- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:46:58 +0200
- To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Hi BPWG participants,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
Main resolution: publish the latest draft of the Content Transformation
Guidelines document as First Public Working Draft.
François.
10 Apr 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0032.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Abel, AlanC, chaals, DRooks, dom, EdM, francois, JeffS, jo,
kai, MartinJ, DKA, nacho, srowen, Yeliz
Regrets
AdamC, PhilA, Shahriar, bryan, hgerlach, magnus, murari, rob
Chair
DKA
Scribe
chaals
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Content Transformation TF
2. [6]Status update
3. [7]BP2
4. [8]Accessibility document
5. [9]BP2 second editor
6. [10]Other Business
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Content Transformation TF
Status update
<dom> [12]CT guidelines latest editors version
[12]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080409
DKA: I think the draft is ready for FPWD...
<jo> [13]CT guidelines latest editors version
[13]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080410
FD: CT task force agreed that they wanted to go to FPWD, so we are
requesting formal approval from the group. Someone sent some
comments this morning but not blocking publication.
<dom> [I applaud the CT task force for the quality of the CT
guidelines; really good document for a FPWD IMO]
FD: Note that the document doesn't confine itself to mobile
specifically. It recognises that Content Transformation happens, and
scopes itself to web browsing.
... section 2 describes proxy types based on HTTP RFC - the document
is about non-transparent proxies.
... We talk about different kinds of transformation and what needs
to happen.
... E.g. compression, markup change, splitting page, etc.
... Requirements section needs to be reworked (at least 3.1 and 3.2
be merged and rewritten).
... There needs to be: Control by user (view original content, find
out what's happening, maybe set preferences as well)
... Server control - origin servers must be able to enable/disable
transformation
... and Other Things outside the scope of this document. E.g.
disallow lists managed by CT proxies based on out-of-band
communication.
<dom> [14]Publication moratorium starts next week, last pub request
on April 15 (Tuesday)
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2007OctDec/0102.html
FD: (more detailed tour of the document)
<jo> ACTION: jo to raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft 1j noting that
HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links and not HTTP
links [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-732 - Raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft
1j noting that HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links
and not HTTP links [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-17].
FD: We will be looking for feedback from teh public and the WG at
large to improve this...
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Publish Draft 1j of the CT Guidelines as a
FPWD
<dom> +1
<DKA> +1
<nacho> +1
<jeffs> +1
<srowen> +1
DKA: Concerned about all the editorial comments...
<achuter> +1
<yeliz> +1
<SeanP> +1
FD: We made a print stylesheet so if you kill a tree the document
looks better...
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to talk about the editorial comments
JR: There are a lot of editorial comments. Think it is good to
expose our thinking at this point, and I hope we resolve these soon
but I think it is helpful to show the ideas in the meantime.
<dom> [I think it's absolutely fine to go to FPWD with the editorial
notes]
[+1 for the proposed resolution]
RESOLUTION: Publish the Content Transformation draft as a First
Public Working Draft
<Martin1> +1
JR: This is to reflect the thought that we need to actively promote
the work of the group.
<dom> DKA: I think we need to do outreach about this document, esp.
given the current climate around content transformation
<dom> DKA: the CT task force, under Jo's proposition, is suggesting
we should organize an outreach event on CT, maybe around our Sophia
F2F
JR: It would be nice to have an event where people come and say how
lovely this is.
DKA: .mobi will promote it, we can do the same. I think everyone
involved needs to sign up for promoting this.
[process-wise I don't think there is a requirement that we support
what a task force presents...]
<DKA> +1
(discussion about how to promote this further - press releases,
putting on pages, blogging, etc)
<dom> [I think it's too early for a Press Release; the document WILL
be announced on the W3c home page]
JR: Who on the call would attend a meeting to promote this
<achuter> +1
JR: Sophia Antipolis is "not the most central and easily accessible
place to hold a promotion event" (paraphrasing)
... maybe London, Frankfurt or somewhere would be better. But we
need to feel that people's organisations would be interested in
being there.
FD: We have half a day or so spare in Sophia Antipolis that we could
use, independent of other things
AC: POWDER organised an event at GSMA - might be a good model
FD: Agree
CMN: I am feeling like the Task Force is a bit premature in
promoting this, given that it has had WG support for a rough draft
for half an hour... although it does make sense to plan.
JR: I owuld like to think that we are planning with a reasonable
advance to ensure that when we have something like a last call we
are ready to do stuff.
... waiting until this is in the middle of CR before we think about
promoting it will cause us not to do so well.
<srowen> +2
JR: this WD is late on our schedule, but it seems time to plan for
promoting the work in a timely way.
<srowen> (i am an unbiased third party)
<srowen> (... but I still have no idea what the suspicion or
controversy is. it's already getting late as the timely discussion
of this in the community is already passing)
JR: What support is there in the group for people turning up and
having their organisation say "we support this work" within the
group?
