06:20:39 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 06:20:39 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/03-bpwg-irc 06:20:44 Zakim has joined #bpwg 06:42:36 jsmanrique has joined #bpwg 06:57:49 Meeting: Editorial meeting on the Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices 07:01:43 achuter has joined #bpwg 07:01:53 DKA has joined #bpwg 07:02:05 zakim, what's the code? 07:02:05 sorry, DKA, I don't know what conference this is 07:02:08 :) 07:02:12 zakim, room for 7? 07:02:14 ok, francois; conference Team_(bpwg)07:02Z scheduled with code 26632 (CONF2) for 60 minutes until 0802Z 07:02:26 kenneth, what's the frequency? 07:03:24 Team_(bpwg)07:02Z has now started 07:03:30 +DKA 07:04:35 +francois 07:10:42 Kai has joined #bpwg 07:10:55 zakim,code 07:10:55 I don't understand 'code', Kai 07:11:01 zakim, code? 07:11:01 the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Kai 07:11:31 +Kai_Dietrich 07:12:34 http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&pli=1 07:13:52 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-addendum-feedback/results 07:15:14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Apr/0002.html 07:16:33 + +03491121aaaa 07:16:40 Scribe: francois 07:16:46 Kai: I went through my actions yesterday, mostly done. I suggest people have a look at yellow parts in the doc. 07:16:48 zakim, ++034 is me 07:16:48 sorry, achuter, I do not recognize a party named '++034' 07:16:57 DKA: suggest we go through the actions. 07:17:09 zakim, ++03491121aaaa is me 07:17:09 sorry, achuter, I do not recognize a party named '++03491121aaaa' 07:17:23 ACTION-936? 07:17:23 ACTION-936 -- Kai Scheppe to re-write 1.2 in a more happy clappy way -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:17:23 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/936 07:18:05 zakim, + +03491121aaaa is me 07:18:05 I don't understand '+ +03491121aaaa is me', achuter 07:18:10 zakim, +03491121aaaa is me 07:18:10 +achuter; got it 07:18:15 Kai: Section 1.2. Make it a happy clappy section. 07:18:19 zakim, mute me 07:18:19 achuter should now be muted 07:19:18 DKA: Wasn't there some sentiment that "may not provide as good a user experience" is a bit too negative? 07:20:20 francois: agree with Dan. 07:21:10 Kai: [going through the section] 07:21:56 DKA: what about "in order to provide an optimized user experience"? 07:22:34 Kai: maybe we could just strip the end of the sentence. 07:23:12 jo has joined #bpwg 07:23:49 ... done. There's a formatting issue, but aside from that, looks fine. 07:23:57 Jo, we are talking about 1.2 07:24:11 zakim, who is here? 07:24:11 On the phone I see DKA, francois, Kai_Dietrich, achuter (muted) 07:24:12 On IRC I see jo, Kai, DKA, achuter, jsmanrique, Zakim, RRSAgent, francois, trackbot 07:24:13 zakim, unmute me 07:24:13 achuter should no longer be muted 07:24:35 zakim, code? 07:24:35 the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 07:24:37 achuter1@gmail.com 07:24:55 Present: achuter, DKA, jo, jsmanrique, Kai, francois. 07:25:04 s/achuter1@gmail.com/xxxxxxxxx 07:25:09 +josema 07:25:43 + +03531522aabb 07:25:48 zakim, aabb is me 07:25:48 +jo; got it 07:25:55 zakim, mute me 07:25:55 jo should now be muted 07:25:55 http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&pli=1 07:26:02 jsmanrique@gmail.com 07:26:11 RRSAgent, make logs public 07:26:22 s/jsmanrique@gmail.com// 07:27:10 close action-936 07:27:11 ACTION-936 Re-write 1.2 in a more happy clappy way closed 07:27:23 ACTION-937? 07:27:23 ACTION-937 -- Kai Scheppe to correct spelling errors -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:27:23 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/937 07:27:24 close action-937 07:27:24 ACTION-937 Correct spelling errors closed 07:27:34 ACTION-938? 07:27:34 ACTION-938 -- Kai Scheppe to correct last paragraph of 1.2 - it doesn't have \"tests\" and Best PRactices should read mobileOK Basic Tests -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:27:34 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/938 07:27:36 close action-938 07:27:36 ACTION-938 Correct last paragraph of 1.2 - it doesn't have \"tests\" and Best PRactices should read mobileOK Basic Tests closed 07:28:01 ACTION-939? 