13:15:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:15:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-bpwg-irc
13:15:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:15:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:16:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:16:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
13:16:01 <trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:16:01 <trackbot> Date: 06 April 2010
13:16:16 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Apr/0003.html
13:16:18 <francois> Chair: Jo
13:17:08 <francois> Regrets: Dan, yeliz, nacho, adam, jeffs
13:17:32 <francois> Regrets+ brucel
13:17:42 <francois> Regrets+ EdC
13:28:12 <tomhume> tomhume has joined #bpwg
13:29:04 <jo> jo has joined #bpwg
13:29:57 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started
13:30:04 <Zakim> + +0797178aaaa
13:30:13 <miguel> miguel has joined #bpwg
13:30:16 <tomhume> zakim, +0797178aaaa is me
13:30:16 <Zakim> +tomhume; got it
13:30:46 <Zakim> +miguel
13:30:52 <miguel> Zakim, mute me
13:30:52 <Zakim> miguel should now be muted
13:30:55 <miguel> ack me
13:30:56 <Zakim> +francois
13:31:13 <francois> zakim, mute me
13:31:13 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
13:31:14 <miguel> Zakim, mute me
13:31:14 <Zakim> miguel should now be muted
13:32:25 <Zakim> +jo
13:32:37 <jo> zakim, who is here?
13:32:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see tomhume, miguel (muted), francois (muted), jo
13:32:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see miguel, jo, tomhume, Zakim, RRSAgent, francois, trackbot
13:33:10 <jo> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:33:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-bpwg-minutes.html jo
13:34:19 <francois> ack me
13:34:54 <francois> scribe: tomhume
13:35:11 <tomhume> Topic: 1. BP2
13:35:20 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/mwabp-implementation-report Current MWABP implementation report
13:35:34 <tomhume> jo: thanks tom. Dan is trying to get some more out of vodafone.
13:35:54 <tomhume> q+ to say I've one on the way
13:36:16 <tomhume> francois: I've added Tom's to the report, if you can add another it'd be fantastic
13:36:50 <jo> ack t
13:36:50 <Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to say I've one on the way
13:37:13 <tomhume> Topic: 2. CT Guidelines
13:37:45 <francois> ACTION-1045?
13:37:45 <trackbot> ACTION-1045 -- Jo Rabin to enact LC-2377 and LC-2378 -- due 2010-04-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
13:37:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1045
13:37:51 <tomhume> jo: I sent a new version (draft 1za) to close ACTION-1045. ACTION-1046 and ACTION-1047 were on francois and dan
13:37:57 <tomhume> ... to check out OPES and status 203 stuff
13:38:00 <francois> close ACTION-1045
13:38:00 <trackbot> ACTION-1045 Enact LC-2377 and LC-2378 closed
13:38:07 <francois> ACTION-1046?
13:38:07 <trackbot> ACTION-1046 -- Daniel Appelquist to ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 -- due 2010-04-06 -- OPEN
13:38:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1046
13:38:10 <tomhume> ... I mentioned in my notes to the list that we can close these.
13:38:12 <francois> close ACTION-1046
13:38:12 <trackbot> ACTION-1046 Ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 closed
13:38:16 <francois> ACTION-1047?
13:38:16 <trackbot> ACTION-1047 -- François Daoust to discuss status code 203 -- due 2010-04-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
13:38:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1047
13:38:25 <francois> close ACTION-1047
13:38:25 <trackbot> ACTION-1047 Discuss status code 203 closed
13:38:48 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG Requests Transition of CT Guidelines Draft 1za to CR
13:39:03 <tomhume> +1 for the love of God, +1
13:39:31 <tomhume> francois: two things relating to the resolution... process-wise we need to send the responses to the two editorial comments we received
13:39:45 <tomhume> ... (which will be "yes"). In theory they could object but I don't see how. 
13:40:13 <tomhume> ... Secondly we need to agree on the exit criteria. We need to ???? test suite. Conformance will be checked against that test suite.
