Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

mobileOK Pro

DKA: Phil, updates on pro?

PhilA: had a meeting yesterday. Working through tests, looking at past work, and preparing to write more

are the changes that we've already made addressing the issues of wanting to make the tests more repeatable?

we've made them as repeatable as possible

the posted version on the site is up to date

latest version was attached to a recent mail from Kai on the list

we wonder whether we're heading down the right track -- are the tests repeatable enough?

<dom> mobileOK Pro latest draft

<dom> Kai's announcement

<PhilA> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-pro/2008Mar/0017.html

we think the first dozen tests are repeatable, solid

that's the kind of approach we're taking

we will use these as a template for more tests

DKA: people took actions to write more tests yesterday

PhilA: Dan has the first twenty...

we're trying to listen to comments while making rapid progress

DKA: comments, anyone?

(none heard)

we can look forward to a future draft where more tests are fleshed out

if we can get lazy people like myself to complete their ACTIONs

next topic is content transformation. Francois?

Content Tranformation guidelines

francois: was going to say we need to delay another week, but after another look, there is little left to address

there will be points to address in the future

the 2-3 remaining issues concern altering header values,

we're having trouble finding a clean solution

so maybe we can agree on a 'dirty' one

for example, when the proxy changes the User-Agent header

DKA: what are the 'dirty' options?

francois: clean solution would have been to embed original headers using some multipart format

but that isn't transparent for content providers

the dirty solutions are to create an "X-" HTTP header and use it for this purpose,

or use the ?? HTTP header (what was this?)

final option is to not embed anything

send modified HTTP request if needed

need to agree on one of the the three options

DKA: what's the plan to pick an option?

francois: we'll agree on the next task force call on Tuesday

there are minor issues -- changing wording ins ome parts of the doc

it won't change the doc meaning, just make it more readable

DKA: editorial changes, yes

will we be in a position to implement changes by Wednesday, for review on Wednesday, and resolve to move to working draft next Thursday?

francois: will check with Jo to see if he is available on Wednesday

I hope so

DKA: shall we forget this and bless the 'manifesto'?

francois: saw some discussion on the lists, and I wrote a post on the MWI blog

maybe we can move to BPWG blog

<francois> fd's post

<Bryan> fyi I will be switching to mobile so I can drive kids to school

it just notes that the CT taskforce exists and explains its work

maybe would be more visible on the BPWG blog

DKA: don't think we need a public reply or anything; good to have this post on the BPWG blog

let's post along with the first working draft

francois: yeah, but if the draft is delayed we lose time; it would be nice to wait, if less than 2 more weeks

DKA: group resolution? don't think it's needed unless there is an objection

francois: will proceed if there are no objections

(none heard)

DKA: you have thoughts on what if anything could be used from the manifesto document?

francois: yes, the ideas are already present in the draft for the most part

"never change the User-Agent header" -- I wish we could say such things but it's not possible, so we can't use ideas like that

many ideas make sense

many ideas are heuristics for proxy to figure out whether it needs to transform page or not

but hard to write rules like "must not transform" because few easy cases truly exist

for example, not converting XHTML pages ever is not a practical idea

won't review this next Tuesday, as we have other issues, but can take these issues up after that

DKA: next topic is BP2

Bryan: I sent an update and emailed about it, including input from Jeff

also text about classification of devices

those are the only changes

<dom> new draft of BP2 from bryan

<dom> Diff since previous version

DKA: lots of items in the ACTION queue that may relate to further input

Bryan are there particular things we should pay attention to in the new draft?

Bryan: two sections from Jeff -- group should review and provide comments

I've seen an exchange on the list but not sure how it changes the text

this addresses script "tuning", matching to capabilities, and the same for CSS

the other input is on classification of devices. I pulled text from our developer site with examples of device classification

if this looks good, great, otherwise input is requested

DKA: any comments from the group?

anyone want an action to review this?

We'll have to approach this in a more structured way

Bryan: we have good material in there -- how long to wait until we go to a public draft?