07:28:01 ACTION-939 -- Kai Scheppe to replace example in section 3.4 with an image (as it doesn't print etc.) -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:28:01 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/939 07:28:03 ACTION-939? 07:28:03 ACTION-939 -- Kai Scheppe to replace example in section 3.4 with an image (as it doesn't print etc.) -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:28:05 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/939 07:28:25 Kai: ACTION-939, on the background readability. 07:28:53 ... question: where do we store the image? 07:29:05 francois: just close to the document. No problem. 07:29:36 -DKA 07:29:45 [DKA leaving] 07:30:12 Kai: question about bibliography. 07:30:36 ... Reformatted. There are fewer references than before. 07:31:21 ... Online tools are referenced inline, because they are not documents. 07:31:32 ... Seems to be the way that it should be done. Is that correct? 07:31:32 zakim, unmute me 07:31:32 jo should no longer be muted 07:32:17 jo: It seems fine to me. The convention is usually that if you are referring to a section of a document, you link to the section and then add a reference to the doc. 07:32:55 close action-939 07:32:55 ACTION-939 Replace example in section 3.4 with an image (as it doesn't print etc.) closed 07:32:55 Kai: ok. 07:33:37 ACTION-940? 07:33:37 ACTION-940 -- Kai Scheppe to provide a reference to the Ishigara Colour Blindness test -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:33:37 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/940 07:34:41 Kai: I used Wikipedia for the Ishihara Test for Color Blindness 07:34:43 http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.asp 07:34:58 jo: that does not seem so right. 07:35:08 Kai: I can't think of a better way. 07:35:33 [ISHiHARA} ^ S. Ishihara, Tests for colour-blindness (Handaya, Tokyo, Hongo Harukicho, 1917). 07:35:52 [ISHiHARA] S. Ishihara, Tests for colour-blindness (Handaya, Tokyo, Hongo Harukicho, 1917). 07:36:01 jo: The reference is presumably something like what I just pasted. This is of no use to anyone, but that's the reference. 07:36:26 Kai: we're trying to show something, so providing a link looks much more useful. 07:36:48 jo: I don't disagree. (©Jo) 07:37:52 Kai: there is another view we may take on this. Alan said that a test for colour-blindness was maybe not the correct test to consider for background readability. 07:38:00 ... We could simply drop it then. 07:38:33 jo: if we can't find something more authoritative than Wikipedia, then let's drop it, yes. 07:38:47 kai: any dissent? 07:39:08 [no] 07:39:14 Kai: OK. Gone. 07:39:19 close action-940 07:39:19 ACTION-940 Provide a reference to the Ishigara Colour Blindness test closed 07:39:29 ACTION-941? 07:39:29 ACTION-941 -- Kai Scheppe to add a refernce to the algorithm for determining contrast -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:39:29 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/941 07:39:48 Kai: ACTION-941, contained in the reference to WCAG2. 07:39:48 close action-941 07:39:48 ACTION-941 Add a refernce to the algorithm for determining contrast closed 07:39:59 ACTION-942? 07:39:59 ACTION-942 -- Kai Scheppe to drop section 2. And maybe insert an explanatory section on the layout of the evaluations (to maintain numbering) -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:39:59 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/942 07:40:25 Kai: I removed former section 2, and added a new one. 07:42:17 what about "relevant context delivery properties"? 07:42:45 francois: wondering about "device properties". Not anymore limited to "device". 07:43:06 Kai: Jo proposed some text in 3.1: Relevant Delivery Context Capabilities 07:43:16 jo: that would be consistent with other documents, yes. 07:43:32 francois: and it encompasses more than just device. I agree with that. 07:43:34 http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/effective-color-contrast/ 07:43:48 Is good resource for color contrast 07:44:38 jo: note I went through the document and did a bit of re-capitalization. 