13:15:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:15:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/08-bpwg-irc
13:15:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:15:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:15:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:15:23 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
13:15:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:15:23 <trackbot> Date: 08 June 2010
13:15:45 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jun/0004.html
13:15:47 <francois> Chair: Jo
13:16:19 <francois> Regrets: Kai, SeanP
13:25:52 <jo> jo has joined #bpwg
13:29:05 <yeliz> yeliz has joined #bpwg
13:30:11 <jo> zakim, code please?
13:30:12 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
13:30:13 <adam> adam has joined #bpwg
13:30:24 <adam> zakim,code?
13:30:24 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), adam
13:30:46 <miguel> miguel has joined #bpwg
13:31:38 <EdC> EdC has joined #bpwg
13:31:46 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started
13:31:53 <Zakim> + +0790418aaaa
13:32:05 <Zakim> + +03498439aabb
13:32:07 <jo> zakim, aaaa is me
13:32:07 <Zakim> +jo; got it
13:32:13 <miguel> Zakim, aabb is me
13:32:13 <Zakim> +miguel; got it
13:32:14 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
13:32:42 <Zakim> +francois
13:34:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:34:34 <yeliz> zakim, [IPcaller] is yeliz
13:34:34 <Zakim> +yeliz; got it
13:34:41 <yeliz> zakim, mute yeliz
13:34:41 <Zakim> yeliz should now be muted
13:35:10 <Zakim> + +1.630.414.aacc
13:35:22 <SeanP> Zakim, aacc is me
13:35:22 <Zakim> +SeanP; got it
13:35:38 <Zakim> + +0207881aadd
13:35:46 <adam> zakim, aadd is me
13:35:46 <Zakim> +adam; got it
13:36:18 <francois> Regrets- SeanP
13:36:49 <SeanP> That was last week.
13:37:06 <SeanP> Scribe: SeanP
13:37:20 <SeanP> Scribenick:SeanP
13:37:54 <francois> zakim, code?
13:37:54 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), francois
13:37:59 <Zakim> + +41.31.972.aaee
13:38:29 <francois> zakim, aaee is EdC
13:38:29 <Zakim> +EdC; got it
13:38:48 <SeanP> Topic:MWABP
13:38:54 <SeanP> Jo: Anything there?
13:39:02 <SeanP> Adam: Nothing from me.
13:39:10 <SeanP> Jo: How far do we need to go on this?
13:39:55 <SeanP> Adam: There need to be 2 implementations.  We have only been counting multiple implementations within Google as one implementation.
13:40:25 <SeanP> ...Numbers would look better if we counted the multiple projects in Google as multiples.
13:41:03 <SeanP> Francois: An implementation is independent, so different projects in Google would be different implementations.
13:41:29 <SeanP> ...In practice it would be better to get some different implementations outside of Google.\
13:42:13 <SeanP> Francois: There is no policy against counting multiple implemetations inside Google; in practice it wouldn't look so good if all of the implemetations were from Google.
13:42:38 <SeanP> Adam: We need to highlight which BPs we need more implementations on.
13:42:59 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/mwabp-implementation-report.html Latest MWABP implementation report
13:43:18 <EdC> Are these the most "advanced" or "recent" best practices?
13:43:31 <EdC> I mean, those that are in question.
13:43:43 <SeanP> ...If we take the view that implemations within Google are independent, then we need 1.5 implementations.  If we don't, then we need around 10.
13:43:57 <SeanP> Jo: It's most important to cover the 1.5 implementations.
13:44:35 <SeanP> Francois: It is most important to cover the 1.
13:45:08 <SeanP> Francois: W3C implementations normally don't count.
13:45:45 <SeanP> Adam: There was a guy from W3C in Israel that was going to contribute?
13:46:03 <SeanP> Jo: We just need to push for more implementation reports and get all we can.
13:46:19 <SeanP> Topic: CT Guidelines
13:47:51 <SeanP> Francois: It is a bit unusual to mandate the  public disclosing of an conformance statement.  The should be allowed to implement it in private and not disclose it.
13:48:59 <SeanP> ...The way we have defined it is that if someone claims conformance (in public), then they need to publish a conformance statement.
13:50:20 <SeanP> Francois: One change we could make is to say something about how to claim conformance.
13:50:47 <SeanP> EdC: I think I basically agree with Francois.
13:51:27 <SeanP> ...We can keep it as it is.
13:52:59 <SeanP> Jo: When we have the transition call, are we going to be asked to make a wording change?  Do we need to add public or formal or something like that to the wording?
13:53:27 <SeanP> Jo: In summary, if we are asked to make a wording change, that won't be a problem for anyone.
13:55:27 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref. the need to publish an implementation conformance statement, we note that we take "to claim conformance" to mean "to claim conformance in public". We don't feel that it is necessary to clarify that in the guidelines. The group considers the change as editorial and the editor will make it if requested to do so during the transition call.
13:55:56 <jo> +1
13:56:07 <SeanP> +1
13:56:11 <miguel> +1
13:56:16 <EdC> +1
13:56:19 <francois> +1
13:56:20 <adam> +1
13:56:22 <SeanP> RESOLUTION: Ref. the need to publish an implementation conformance statement, we note that we take "to claim conformance" to mean "to claim conformance in public". We don't feel that it is necessary to clarify that in the guidelines. The group considers the change as editorial and the editor will make it if requested to do so during the transition call.
13:57:29 <SeanP> Francois: The point may be larger than that.  The main push back will be on the lack of a test suite.
13:58:01 <EdC> Ok, would the answer not be that a public claim of conformance means publish an ICS -- which is a minimum requirement for the public to check.
13:59:01 <SeanP> Jo: Sean, you were looking into creating some tests.
13:59:49 <francois> [yes, EdC, the problem being that we should not rely on the public, but should rather provide a real test suite]
14:00:05 <francois> [but it's still better than nothing]
14:00:12 <SeanP> SeanP: I looked into whether I would have time to do some work on a test suite and it looks like I will have some time here and there but not a huge amount, so I'll try to do something on the test suite.
14:00:35 <EdC> [which brings us to the point I raised regarding having at least a process in place to let additional test cases be contributed later on...]
14:00:48 <SeanP> Jo: So, Francois, is this somthing we can use on the transition call?
14:01:08 <EdC> When does the TC take place exactly?
14:01:09 <SeanP> Jo: What are are processes for working on this beyond the end of the working group?
14:01:23 <SeanP> Francois: There is none really.
14:02:10 <SeanP> ...There is no precedent for a working group that ended whose test suite was picked up by some other working group or XG, etc.
14:02:45 <SeanP> Jo: We need to have a transition call and report back to the group in next week's call.
14:02:57 <SeanP> Topic: AOB
14:03:12 <francois> [Transition call should be on Thursday afternoon EU time, EdC]
14:03:19 <Zakim> -adam
14:03:21 <Zakim> -francois
14:03:22 <Zakim> -yeliz
14:03:25 <Zakim> -SeanP
14:03:27 <Zakim> -miguel
14:03:32 <miguel> miguel has left #bpwg
14:03:35 <Zakim> -EdC
14:03:36 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
14:03:38 <Zakim> Attendees were +0790418aaaa, +03498439aabb, jo, miguel, francois, yeliz, +1.630.414.aacc, SeanP, +0207881aadd, adam, +41.31.972.aaee, EdC
14:03:44 <jo> jo has left #bpwg
14:04:25 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:04:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/06/08-bpwg-minutes.html francois
14:04:39 <yeliz> yeliz has left #bpwg
15:19:07 <francois> Zakim, bye
15:19:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #bpwg