See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 December 2008
caja
<Adam> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20081210
<scribe> Scribe: Dan
<scribe> ScribeNick: DKA
DKA: We are trying to put together a public draft before the 18th.
Adam: As the doc stands, I've got
ed notes where I have work to do.
... I'll send out a new draft on Monday. That will be the draft
where we say "please read this so we can take a resolution on
Thursday."
... a couple of open questions.
... in Section 1.3, we discussed adding an extra section that
calls out device device capabilities/information that you
need.
... Dan you suggested a preamble. Someone else suggested
3.1.6...
... to recap, we have a section that says what the scope is,
that these BPs rely on some knowledge of the device...
Brian: Overall at this high
level, the goal is to make clear what delivery context
is.
... to introduce the knowledge of delivery context.
Dan: Yes and then the specific data points (knowledge you need to have) could be put into an appendix.
Adam: OK.
ack
Adam: Not sure whether we came to
a conclusion on section 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 -
... Dan you raised a concern that recommending server-side
capability detection could be controversial.
... differentiating between capabilities and properties...
Bryan: it's really properties in
both cases...
... would like to hear more from Dan about server-side
capability detection.
Dan: Don't think it's an issue.
Adam: would be good to pin down
wording.
... I think you've got 2 BPs ... need to be aligned...
Bryan: It's the device that knows its current state primarily. There are unspecified means to get device state from the network. The most we can say is that on the network side you can collect information about the device's static capabilities.
Adam: As opposed to dynamic capabilities - information about dynamic state.
Bryan: In a year or 2 when DDrs are widely available and include dynamic info as well then people can begin to [use this information...]
Dan: Any other issues?
Adam: SVG best practices?
... I transcribed what Abel proposed - Abel's proposals seem to
have a lot of overlap with general BPs. I've eliminated some of
these from Abel's draft.
... it's come down to 3 BPs. I don't know enough about SVG to
feel strongly about them. We need to iterate a bit more on
these.
Dan: I can raise that as an issue on the next hypertext coordination working group call.
Adam: The rest is just extra editorial changes I haven't yet done - so open to feedback.
Bryan: in general the latest
draft looks good - we're close to a last call.
... in general we might want to expand where you have telephone
numbers clickable you might want to expand that to commonly
used interaction mechanisms (e.g. email addresses, etc...)
Adam: Makes sense...
Dan: Although telephone numbers are specific to the mobile context due to people using the mobile web on phones...
<Sangwhan_Moon> WTAI?
Bryan: If we wanted to say
anything more generically we could say to make addresses
actionable.
... wrt WTAI, yes in general we can say that standardized URI
schemes like WTAI could be used...
<Sangwhan_Moon> Okay, understood.
Dan: Yes but I think we should
have a separate BP about use of tel:
... Suggest adding an editorial note.
Adam: cool.
... there is a new section on terminology - take a look at that
(1.5) and see if you agree with the wording there.
Ok - suggest we close the call then.
Dan: We need to celebrate our success as well with the publication of MobileOK as a Rec. !!
All: YAY!