we have precised its purpose and that we make sure we are clear whether we are doing "a useful clarifications on BP 1.0" or a "here are some handy tests" the former is what I thought we agreed in Sophia
<Kai> ISSUE: Which texts are missing from the addendum that are needed to turn it into an addendum?
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-274 - Which texts are missing from the addendum that are needed to turn it into an addendum? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/274/edit .
dka: think that the bits on "what's additional" needs to be separated from "what to test"
<jeffs> given what the abstract says, how about establishing "human intervention req'd" as the scope??
dka: material that is clarification of BP 1.0 can be pulled out into a separate section, if we did that it would make it a lot more coherent
kai: we set out to fill the gaps and provide human tests,
dka: I am not referring to human
vs computer
... in BP 1.0 there are sections that say "what to test"
... we don't need to emphasize the human vs, machine tests
achuter: if this is an addendum to the best practices then ... [sorry missed it]
<achuter> the tests would cover the BP 1.0 and the addendum
<Kai> achuter: then the basic tests will be the tests and the addendum?
dka: anything in BP 1.5 that is not a test can be pulled out as a clarification on BP 1.0 - everything else can remain as a set of additional tests which can be considered as addenda to the "how to test it" bit in BP 1.0
kai: there are some sections in
there - we tried to provide bracketing so that people running
different tests would come up with the same answers - like how
many links on the same page - that can certainly be pulled out
as additional information
... so the test bit is sometimes quite intuitive and clear and
I am not sure it helps to pull that out,
... notes to bp, limitations of the tests, interpretation of
the best practices, differences to mobileOK basic tests,
procedures and examples, not sure if this is useful as every bp
is covered comprehensively
jo: need to move on
... suggest first step is to make sure we agree with content,
then decide whether to move it around
dka: need some actions, need specific things to make sure people review
<dom> [well, it's not exactly how to apply the BP to improve their content, but how to check whether they indeed apply the BP, isn't it?]
kai: think we just need to add some explanatory text that heps people understand that this will help them make better content
dka: if we get no feedback by next week we take a resolution to publish as a draft
kai: I will take an action to write explanatory text and see how we like it
dka: adam is not on call, bryan, any comment on status
<Kai> ACTION: Kai to provide explanatory text for the addendum which will put the document (mobileOK Pro Tests 1) in the correct context and explain to the audience that it is intended to aid content authors in creating still better content. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-837 - Provide explanatory text for the addendum which will put the document (mobileOK Pro Tests 1) in the correct context and explain to the audience that it is intended to aid content authors in creating still better content. [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-09-11].
bryan: current draft has a number of areas where further input is requested - not clear what adn why we are looking for some of the feedback
<dom> MWABP
bryan: been reviewing and there
are some things I'd like to put back from what was in earlier
drafts
... think that some of the input was already there but has been
removed
... useful doc and developing well, but I'd like to see it get
back to a degree of detail and contextual rationale in the the
interests of being terse but I don't know that serves the
reader or the developers who will read it
dka: partly as a result of your not being at last F2F, perhaps there can be an editorial workshop between now and next F2F
bryan: yes an editorial conference call would be useful (note that I will not be in Cannes)
dka: maybe we can do a video link?
bryan: [c is for] conference call, that's good enough for me
dka: I will take an action to
organise an editorial meeting
... yada yada I am so busy, um,
... week after next
bryan: we need to consider also the response from Webapps to our contribution on Widget requirements and so we may need to fill that gap in our document
dka: we need to nail down where
the gap is between what they are doing and what is needed
... think they are looking at mobile first
bryan: specifically they are not
addressing capability negotiation and disclosure - we did a
bunch of stuff in DDWG which is being ignored
... basically they are ignoring the need for content adaptation
technologies
<dom> [I think the WebApps WG is focusing on *packaging* of Widgets, not any deeper than that at this time]
bryan: which is fine so long as
you are looking at closed client server like applications,
rather than open web
... so either we need to deal with it or we need to convince
them that they need to put it into their requirements
<dom> [well, maybe not...]
dka: we need to make the input
bryan: we did so and it was rejected
dka: well maybe we need to get back to them
jo: we did discuss this last week, we decided at that point that we had made our contribution and that we had probably done enough
dka: well if bryan takes an action, then maybe we would have more to discuss with them
<scribe> ACTION: Bryan to summarise points to take back to the WebApps group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-838 - Summarise points to take back to the WebApps group [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-09-11].
<scribe> ACTION: Dan to arrange BP 2.0 editorial meeting to fit in with his hectic globe trotting schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-839 - Arrange BP 2.0 editorial meeting to fit in with his hectic globe trotting schedule [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-09-11].
bryan: I kind of agree with Jo that the best way to address this might be for us just to add the material to our stuff
dka: I am a bit worried that we don't really want to dive to deeply into widget specific stuff
achuter: the mapping document has been dragging on for a long time and been through lots of versions - feedback has finished so there is not much else to do
achuter: I'd like someone to check it, but have checked it myself
achuter: I think we can sign it
off as there not being anything else we can do, needs more work
on the WCAG side, but the section references may change and may
need review on publication of WCAG 2.0
... there is also a question about what to do about the
document referring to what to do if you want to do WCAG 2 and
BP - whether to leave it as it or to make an empty document
dka: don't we need another draft before we put it into limbo
achuter: no major changes some minor stuff
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to talk about mobileOK
dom: no comments
... both groups just need to publish the documents as a group
note. that's all
achuter: just need to agree to
resolve the "doing both" issue
... but think it is stable as is
<dom> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Sep/0004.html
dka: we'll try to take that resolution next week
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to talk about mobileOK
dom: late last call comment from
WSC on mobileOK which we need to respond to and integrate into
the document
... also next step for mobileOK basic is to wait to complete
implementation report for Google to become mobileOK basic
conformant.
... so should we revisit the decision to wait or should we go
ahead
dka: think it would be better to have google quoted
dom: to clarify fd has been working with them, and I think we should time-box waiting any longer
dka: let's wait for fd to get back and make a decision next week once he has feedback
<dom> ACTION: Dom to work with francois on getting a schedule on getting google.com mobileOK basic [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-840 - Work with francois on getting a schedule on getting google.com mobileOK basic [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2008-09-11].
<dom> comment https in mobileOK from WSC WG
<dom> [yoohoo, another editors version of mobileOK coming!]
jo: don't have objection to the WSC wording which I agree is more accurate
<scribe> ACTION: JO to review WSC comment and propose new wording [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-841 - Review WSC comment and propose new wording [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-09-11].