07:44:52 ... I've touched a lot of the document, actually. 07:45:13 kai: ok, will take them into account. 07:45:56 kai: back to topic. Replace "Relevant Device Properties" by "Relevant Delivery Context Properties"? 07:46:11 +1 07:46:19 [general agreement] 07:47:02 -achuter 07:47:28 Kai: can I delete the original section 2? 07:47:42 jo: I don't find 2.1 as being out of scope. 07:48:25 francois: I was the one who felt it is out of context, because we're talking about evaluation procedures, carried by a guy in front of his computer, no need for a digital format to express the result. 07:48:32 jo: ok, how about this? 07:49:22 fine for me 07:49:24 [jo editing section 2.1] 07:51:50 jo: I think it's better if we keep it as short as possible in general. So I just cut in the flesh of your text, Kai. 07:51:54 kai: looks fine. 07:51:58 close action-942 07:51:58 ACTION-942 Drop section 2. And maybe insert an explanatory section on the layout of the evaluations (to maintain numbering) closed 07:52:17 ACTION-943? 07:52:17 ACTION-943 -- Kai Scheppe to rephrase 3.15 ref tables -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:52:17 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/943 07:53:12 Kai: About 3.15, I did some rewording around "test" 07:53:50 ... The examples section is the one that was most updated. 07:54:21 ... I integrated francois' comment on not endorsing the use of tables for layout. 07:54:32 "While tables should never be used for layout purposes", what about "must never be used" 07:54:39 jo: I don't think it says anything different from BP1.0, does it? 07:56:31 ... It is very hard to say something that is actionable in this context. 07:57:22 --> http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#d0e704 DEFICIENCIES 07:57:42 francois: agree with Jo that this doesn't add anything to what's already being said in BP1.0 07:58:11 Kai: ok, we can simply remove it then. 07:58:26 [agreement to remove current section 3.15] 07:59:02 Close ACTION-943 07:59:02 ACTION-943 Rephrase 3.15 ref tables closed 07:59:20 ACTION-944? 07:59:20 ACTION-944 -- Kai Scheppe to drop 4. in 3.17 -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:59:20 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/944 07:59:46 close action-944 07:59:46 ACTION-944 Drop 4. in 3.17 closed 08:00:55 Kai: another question on 3.17. That's where we mentioned the "face" attribute. 08:01:42 http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/att_font_face.asp 08:02:51 jo: isn't that a bit moot since the font element is deprecated? 08:03:05 kai: I think we can remove the bullet point without losing anything. 08:03:11 jo: let's take it out, then. 08:03:17 close action-944 08:03:18 ACTION-944 Drop 4. in 3.17 closed 08:04:12 jo: I think there's some editorial changes that need to be done to section 3.17. 08:04:52 ... It needs to be clarified a bit, in the sense that if you use the em element, then the result of it is that it will appear in italic. 08:05:18 ... so are talking about the direct use of deprecated elements or the visible result? 08:05:22 Oh! 08:06:02 kai: using "em" would be the correct way of doing it. 08:06:13 08:06:27 s// 08:06:33 ... but using "b" would not be correct. 08:07:59 jo: what it says is that we're saying use semantic tags. We need to be clear that we're not saying don't use them. 08:08:36 ... We already say this somewhere between mobileOK and BP1.0 08:08:41 ... So what does it add? 08:11:44 kai: let's say I use a bold element to express a heading element 08:12:17 francois: the mobileOK Checker fails for this at two different steps: 1. XHTML validation, and 2. STYLE_SHEETS_USE test 08:12:35 http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#fonts 08:13:52 kai: the Human test part is not checked. 08:15:08 francois: ok, first bullet point is the machine test, no need to repeat. 