Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

18 Aug 2009


See also: IRC log


adam, yeliz, francois, DKA, EdC, miguel, SeanP
jo, kai, brucel, tomhume, abel, nacho


CT Guidelines - ACTION-928 - X- headers

<francois> fd's email

Francois summarizes the discussion that went on the IETF mailing list. We proceed with the registration in the provisional registry.

The issue is the name: X-Device prefixed fields will probably be hard to get accepted in the permanent registry. However, it seems that a W3C recommendation may require a permanent registration.

The net effect: while it is possible to make a provisional registration, a permanent registration will require extensive discussions with IETF.

Question from DKA about the transitional period if a new field is introduced: there is no way to limit the transition period, both deprecated and new fields would have to be supported. Suggestion from IETF: register X-Device as deprecated, temporary and a new, non X-prefixed set of fields as permanent.

However, while this is "clean" regarding naming, it does not really solve the transition mess.

Summa summarum: X-Device fields will be temporary registered. Depending on the feedback on "last call" on the recommendation, the final discussion about the header field will be undertaken.

Any introduction of a new field is formally tiny, but has large implications and we would need a new "last call" to introduce such a modification.

Feedback from IETF about X-prefixed fields is a bit wary. In practice, several X-fields are used in production deployment in the Internet.

So, there is still a chance to get X-Device fields permanently registered IF a) the usage is clearly explained b) the reason is substantiated and clearly motivated. Then the IETF might accept a permanent registration of X-Device fields.

For now: let us register the said fields temporarily.

CT Guidelines - remaining actions

From DKA: what other main issues are standing before the "last call"?

<francois> ACTION-1001?

<trackbot> ACTION-1001 -- Fran├žois Daoust to review tests provided by Charles on same origin policy -- due 2009-08-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1001

Answers Francois: a) editorial changes (many assigned to Jo Rabin) b) review of tests to check issues on "same URI origin" (on Francois).

c) Sean has actions to review pending changes.

Addendum to BP (BP1.5) - Status update

One remaining action on Phil (who is not present to report on it).

MWABP - status update

Lots of progress done on this document. What are the main remaining points?

Answers Adam: a) editorial changes from Edc b) content missing regarding canvas/SVG (from Jeff) c) minor editorial alterations (Adam).

a) concerning mainly the last proposal of Adam re: capability detection. c) includes feedback awaited from Jonathan.

<francois> EdC editorial comments on media queries

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/990

<francois> ACTION-998?

<trackbot> ACTION-998 -- Adam Connors to extract some useful info from the discussion around ACTION-790 and add it to the doc -- due 2009-07-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/998

<francois> ACTION-994?

<trackbot> ACTION-994 -- Daniel Appelquist to find people who use CSS media queries to tell whether it's a BP -- due 2009-07-14 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/994

The idea with 998 / 790 is to insert some warnings regarding the possible effect of using Javascript on accessibility (may prevent it or make difficult alternative representation).

<yeliz> Adam, related to ARIA on mobile, there was a discussion about it on the WAI-IG: http://markmail.org/message/rxytoldjco4cyp44

Actions and Issues

Francois mentions that we will have to tackle the issue regarding of the TPAC. Should we attend or not?

What would be the reason to hold a meeting in the TPAC if our work (CTG, MWABP, etc) is mostly concluded and published?

From DKA: he will be co-chairing a Web-incubator event, and dealing with device API, widget sessions. If the BPWG meets, it would be important that the agenda do not conflict (DKA is already very booked at the TPAC).

The issue floats in the air and will be taken back later

There is currently no issue about this specific topic. Why no create one, at least to remind us about it?

<francois> ISSUE: To go or not to go to TPAC 2009?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-299 - To go or not to go to TPAC 2009? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/299/edit .

Status for next week: there is a call agreed. Will Jo Rabin be back? In principle yes.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/08/18 14:11:19 $