<DKA> +1
<jeffs> +1
<Martin1> +1
<srowen> (Will speak for Aaron in saying yes)
<Kai> Maybe
[unless we decide later that we hate this, we are likely to be
there]
<jo> +1
<SeanP> +1
<achuter> Maybe
<edm> maybe
<francois> +1
<nacho> maybe too
<yeliz> maybe
<dom> [16]Latest BP2 draft
[16]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080409
BP2
DKA: We have a number of comments in and some responses
... it will be difficult to discuss this with Bryan :(
JR: Having just had the group agree to make a FPWD, it seems that
there is potentially less consensus about the readiness of BP2 for
FPWD.
<dom> [I agree on Jo's view about not being quite at consensus yet]
<srowen> (Bryan asked that we not take a resolution one way or the
other on proceeding today, in his absence.)
JR: think we are heading in the right direction but the document
should be clearer about noting the areas that are currently under
discussion
DKA: Are there resolutions we can take?
<srowen> (I personally am OK with a public draft that clearly marks
a few areas as 'under discussion')
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to suggest that we postpone a week even
if just to get continuous news
No resolution today.
Accessibility document
AC: We have been looking at this for a while
... the mapping from BP to WCAG goes one way, the mapping the other
way works differently.
<achuter>
[17]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/restructure/v2_wcag20-mwbp-together.html#mwbp_compared
[17]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/v2_wcag20-mwbp-together.html#mwbp_compared
AC: it seems better to make the flow follow the task and structure
around the WCAG for someone who has done BP and wants to know what
they still need to do for WCAG rather than being led through BP
again.
<jo> [PROPOSED RESOLUTION: (To be taken next week) Proceed with new
structure of Accessibility doc]
<jo> [All to be prepared to answer this in an informed way next
week]
<jeffs> brb
<dom> DKA: shouldn't this be done as part of a primer rather than
directly in this document?
<dom> [I don't see a benefit from building yet another document;
this sounds like it should be the primer itself]
<yeliz> +q
<yeliz>
[18]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-mwbp-wcag-20080122/wcag20-mwbp.html
#extending_WCAG20_MWBP10
[18]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-mwbp-wcag-20080122/wcag20-mwbp.html#extending_WCAG20_MWBP10
YY: There is a summary at the top of the document linked above
saying which are the BPs you need to do still (or not)
... I think it is good to keep these documents short and have the
summaries. I think it would be a good idea to have a seperate
document that goes through best practices in detail showing how they
relate to accessibility guidelines
<scribe> ACTION: Yeliz to restructure a couple of BPs to illustrate
her point [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-733 - Restructure a couple of BPs to
illustrate her point [on Yeliz Yesilada - due 2008-04-17].
DKA: I wasn't talking about the exhaustive document. I am talking
about a simple thing that says "you are here, this is what you need
to add to get there"
<achuter> [20]http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/
[20] http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/
AC: We are just talking about a new way of structuring the existing
document to make it easier to use.
... pasted a link to a very short summary document which may be what
DKA was wanting.
<achuter>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/restructure/v2_wcag20-mwbp-together.html#wcag_sc_compared
[21]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/v2_wcag20-mwbp-together.html#wcag_sc_compared
<DKA> Alan: review structure of the document, specifically whether
2nd half of the document should be removed.
DKA: Think we should review this document first
<DKA> Alan: (specifically "Individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria
Compared")
JR: Think we should plan some proposed resolutions to guide people
where to look, so we can take advantage of the great work Alan has
done.
<achuter> Please look through the section of the document pointed to
by URL above and decide whether it is really useful and if not ,
could be removed
DKA: Makes sense.
... so for the agenda for next week, let's look at having a
resolution on the question of whether to remove the section
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/restructure/v2_wcag20-mwbp-together.html#wcag_sc_compared
[22]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/v2_wcag20-mwbp-together.html#wcag_sc_compared
<dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION (for next week): agree on the
restructuring of the wcag-mwbp
AC: I think we could go ahead, and the material is still around if
we make the changes back again.
JR: I don't want the group to keep giving you guys the runaround -
we should have informed and clear guidance for you.
<achuter>
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0040.htm
l
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0040.html
<achuter>
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0042.htm
l
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0042.html
DKA: You are asking Shawn these questions?
AC: They are questions addressed in the document, not things that we
need to answer seperately.
<dom> ACTION: Alan to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to
approve [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) -
Alan
<trackbot-ng> Try using a different identifier, such as family name
or username (eg. achuter, atai)
<dom> ACTION: achuter to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to
approve [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-734 - Prepare a set of resolutions for
BPWG to approve [on Alan Chuter - due 2008-04-17].
JR: Suggest Alan give us a list of proposed resolutions, with
pointers to the things we need to understand to make intelligent
decisions on the draft.
BP2 second editor
DHM: I have heard a few people wondering about moving BP2 to FPWD,
and I think the best thing we could do would be to provide Bryan
with a co-editor if we have someone available...
... so if anyone is wondering, please please step up
<DKA> +1
DHM: may be text editing, or creating issues and following tracker
etc, ...
Other Business
JR: The resumed "mobile OK Trustmark Scheme draft thingo" has now
been posted for people to consider...
<edm> bye
<nacho> bye
[27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/
latest
[27]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/latest
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: achuter to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to
approve [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Alan to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to
approve [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: jo to raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft 1j noting that
HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links and not HTTP
links [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Yeliz to restructure a couple of BPs to illustrate her
point [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 15:44:26 UTC