08:15:21 [jo rewriting first bullet point to make a reference to mobileOK] 08:18:51 francois: more generic question on the use of the term "check". It does not help assess whether it's good or bad. 08:19:14 [more rewriting] 08:19:43 jo: the first bullet is not dependent on CSS. The second bullet is. The third bullet can go. 08:20:14 kai: ok. 08:20:51 jo: As an editorial point, I tried to stick to "verify" and "assess" in changes I made. 08:21:30 ... The goal is to replace "check" and make it clearer what is good or bad. 08:23:26 ... On the examples part, bold and underline are either the result of using semantic elements that render as bold or underline or the result of the direct use of using b and u elements. 08:24:05 kai: it says "expressed", not "rendered" 08:25:49 ... but please reword. 08:28:14 http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-Q 08:29:31 ACTION-945? 08:29:31 ACTION-945 -- Kai Scheppe to move 3.18 Note into examples -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 08:29:31 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/945 08:30:53 kai: moved it to the examples part. 08:30:59 close action-945 08:30:59 ACTION-945 Move 3.18 Note into examples closed 08:31:03 francois: already contained in second and third bullets. 08:31:06 kai: remove? 08:31:10 francois: yes. 08:31:17 ACTION-946? 08:31:17 ACTION-946 -- Kai Scheppe to add bandwidth to device properties in 3.30 -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 08:31:19 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/946 08:32:16 kai: I added bandwidth. And reworded the second bullet on style properties being used somewhere in the Web site. 08:32:30 ... Looks good? 08:32:31 makes sense for me 08:32:44 jo: that seems fine. 08:32:48 close action-946 08:32:49 ACTION-946 Add bandwidth to device properties in 3.30 closed 08:34:15 left 20% 08:34:26 remove 10% 08:34:48 jo: on the evaluation procedure, what do we mean by "more than 10-20%"? 08:35:23 francois: we should just pick up a number. 10% would be consistent with mobileOK (limited to the document) 08:35:57 jo: it's 10% for warning, 25% for FAIL in mobileOK. We do not talk about stylesheets. 08:37:01 [updating to 25%] 08:37:29 compare: #0f0 green 08:37:42 jo: the last 2 bullet points will have very minimal effect, won't they? 08:38:08 not sure, but maybe the phone should "translate" green to #0f0 and the render it... 08:38:09 kai: I agree, the effect is very small. 08:38:19 border: thin solid black 08:38:38 border-style: solid 08:38:39 ... I don't remember the exact discussion around "shorthand", but there are techniques that can make CSS considerably shorter. 08:38:49 borde-color: black 08:39:08 s/borde-color/border-color 08:39:21 that's right 08:39:45 what about providing examples? 08:39:57 jo: I understand shorthand as using the property without '-' 08:40:10 kai: I think it referred to something else but don't remember what. 08:40:16 http://www.dustindiaz.com/css-shorthand/ 08:40:25 francois: we should remove the bullet piont then if we don't understand it. 08:42:39 jo: it doesn't make significant difference in my view. 08:43:38 ... Besides, shorthand values are harder to read and write because you never know the exact ordering and number of values you need to put in there. 08:43:51 ... Probably not a good idea to mention it then. 08:43:56 kai: ok, removed. 08:44:03 close action-946 08:44:03 ACTION-946 Add bandwidth to device properties in 3.30 closed 08:44:18 ACTION-948? 08:44:18 ACTION-948 -- Kai Scheppe to rephrase 3.34 to not call for table layout and propose CSS based solution as in DTAG -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 08:44:18 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/948 08:45:24 kai: I rewrote the section. 08:45:53 jo: I'm not sure what is the point that you're trying to make here. 08:46:17 kai: imagine a table with 6 cells, 3 at the top, 3 at the bottom. 08:46:50 ... now you increase the content of the first cell. You'll have a nice layout where cells heights adjust. 