See also: IRC log
<francois> Current MWABP implementation report
jo: thanks tom. Dan is trying to get some more out of vodafone.
francois: I've added Tom's to the report, if you can add another it'd be fantastic
<Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to say I've one on the way
<francois> ACTION-1045?
<trackbot> ACTION-1045 -- Jo Rabin to enact LC-2377 and LC-2378 -- due 2010-04-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1045
jo: I sent a new version (draft
1za) to close ACTION-1045. ACTION-1046 and ACTION-1047 were on
francois and dan
... to check out OPES and status 203 stuff
<francois> close ACTION-1045
<trackbot> ACTION-1045 Enact LC-2377 and LC-2378 closed
<francois> ACTION-1046?
<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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1046
jo: I mentioned in my notes to the list that we can close these.
<francois> close ACTION-1046
<trackbot> ACTION-1046 Ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 closed
<francois> ACTION-1047?
<trackbot> ACTION-1047 -- François Daoust to discuss status code 203 -- due 2010-04-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1047
<francois> close ACTION-1047
<trackbot> ACTION-1047 Discuss status code 203 closed
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG Requests Transition of CT Guidelines Draft 1za to CR
+1 for the love of God, +1
francois: two things relating to
the resolution... process-wise we need to send the responses to
the two editorial comments we received
... (which will be "yes"). In theory they could object but I
don't see how.
... Secondly we need to agree on the exit criteria. We need to
mention the test suite. Conformance will be checked against that test
suite.
... This doesn't prevent us taking this resolution.
<francois> +1
jo: I think we can make the exit criteria the same as all the others.
<jo> +1
jo: any objections?
<miguel> +1
RESOLUTION: BPWG Requests Transition of CT Guidelines Draft 1za to CR
jo: next up, we need to consider exit criteria.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criterion for CT Guidelines is 2 conforming implementations
<SeanP> +1
<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"]
jo: Sean, you said you'd talk to us about what Novarra/Nokia could contribute to a test suite...
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.
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...
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.
jo: we describe in the document how to claim conformance.
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.
... we have to go through a (transition?) call internally. I
wouldn't be surprised if we were asked the question.
jo: we don't have a status-of-document section yet.
francois: the group has to agree on the criteria.
jo: can we just go for this please, and go for claims of conformance without saying how people claim conformance beyond honesty and propriety?
<francois> MathML for CSS
<francois> SOTD section for the above MathML spec
<francois> [[ The testing will make use of parts of the comprehensive MathML Test Suite. ]]
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")
... (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.
<francois> Another example for XForms 1.0 Basic Profile
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.
<francois> [[ The W3C XForms Working Group has released a public test suite for XForms 1.0 Full and Basic along with an implementation report. ]]
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criterion for CT Guidelines is 2 independent deployments claiming conformance
<Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to wonder if it's possible for anyone outside deployers of proxies to validate conformance via a test suite
tomhume: can anyone outside deployers validate? and not all criteria are suitable for automated testing (UI)
jo: in claiming conformance, you
have to publicise how to get at that deployment to assess what
it does
... in answer to the second point, I think that's OK.
tomhume: a test suite will only be able to test a subset of tests
francois: test suites normally
cover specifications but not completely.
... you can't test each and every case.
... "the more the merrier"
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criterion for CT Guidelines is 2 independent deployments claiming conformance
+1
<francois> +1
<jo> +1
<miguel> +1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: Exit criterion for CT Guidelines is 2 independent deployments claiming conformance
jo: francois, what would you like us to resolve about test suites?
francois: the document will mention there's no test suite at time of publication, but there needs to be one in future.
jo: we could also say "people interested in contributing to the test suite should contact ..."
<jo> PROPOSED 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
<jo> +1
<SeanP> +1
<francois> +1
<miguel> +1
+1
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
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref editorial comments LC-2377 and LC-2378, resolve yes and note that they were integrated in draft 1za
<jo> +1
<francois> +1
<miguel> +1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: ref editorial comments LC-2377 and LC-2378, resolve yes and note that they were integrated in draft 1za
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).
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.
jo: thanks all.
... do we want a call next week?
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.
... we could have a call every two weeks or less.
jo: Let's have the next call in 2 weeks time. Any objections?
<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
<francois> +1
+1
<SeanP> +1
<miguel> +1
<jo> +1
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
jo: AOB?
<jo> [call adjourned]
<SeanP> bye