IRC log of bpwg on 2009-04-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

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