08:48:24 kai: I had a discussion with Bert Bos on that, and he said it will be fixed in the upcoming version of CSS. 08:48:51 zakim, what's the code? 08:48:51 the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), DKA 08:49:15 "the conference is restricted at this time" 08:49:54 zakim, make room for 1 more 08:49:54 I don't understand 'make room for 1 more', DKA 08:50:02 zakim, make room for 1 08:50:02 I don't understand 'make room for 1', DKA 08:50:41 ok 08:50:42 -jo 08:50:48 -francois 08:50:50 -Kai_Dietrich 08:50:58 zakim, room for 7 for 120 minutes? 08:50:59 ok, francois; conference Team_(bpwg)08:50Z scheduled with code 26633 (CONF3) for 120 minutes until 1050Z 08:51:06 -josema 08:51:07 Team_(bpwg)07:02Z has ended 08:51:08 Attendees were DKA, francois, Kai_Dietrich, achuter, josema, +03531522aabb, jo 08:55:03 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:55:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/03-bpwg-minutes.html francois 08:58:09 Team_(bpwg)08:50Z has now started 08:58:16 +francois 08:59:10 +DKA 09:01:03 +Kai_Dietrich 09:08:19 http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#TABLES_LAYOUT 09:08:30 +jo 09:08:48 francois: I think it all boils down to "what is the use of this section"? 09:08:59 ... It does not add much to what is already defined in BP1.0 09:09:18 Kai: you cannot test every possibility using a machine test. 09:09:34 francois: I agree. And indeed, there's no human test mentioned in BP1.0 09:10:42 kai: the question is then, can we limit ourselves to "check if tables are used in a fashion that could be achieved using CSS". 09:12:25 ... Getting back to limitations of this test. I think tables are still being used for layout throughout the place. 09:13:10 jo: I'm not understanding what the problem is, but then it does not really matter. 09:13:24 kai: imagine a grid layout with 3 divs that are next to each other. 09:14:08 ... [some more explanation] 09:14:52 ... I feel that I'm beating up a dead horse. 09:15:17 francois: plus the section basically says there's some CSS solution to the CSS limitation. 09:15:27 Kai: right. It doesn't work in all cases. 09:15:43 ... But, like I said, let's remove the Limitations of the test part. 09:15:53 close action-948 09:15:53 ACTION-948 Rephrase 3.34 to not call for table layout and propose CSS based solution as in DTAG closed 09:15:55 [general agreement] 09:16:06 ACTION-950? 09:16:06 ACTION-950 -- Kai Scheppe to remove bullet 4 in 3.14 -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 09:16:06 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/950 09:16:30 kai: I removed the bullet. 09:16:36 Close ACTION-950 09:16:36 ACTION-950 Remove bullet 4 in 3.14 closed 09:16:36 close action-950 09:16:36 ACTION-950 Remove bullet 4 in 3.14 closed 09:16:52 ACTION-951? 09:16:52 ACTION-951 -- Kai Scheppe to propose some text on 3.30 ref. *all* CSS for next editorial session -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 09:16:52 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/951 09:17:08 francois: already covered 09:17:12 close action-951 09:17:12 ACTION-951 Propose some text on 3.30 ref. *all* CSS for next editorial session closed 09:17:46 ACTION-949? 09:17:46 ACTION-949 -- Kai Scheppe to change access to access keys in 3.1 -- due 2009-04-03 -- OPEN 09:17:46 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/949 09:18:02 jo: I rewrote it. 09:18:07 kai: so, done. 09:18:19 close action-949 09:18:19 ACTION-949 Change access to access keys in 3.1 closed 09:19:30 ACTION 947? 09:19:30 Sorry, bad ACTION syntax 09:19:34 ACTION-947? 09:19:34 ACTION-947 -- Jo Rabin to send Kai an example of 3 col layout where column balance is maintained -- due 2009-04-03 -- OPEN 09:19:34 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/947 09:19:40 close ACTION-947 09:19:40 ACTION-947 Send Kai an example of 3 col layout where column balance is maintained closed 09:21:13 jo: I went through the 10 first procedures, need to go through the remaining ones. 09:21:49 kai: ok. Thanks for doing it. 09:22:26 ... One suggestion you have is to link to BP and mobileOK where appropriate. 