Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

Administrative Arrangements

<francois> BPWG's charter

francois: the group was extended until the end of June 2010. There was an official announcement, the charter of the WG (linked from home page of WG) shows the end date.
... Jo, you have been reappointed as co-chair of MWBPG
... We're back to normal.

jo: I left .mobi and therefore the W3C on 14.12.2009, prior to doing that I made arrangements (effected by Francois) to be appointed an invited expert
... so have been reappointed as chair. I'm a different chair this year.

<brucel> slightly better padded?

jo: We're effectively back to where we are, but I no longer represent dot mobi
... We took a resolution last year that calls should be an hour long, and we're thinking of dropping the frequency of them (with a certain set of deliverables)
... At the F2F we sketched out a timetable for delivering deliverables.

<francois> schedule for 2010

jo: We want to get everything done by mid-Feb, then wait for stuff to come through.
... With no call last week, we're already behind.

francois: the focus of the group is on MWABP, but we don't expect to spend much time on it. The second focus is on CT where we still have a lot of work - the test suite, issuing another last call (and replying to comments). Expect more work on CT than MWABP, which should just move forwards.

Mobile Web Application Best Practices

Jo: Don't see Adam here, so not sure we can do anything. Francois?

francois: I agree.

jo: postpone til next week then.

CT Guidelines

jo: Timetable says a new draft would be available today, but it isn't. I don't think I'm going to be able to do that in the next week, looking at my schedule.
... Eduardo, you expressed a non-lack-of-resistance to the idea of doing some editing
... Will it be time-effective for me to hand that over to you, or quicker for me to Just Do It?
... It's probably 3-4h work for me to do, 2h for me to hand over.

EdC: I have the same misgivings as you, but if you could start and then run the risk of not completing, you could consider sending me the document with an indication of what's missing and let me try to do something with it.

jo: what's needed is to go through resolutions from the last f2f on changes we agreed as last-call comments....
... you'll need to learn to edit in XMLSpec which is a wonderful invention by the W3C. It's not hard, not not trivial either.
... I'll try and do this in the next 2 weeks, and if I can't, I'll call on you.

EdC: That's fine. We should clear up the late comments...

jo: moving onto comments...

<jo> further LC comments

<francois> Some comments on the comments from fd

jo: francois has already answered these for us ;)

<francois> LC-2358

<jo> "Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies"

jo: As Francois has pointed out, we've already discussed title changes and decided that we can't be clear we are talking about mobile here.

francois: Yes. We tried many titles, none of which were fantastic. It's not the first time that people have read the spec and expected something broader...
... most of the guidelines are about transformation for mobile delivery, so it might make sense to update the title.
... I have no strong opinion on this.
... There's just One Web, right?

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2358 resolve no, we understand the point but have debated this at length previously and this is the best title we could think of

+1

<francois> +1

seanp: I have trouble rememberign the current title, if it gets longer no-one will be able to remember or say it.

francois: then we can get an acronym!

<SeanP> +1

<jo> +1

<EdC> I believe the introduction makes things clear.

<EdC> +1

jo: objections?

RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2358 resolve no, we understand the point but have debated this at length previously and this is the best title we could think of

jo: next up is LC-2359

<francois> LC-2359

tom: this is something we've spoken about before - HTTP signalling different sorts of transformations on and off is a limitation we have noted but can't do anything about here.

jo: I agree partially, we can amplify the note that already exists here (around WAP gateways not working).
... objections?

<DKA> Apologies to all for arriving late for our first call of the new year.

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2359, resolve partial. We agree that it is heavy handed but it is the only mechanism provided by RFC 2616. We will amplify the note regarding possible damaging effects of using it - at present this notes that WAP gateways may mis-operate in its presence

+1

<jo> +1

<francois> +1

<DKA> +1

<SeanP> +1

<miguel> +1

<brucel> concur

objections?

RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2359, resolve partial. We agree that it is heavy handed but it is the only mechanism provided by RFC 2616. We will amplify the note regarding possible damaging effects of using it - at present this notes that WAP gateways may mis-operate in its presence

<francois> LC-2360

<EdC> That is again the issue of validation (SHOULD) and well-formedness (MUST).

jo: this is about introducing ARIA attributes with accessibility. I agree with Francois that this is a SHOULD, so no changes are required.

<EdC> Yes.

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2360, resolve no. The document specifies a SHOULD for validation, so this should not be an issue, we think

skype hang

back in the room...

<jo> +1

<SeanP> +1

<EdC> +1

<brucel> no objections

RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2360, resolve no. The document specifies a SHOULD for validation, so this should not be an issue, we think

AOB

jo: anything else?

<brucel> hang loose and be groovy. Bye.

byeee

<DKA> ahoy

<SeanP> bye

<jo> thanks tomhume for scribing