13:40:21 <tomhume> ... This doesn't prevent us taking this resolution.
13:40:28 <francois> +1
13:40:39 <tomhume> jo: I think we can make the exit criteria the same as all the others.
13:40:48 <jo> +1
13:40:48 <tomhume> jo: any objections?
13:40:51 <miguel> +1
13:41:01 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: BPWG Requests Transition of CT Guidelines Draft 1za to CR
13:41:35 <tomhume> jo: next up, we need to consider exit criteria.
13:41:59 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
13:42:11 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criterion for CT Guidelines is 2 conforming implementations
13:42:42 <Zakim> + +1.630.414.aabb
13:42:56 <SeanP> Zakim, aabb is me
13:42:56 <Zakim> +SeanP; got it
13:43:15 <SeanP> +1
13:43:42 <francois> [suggest to say something along the lines of "2 conforming Transformation Deployments from independent companies" and "conformance will be assessed by a test suite that has yet to be developed"]
13:44:12 <tomhume> jo: Sean, you said you'd talk to us about what Novarra/Nokia could contribute to a test suite...
13:44:44 <tomhume> seanP: I'm still trying to find out what we'll do on that. It's unclear now what the story is. I'll be staying in the group, I'll know more in the next couple of weeks.
13:46:13 <tomhume> jo: francois, I know it's good practice to have a test suite but the document doesn't refer to a test suite, so one could regard a test suite as being additional to a statement of conformance, were one to be narrowly legal about it...
13:46:54 <tomhume> francois: if we don't put anything into the document around how to assess if deployments conform to spec, we'll likely have some pushback.
13:47:06 <tomhume> jo: we describe in the document how to claim conformance.
13:47:29 <tomhume> francois: it doesn't follow the direction current specs are working wrt conformance and test suites. I think this is what we'll be expected to do.
13:48:05 <tomhume> ... we have to go through a (transition?) call internally. I wouldn't be surprised if we were asked the question.
13:48:35 <tomhume> jo: we don't have a status-of-document section yet.
13:48:43 <tomhume> francois: the group has to agree on the criteria.
13:49:18 <tomhume> jo: can we just go for this please, and go for claims of conformance without saying how people claim conformance beyond honesty and propriety?
13:49:42 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-mathml-for-css-20091215/ MathML for CSS
13:50:07 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-mathml-for-css-20091215/#status SOTD section for the above MathML spec
13:50:14 <francois> [[ The testing will make use of parts of the comprehensive MathML Test Suite. ]]
13:50:38 <tomhume> francois: take a look at this document. I'm not saying we have to follow this, but it does talk of a test suite. ("The testing will make use of parts of the comprehensive MathML Test Suite")
13:51:48 <tomhume> francois: (reads, thinks) I think you're right. We're expecting 2 implementation reports. We're expecting to work on a test suite even if we don't connect it to the report itself.
13:52:32 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-xforms-basic-20031014/#status Another example for XForms 1.0 Basic Profile
13:52:37 <tomhume> jo: more than anything else we want people to say "yes, we think this is worthwhile enough to claim conformance". Remember that we're looking for deployments rather than individual pieces of software.
13:52:44 <francois> [[ The W3C XForms Working Group has released a public test suite for XForms 1.0 Full and Basic along with an implementation report. ]]
13:53:45 <tomhume> q+ to wonder if it's possible for anyone outside deployers of proxies to validate conformance via a test suite
13:53:48 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criterion for CT Guidelines is 2 independent deployments claiming conformance
13:53:56 <jo> ack t
13:53:56 <Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to wonder if it's possible for anyone outside deployers of proxies to validate conformance via a test suite
13:54:54 <tomhume> tomhume: can anyone outside deployers validate? and not all criteria are suitable for automated testing (UI)
13:55:11 <tomhume> jo: in claiming conformance, you have to publicise how to get at that deployment to assess what it does
13:55:19 <tomhume> ... in answer to the second point, I think that's OK.