09:23:25 jo: yes, appropriate as in not all BPs have corresponding mobileOK tests. 09:23:57 ... I propose an extra section be added to link to mobileOK tests. 09:24:57 kai: I thought we had said that we wanted no connection whatsoever with mobileOK 09:25:18 francois: the problem IMO is with the confusion it might create with DDC and non DDC. 09:25:30 kai: I propose we just leave it and don't do anything. 09:25:32 DKA: +1 09:25:47 jo: Let me try it and we'll see where that leads. 09:26:23 kai: OK. I'd like to go through the comments that were made as a response to the questionnaire 09:27:38 francois: I thought all the actions were the result of the comments 09:27:44 kai: not sure, actually. 09:28:28 this is an aut-generated contents list from xml-spec 09:28:32 1 Introduction
09:28:34     1.1 Scope
09:28:35         1.1.1 Relationship to Best Practices
09:28:37         1.1.2 Out of Scope
09:28:38         1.1.3 Beyond mobileOK
09:28:40     1.2 Applicability
09:28:41     1.3 Claiming mobileOK conformance
09:29:25 francois: suggest to leave that on the side for the time being, and have a look at Jo's changes in the first ten procedures so that he doesn't continue in a direction we don't like. 09:29:46 kai: right, that was my second item, indeed. 09:31:51 kai: on to yellow notes then. 09:32:04 ... Jo wonders what a site map means 09:33:23 [explanations exchanged] 09:33:40 francois: the order of sub-sections in 3.1 does not match that of 2.2 09:33:47 kai: will change 2.2 09:34:39 [quickly going through procedures] 09:35:12 kai: on to 3.5. The formatting is not correct either. 09:35:28 ... and there were more navigation means 09:35:59 jo: I think Dan's colleague made a clear explanation back in Sophia F2F. 09:36:20 ... Stylus is what I was looking for. 09:37:13 francois: note a minor problem with order of the sub-sections in 3.5 09:37:17 jo: updating... 09:38:06 kai: on to 3.6. and the reference to HTTP. 09:39:05 ... aren't we just tossing the whole bag of technologies in this list? 09:39:08 jo: Yes, we are. 09:39:35 ... replacing HTTP with XHR support 09:39:50 ... The evaluation procedure does not look very workable. 09:40:43 kai: if you make a check for the DDC and make assumptions on the capabilities it is supposed to have. And then you are trying to improve your content for more capable devices. 09:41:10 ... So you want to check that content has not been unnecessarily dumbed down. 09:41:32 ... We're just trying to make it measurable. 09:41:57 ... The easiest idea was to compare to DDC. 09:42:29 jo: I think it should be easier than that. If there are multiple versions available, then ensure they are adapted for the classes of devices they target. 09:42:36 kai: isn't that too general? 09:42:42 jo: let me try some wording. 09:47:01 [ongoing rewording] 09:47:57 q+ to note "exploitative" has a negative sense... 09:48:02 +josema 09:48:12 kai: I understand the point. But what we're trying to say is exploit capabilities at a maximum 09:48:41 ... your suggestion would leave it totally open. 09:49:29 ... I understand what we're trying to do. But we want it to be measurable. 09:49:46 jo: It needed to be measurable when it was a PASS/FAIL document, which it is not anymore. 09:50:58 ... You want the best fit. That's what I'm trying to propose. The text needs to be clarified though. 09:52:03 ack DKA 09:52:03 DKA, you wanted to note "exploitative" has a negative sense... 09:52:14 DKA: I don't think we should dump the section. 09:52:43 ... we've already discussed in the past that "exploitative" has some negative sense. 09:52:47 jo: already gone. 09:54:19 [discussion about going for a revolution and changing the "Exploit" device capabilities BP title] 09:54:52 kai: I wonder what the group wants out of this document. 09:55:19 ... We had the initial requirement that evaluation procedures needed to be testable. Has this gone? 09:55:36 ... Jo is proposing a totally but untestable statement here. 09:55:46 s/totally/totally correct/ 09:56:05 jo: I don't think that what you wrote in the first place works actually. 09:56:10