See also: IRC log
Jo: First day on CT, broke back
of LC comments. Jo is still integrating comments.
... day 2 decided there would be no machine readable
MobileOK...
... heard to Korean MobileOK.
... discussed MWABP + various reports on Powder / DDR / and
mobile Web for Social Development.
Jo: 11 responses so far, need some more responses.
<francois> Questionnaire on next F2F in Seoul
<dom> Responses to survey on going to Seoul for next F2F
Jo: open for another week or so.
francois: can Adam come in fact (indicated he might not be able to).
Adam: I will try my very best. Probably will make it.
<dom> probably worth sending a reminder?
Jo: Can everyone please answer the questionnaire. Francois will send a reminder.
Jo: Mobile okay has gone to PR !
<francois> Proposed Rec of mobileOK Basic Tests
francois: To get to Rec we call to AC representatives, final date for comments is 1st Dec.
<dom> Please ask your AC Rep to send a review
francois: depending on support we
receive we can then hopefully move forward to
Recommendation.
... encourage us to pass news to AC Rep or fill our the form is
you are the AC Rep for your organization.
<dom> AC Review form for mobileOK Basic
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to mention member testimonials, press release
dom: We are also going to have a
press release and publish member testimonials.
... If you want to have your organization associated with the
press release you should start working on getting a testimonial
together.
Yeliz: Not much change right now.
francois: Yeliz's document will
be published as final work. Alan's published as updated working
draft. At which point we will review.
... Will then move to publish document as a Working Group
Note.
Jo: I have published the draft
but not updated the link...
... Hopefully we'll have the licence etc done before MobileOK
goes to rec.
francois: Reviewed last call comments and Jo is updating draft.
<dom> Dom's proposed rewrite for BP 1.5
<dom> ACTION-872?
<trackbot> ACTION-872 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to work on reformulating 4 "tests" of BP 1.5 -- due 2008-10-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/872
Jo: Dom has done his action, action on everyone else to respond.
Kai: Thank you to Dom for reworking the document. Believe this is pretty tight. Request to the group for feedback so Kai can continue with that format.
Adam: Have folding in comments from the F2F and will share early next week.
Jo: Action-875 should have been on the agenda. Jeff to comment on the ETSI document.
<jo> Jeff's comments on ETSI doc
jeffs: Guidelines for generic UI
elements for 3G terminals... Have sent a review email to the
list.
... there are some areas where we could do work on our stuff in
response, but want to get some feedback from the group before
digging much deeper.
... Main document is "pretty big"... Overview document (the one
under review) is only a few pages long.
<jeffs> ETSI DEG 202 972 V 0.30 (2008-06-02)
<brucel> apologies to all for being late; absorbed in a project and just noticed time
Jo: Main document is 44 pages...
Two things we could do: 1) Provide feedback. 2) Use material to
reinforce documents.
... We should restrict feedback to "we are concerned with point
XXX" but don't want to get in the position of contributing
text.
jeffs: Agreed.
jo: In terms of what we use ourselves, the question is what document is this most pertinent to.
jeffs: The only part I disagree with is 5.4 Specialised User Interfaces...
<francois> "In the field of portable devices, it is not realistic to assume a standardization process similar to that which defined the PC user interface."
<jeffs> "In the field of portable devices, it is not realistic to assume a standardization process similar to that which defined the PC user interface."
<jeffs> from in 5.4 Specialized user interfaces of ETSI DEG 202 972 V 0.30 (2008-06-02)
jo: In summary -- we need to read Jeff's review and form a collective opinion. We will put this on the agenda for next time.
<jo> mobileOK Korea proposed microformat
<jo> Jonathan's proposal
jo: I think what Jonathan is saying here that getting browsers to understand Powder is quite hard, but it would be easier in this microformat.
PhilA: I have drafted a response which I have sent to powder WG members first.
<brucel> Can I point out that the microformat has an accessibility mistake when it claims "Human vs. ISO8601 dates problem solved"
PhilA: What Jonathan has done has
create a microformat based on Powder work.
... one of the differences is that the description is separate
to the document it describes.
... Jonathan's proposal would put a lot of extra bytes into the
XHTML document.
<JonathanJ> I agree that point.
PhilA: so Phil's questions
whether this is a question worth paying...
... but on the otherhand, Jonathan's point that microformats
are well supported is valid.
<jeffs> seems to me there might be a way to point to the meta-data rather than to embed it... is there a reasonable and small-byte-count approach to that??
PhilA: depends what you are
trying to do. No problem per se with making a microformat based
on Powder.
... if you lose the ability to attribute who is making the
claim that is a core part of POWDER that would be lost.
Phil will be posting his comments to the list soon.
<JonathanJ> I think microformat can made in simplest way.
jeffs: What we're talking about is metadata... The objections about large byte count are reasonable, so was wondering if there was a reasonable mechanism for microformat to point to metadata file?
Phil: Three ways this is supported: 1. LINK REL; 2. HTTP LINK; 3. RDF annotation.
<jo> (Phil discusses <link rel="describedBy">)
<JonathanJ> I think my propose will be one of additional method for trustmark.
<dom> RDFa is not compatible with XHTML basic
jo: Pointing out that MobileOK requires valid XHTML1.1, RDFa might not qualify. Would need to ensure that a microformat was valid XHTML
<dom> but most microformats can be used in XHTML Basic
<JonathanJ> OK
<jo> summary for Jonathan: Phil will post to list under ISSUE-283 a more extensive version of his comments and we can discuss on list, OK?
<PhilA> presumably link is OK in XHTML Basic?
<jo> yes, Phil
<PhilA> and HTTP Link is independent of any format
<JonathanJ> OK. If it possible, I will try to find more reasonable format.
<JonathanJ> please, send me what is the problem. I need comments. :)