13:55:53 <tomhume> tomhume: a test suite will only be able to test a subset of tests
13:56:02 <tomhume> francois: test suites normally cover specifications but not completely.
13:56:19 <tomhume> ... you can't test each and every case.
13:56:24 <tomhume> ... "the more the merrier"
13:56:52 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criterion for CT Guidelines is 2 independent deployments claiming conformance
13:57:22 <tomhume> +1
13:57:27 <francois> +1
13:57:27 <jo> +1
13:57:28 <miguel> +1
13:57:31 <SeanP> +1
13:57:34 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: Exit criterion for CT Guidelines is 2 independent deployments claiming conformance
13:57:54 <tomhume> jo: francois, what would you like us to resolve about test suites?
13:58:29 <tomhume> francois: the document will mention there's no test suite at time of publication, but there needs to be one in future.
13:58:52 <tomhume> jo: we could also say "people interested in contributing to the test suite should contact ..."
14:00:15 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Include text in status noting that we are looking at creating a test sutie and that people interested in contributing should do so by noting so on public-bpwg-comments
14:00:30 <jo> +1
14:00:33 <SeanP> +1
14:00:33 <francois> +1
14:00:33 <miguel> +1
14:00:38 <francois> s/sutie/suite/
14:00:44 <tomhume> +1
14:00:54 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: Include text in status noting that we are looking at creating a test suite and that people interested in contributing should do so by noting so on public-bpwg-comments
14:01:43 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref editorial comments LC-2377 and LC-2378, resolve yes and note that they were integrated in draft 1za
14:01:59 <jo> +1
14:02:03 <francois> +1
14:02:03 <miguel> +1
14:02:04 <SeanP> +1
14:02:20 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: ref editorial comments LC-2377 and LC-2378, resolve yes and note that they were integrated in draft 1za
14:03:12 <tomhume> francois: I pinged reviewers of the last LC (Mark Nottingham and Luca, mainly). Luca said he'd reply this week but hasn't so far - I don't think that we should wait for him given that we agree with his comments. Mark replied off-list to say he wouldn't be sending any further comments (tho he's not crazy-in-love with it). 
14:04:05 <tomhume> jo: in view of the smallish number of people here and that we've closed outstanding actions, I suggest we don't bother to go through outstanding issues and actions.
14:04:07 <tomhume> Topic: AOB
14:04:29 <tomhume> jo: thanks all. 
14:04:50 <tomhume> jo: do we want a call next week?
14:05:10 <tomhume> francois: unless something comes out this week, we won't have much to do. Looking forward we're after news on test suite and implementation reports.
14:05:16 <tomhume> ... we could have a call every two weeks or less.
14:05:24 <tomhume> jo: Let's have the next call in 2 weeks time. Any objections?
14:06:39 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  By way of patting ourselves on the back for requesting transition of CT we will not be holding a call next week, so next call will be 20th April
14:06:43 <francois> +1
14:06:45 <tomhume> +1
14:06:46 <SeanP> +1
14:06:47 <miguel> +1
14:06:48 <jo> +1
14:06:51 <tomhume> RESOLUTION:  By way of patting ourselves on the back for requesting transition of CT we will not be holding a call next week, so next call will be 20th April
14:06:55 <tomhume> jo: AOB?
14:07:08 <jo> [call adjourned]
14:07:09 <SeanP> bye
14:07:10 <Zakim> -tomhume
14:07:12 <Zakim> -francois
14:07:17 <Zakim> -miguel
14:07:20 <Zakim> -SeanP
14:07:23 <jo> jo has left #bpwg
14:07:32 <Zakim> -jo
14:07:34 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
14:07:36 <Zakim> Attendees were tomhume, miguel, francois, jo, +1.630.414.aabb, SeanP
14:24:19 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:24:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:02:05 <Zakim> Zakim has left #bpwg