See also: IRC log
DKA: francois, do you want to lead us through these?
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2009AprJun/ comments on MWABP
francois: comment from Kai on
automatic login, already discussed. Waiting for the group at
large to discuss some more.
... next comment from Oracle on AtomDB
... AtomDB seems to match with the general direction we're
aiming at in the BPs.
... We already listed HTML5 offline storage, so it might make
sense to include that in the list. I had never heard of that
before, anyone knows where this comes from?
DKA: wondering if it has to be implemented in the browser, and/or as an AJAX library. Anyone willing to review AtomDB to see if it could be included in the list?
tom: raising hand!
dka: thanks!
<scribe> ACTION: tom to review AtomDB for potential inclusion/reference in MWABP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-964 - Review AtomDB for potential inclusion/reference in MWABP [on Tom Hume - due 2009-06-09].
<Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to suggest this seems reasonable
tom: on the WURFL reference, that sounds reasonable to add it to MWABP.
dka: yes. We need to see if we're talking a lot about server-side capabilities.
tom: UAProf is mentioned in the references because it's explicitly mentioned in the document.
francois: same thing as AtomDB in my view. I just think we need to draw a line somewhere between being a standard and listing various implementations to guide authors.
dka: on the server-side detection, we could also remove the section altogether as we really mean to be talking about client-side stuff.
tom: if we mention UAProf for the same purpose, it does make sense to mention WURFL as well.
dka: yes. To be clear, if we can be saying useful things for Web authors that can help server-side detection, let's do it!
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mwbp-wcag-20090526/ published draft of MWBP-WCAG
dka: yeliz, status of the document?
yeliz: shawn sent an email about the publication. We're not expecting major comments on the document
<DKA> ScribeNick: DKA
Francois: Yeliz (and I) have been
working on an extension to the mobileok checker to support file
URI.
... I think it's a good idea to have such extensions listed
next to the checker in the code library.
... The question is: which namespace are we going to use? It
makes sense to use a different namespace. One suggestion is to
use a namespace close to the one we use for the library but
there are some comments that code not developed by the wg
should not start with the same namespace prefix...
... So - are we fine to have the code next to the code in the
library? I think we are.
... 2nd question: which namespace should we use for extensions.
I'm perfectly fine for extensions to be named after the
organization that produced it.
DKA: What namespace would that be?
Francois: Yeliz?
Yeliz: I can use the namespace from manchester university.
Nacho: We think it would be
interesting to have the code in the same CVS web space as the
library. The checker TF in a previous meeting has discussed
adding this already. We just had a resource problem getting it
done.
... It's important that this code is close to the code of the
checker. I do not think the issue of the namespace is
important.
Francois: I totally agree.
<yeliz> +1
Yeliz: Me too
DKA: Is that another possible course of action - adopting the code as an official working group output?
Francois: It seems we all agree the code should be listed along with the library.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Yeliz's code should be listed along with the library.
<nacho> +1
Francois: another possibility could be to say that this extension becomes a part of the working group output. This also binds us to maintain the code.
<Kai> +1
<tomhume> +1
<brucel> concur
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: Yeliz's code on file support should be listed along with the other checker code in the library.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We should adopt Yeliz's code (the file support extension) as an official working group output and therefore put it in the same namespace as the rest of the checker code.
<nacho> +1 to that
<yeliz> +1
<Kai> i am nowhere
<francois> +1
<yeliz> Lost the connection
<Kai> +1
<SeanP> +1
<francois> [+1 to yeliz to write a small note or blog post on how "easy" it was to extend the library!]
RESOLUTION: We should adopt Yeliz's code (the file support extension) as an official working group output and therefore put it in the same namespace as the rest of the checker code.
DKA: It will still be an extension.
<nacho> [+1 to François' +1 to yeliz to write a small note or blog post on how "easy" it was to extend the library!]
Yeliz: the namespace will be using the .ext extension?
<francois> org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.ext.filesupport
+1
<francois> org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.ext.filesupport
So minuted: We will select the org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.ext.filesupport namespace for this.
DKA: why was this?
Francois: Not because of
us.
... Upshot [for us] is that we won't have any lang
attribute.
DKA: Do we have any dependencies on the lang attribute?
Francois: There is a mismatch on what we recommend - using xhtml basic 1.1 - and what the internationalization working group recommends.
DKA: Punt.
... AOB?
... Let's put the multi-part discussion on the agenda for next
week.
Kai: Phil archer has agreed to do an editorial review of the addendum.
DKA: Great!
... Timeline?
Kai: Yes, a couple of weeks...
<francois> ACTION: phil to make an editorial review of the addendum [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - phil
<francois> ACTION: archer to make an editorial review of the addendum [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - archer
<francois> ACTION: parcher to make an editorial review of the addendum [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - parcher
<brucel> hugs
<Kai> me waves back