Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

<DKA> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0003.html

MWABP

<francois> Latest implementation report

adam: We have two more we could send from Google, but these are unlikely to close up any holes.

dka: Nothing to report from other contacts.
... Will keep hunting.

adam: What happens if we don't get 2 implementations for some of the BPs.

francois: We'd have to go back to last-call in that case because we didn't identify those BPs as at risk. But it can be a short LC.

dka: We should be able to find implementations for the BPs if we keep working at it.
... Could you summarise the BPs that don't have enough implementations yet in email to member group so we can evangelise getting more reports around those particular items.

Transition Request for CT

francois: We need approval from director of W3C to move forward CT. But there is some pushback on the exit criteria. The exit criteria should be bound to a concrete test suite.

<DKA> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Apr/0009.html

francois: Note the forth resolution is to bind the exit criteria to the creation of a test suite. We'll have a hard time convincing the director that we can move to CR without this.

sean: Haven't we already discussed the need of a test suite?

francois: We've discussed it, but in the exit criteria as they currently exist we have separated the creation of the test suite from the implementation reports.
... But in our exit criteria currently we do not check the claim of conformance.

dka: Didn't Jo have a plan to get a test suite written?

francois: Summarising Jo's position... Working on test suite is not a requirement, we acknowledge that it's good practice but it's not required by the process document. We should agree with the first three proposed changes [in Francois' email] but if we commit to developing test-suite the document will get stuck in CR.

dka: I wonder if there's a middle way... Between no test-suite and the absolute requirement of a test-suite.

francois: The first three points specify what the test-suite is and is not. One is to say that the test suite is a repository of challenge tests, it doesn't have to cover everything in the document (because that's not possible) but it has to cover main things in the form of challenge tests only. This is a good middle-ground between having a complete test suite and not developing anything. But it would still require a fair amount of work.

<DKA> +1

dka: Sean, could you commit to supplying some of these challenge tests.

<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Agree to first 3 points of sets of proposals in fd's email: we'll link to a test case repository, test suite is more to be viewed as a challenge test cases repository, and the group commits to initiate the work on the test suite in the remaining life time of the group.

sean: Things are kind of up in the air, so it might be tricky. Doing one or two tests would be a smaller committment, so might be possible. But can't committ right now.

<DKA> +1 to Proposed Resolution

+1

<miguel> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree to first 3 points of sets of proposals in fd's email: we'll link to a test case repository, test suite is more to be viewed as a challenge test cases repository, and the group commits to initiate the work on the test suite in the remaining life time of the group.

<spatters> +1

<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No change to the exit criteria because the group believes that raising awareness on the guidelines is more important than the risk of having non-interoperable implementations of the spec, and fears that the guidelines will be stuck at the Candidate Recommendation phase if the exit criteria were bound to the existence of a test suite.

<DKA> ACTION: Sean to come back to the group by next call with a yes/no on writing some challenge tests for CT. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1049 - Come back to the group by next call with a yes/no on writing some challenge tests for CT. [on Sean Patterson - due 2010-05-25].

+1

<DKA> +1

<spatters> +1

<miguel> +1

RESOLUTION: No change to the exit criteria because the group believes that raising awareness on the guidelines is more important than the risk of having non-interoperable implementations of the spec, and fears that the guidelines will be stuck at the Candidate Recommendation phase if the exit criteria were bound to the existence of a test suite.

Erratum for MobileOK

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0000.html

<DKA> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0000.html

<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Erratum to mobileOK related to HTTP_RESPONSE-11 clause: [[ [ If the HTTP status represents failure (4xx), other than *in any of the following cases: i)* the HTTP status is 404, *ii) the HTTP status represents* a request for authentication (e.g. 401) or *iii) the HTTP status is* 406 *for object elements (but not any other elements)* when carrying out the 3.15.1 Object Element Processing Rule, FAIL ]]

<francois> +1

<DKA> +1

<miguel> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: Erratum to mobileOK related to HTTP_RESPONSE-11 clause: [[ [ If the HTTP status represents failure (4xx), other than *in any of the following cases: i)* the HTTP status is 404, *ii) the HTTP status represents* a request for authentication (e.g. 401) or *iii) the HTTP status is* 406 *for object elements (but not any other elements)* when carrying out the 3.15.1 Object Element Processing Rule, FAIL ]]

AOB

<miguel> bye

<DKA> thanks all!