Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

07 Feb 2008


See also: IRC log


miguel, Dom, francois, Bryan_Sullivan, Magnus, Shahriar, adam, jo, yeliz, Jason, Emmanuel, kemp, Sean_Owen, SeanP, drooks
Kai, MartinJ, achuter, RobFinean, chaals, hgerlach, Abel, nacho, Murari, PhilA


Introducing Emmanuel

mobileOK Object Tasting Experiment

jo: next up, object tasting

<dom> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/results

<dom> dom: based on these results, I think we should only count objects when the type attribute is not set

jo: ok anything else on object tasting?

Task force updates

jo: francois ,thanks for your update...

francois: i think we are at the point in the CT task force where we have some deadlines and we need to move from a wishlist to something practical
... i sent a long email, and there isn't a call next week, so lets discuss the email on the list.

<dom> francois' mail on moving forward in the CT TF

francois: and get something practical into the guidelines so we can move forward

jo: i agree, i think the time has come to press forward
... any other TF members want to comment?

Magnus: yes I am still digesting your email francois, but i have a comment about the content transformation being an extension of the browser.
... this is up for dispute. there are other situations, like when a mobile operator adds a proxy under contract

Bryan: there are a number of value added services CTs provide that are already deployed. within the scope of the guidelines, the objectives are interoperability etc
... however other things may override these objectives (contractual obligations for example) but are outside the scope

<dom> [a contract between an operator and a user does imply that the user gave his consent, doesn't it?]

kemp: there are both types of use cases, though, sometimes it really is an extension of the browser, sometimes it is a proxy under contract, etc.

Magnus: i just wanted to make it clear that there are times it is not a valid assumption that the user is in ultimate control

jo: ok i think we shouldn't continue on this in this call. but it seems like the majority (except for me) sees it much the same way.
... that is, that the transforming gateway can be considered part of the user's equipment.
... so we may want to progress using that view, and explicitly state it. francois?

francois: i think you are right, we should continue the discussion on the mailing list.

jo: ok, anything else on content transformation?

Mobile OK Checker

<dom> [I say, let's do it today]

srowen: i think we might finally be in a position to put out a release
... i haven't heard any objections to my email. no other particular news.

jo: i have one question about the additional ??? tests

srowen: yes it seems people wanted these tests.

jo: ok so it seems we should update mobileOK with these tests


<dom> [I don't think it needs to be added to mobileOK]

srowen: i didn't think that this pseudo-test needed to be added to mobileOK

jo: ok but my concern was that if we don't say something about failing, you can't fail.

srowen: ok well we should chat on list

mobileOK Pro

jo: i will try to summarize since we can't hear

<dom> Kai's report of mobileOK Pro TF F2F

jo: it seems, in summary, that a substantial amount of progress has been made, and that the group may be able to produce things - last call in June

adam: i was there, too
... i don't think i have a lot to add. we went through all the tests, divided them up and gave two weeks to work on them and get back to the group.
... we made notes on the tests about subjectivity issues and open questions around each of them.
... so presenting back to the group in two weeks is the plan

jo: ok anything further on mobileOK pro?

Mobile / Accessibility

jo: plan was to review the document, starting where we left off, but since Alan isn't here, it's not practical to do this.
... deferred to next week

BP 2

Bryan_Sullivan: i did finally get it uploaded.

<Bryan_Sullivan> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080206/

<dom> Bryan's updated draft of BP2 (member-only)

Bryan_Sullivan: i'd appreciate some guidance on where to put things/name them etc.
... the updates i have made are around areas that i am particularly interested in and areas that are important to us as service providers.
... As you'll notice, I establish some criteria for the sort of things we include in BP 2.

<dom> Diff since previous version

Bryan_Sullivan: Things like it needs to be essential to the mobile experience and that it is testable.
... I have put some content in around specific topics we feel are particularly important.
... To summarize, personalization, security/privacy, user awareness and control, and cookies and redirection.
... I also added some content around "conservative use of network traffic".
... So I'd like some feedback on the intended outcome of the document.

jo: questions about the draft? particularly on the criteria for inclusion?
... ok nothing, moving on.


dom: i just wanted to ask if there is a meeting next week, given that many will be in Barcelona

<dom> (regrets from me next week)

<Bryan_Sullivan> +1

jo: ok straw poll, who is going to be here next week?


<francois> (regrets from me for next week)

<Emmanuel> +1

<adam> +1

<miguel> +1

<yeliz> +1

<Jason> +1

<SeanP> Regrets for next week

jo: ok it seems like a significant number will be available, and alan said he would be back, so i think we should meet.
... ok we will continue as normal next week
... any other business?
... ok thanks everyone

<miguel> bye

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/02/07 15:43:28 $