DKA: Dom, francois, thoughts?

dom: yes I think we should move to a public draft, as it will trigger review

maybe 1 more week of review, and with no objection, resolve next week to publish as a public draft

DKA: sounds good

srowen: +1

Bryan: two weeks would be fine too

<dom> Bryan, I think the mention of "mobileOK" in http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080327#conformance should be removed

even if the doc is incomplete, with working notes, it's better to get it into the public view

<dom> (agreed)

DKA: next topic is the proposal regarding the Korean task force

this came from the Seoul F2F meeting

clear that it may be a good idea to set up a separate task force

Korean TF

This TF will facilitate more communication input from Korea on BPs, from Mobile Web 2.0 forum

translating language and requirements for Korean market

<dom> Korean TF charter proposal

I will take the liberty of walking people through the doc, Jonathan

<JonathanJ> Proposal document : http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_7gvbm98fv

TF leaders are Seungyun, Jonathan is a member

also Soonho Lee

Jonathan maybe you can answer on IRC -- is the proposal that one or both task force leaders would represent the task force in the main working group calls?

<JonathanJ> Yes

I think this is a good proposal and I support it

I characterize this as an experiment

maybe useful to set up additional task forces in local markets

particularly supportive of this because of W3C Korea's and MW 2.0 forum's support

want to continue this relationship

make it more productive

other comments?

I propose we resolve to accept this charter

<JonathanJ> +1

<jeffs> +1

<francois> +1

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We accept the proposed task force charter document for a Korean task force and work with all speed to set up the task force as part of the BP group.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We approve the proposed task force charter document for a Korean task force and work with all speed to set up the task force as part of the BP group.

<DKA> RESOLUTION: We approve the proposed task force charter document for a Korean task force and work with all speed to set up the task force as part of the BP group.

We'll be in touch about setting up mailing lists and other infrastructure

DKA: next topic, mobility and accessibility

Accessibility document

comments from Sean Henry from WAI outreach -- can you summarize?

achuter: I took an action to reorganize the document after our conversation

I just sent a message to both groups, a mockup to illustrate how the information has moved around

there is some feedback so far

some have suggested it is too complicated and a simple version is needed

things are moving ahead, slowly

DKA: can we take decisions today that would help move that along?

<achuter> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/Overview.html

achuter: no, just have a look at the reorganized document and see if it makes sense

<achuter> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/mwbp-wcag20.html

this document is for someone familiar with BP, and is now moving to WCAG

for each WCAG criteria, this specifies how it relates to mobile, and enumerates success criteria

further on, a section on BPs, which describes how BPs help meet WCAG success criteria

DKA: who can take an action to review?
... let's create an ISSUE around this

next item is actions and issues review

action items and issue review

<dom> Open action items

<dom> Actions on BP2

let's start with MWBP 2 actions

<dom> ACTION-618?

ACTION-618 on Ed

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-618 -- Edward Mitukiewicz to review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 -- due 2008-01-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/618

edm: guilty as charged, I don't have time lately...

DKA: let's strike this?

<dom> close ACTION-618

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-618 Review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 closed

<dom> ACTION-665?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665

DKA: should be against accessibility doc, right?

<dom> context for the action

<dom> ACTION-691?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-691 -- Daniel Appelquist to raise issue and start discussion on main page, external resources and so on -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/691

<dom> context for ACTOIN-691

DKA: haven't done this yet

<dom> ACTION-692?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-692 -- Sunghan Kim to provide some example BP statements based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/692

<dom> ACTION-693

<dom> ACTION-693?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-693 -- Daniel Appelquist to raise issue with Dave Raggett in UWA and see if they will take forward from where we leave off -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/693

<dom> context for ACTION-693

<dom> ACTION-694?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-694 -- Daniel Appelquist to review apple document and summarise the parts that might be applicable to BP2 -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/694

DKA: haven't done it

<dom> ACTION-695?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-695 -- Jonathan Jeon to extract BP statements from K MWBP 1.5 document for consideration in BP 2.0 -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/695

DKA: if there are contributions to BP 2, now would be a good time

thank you

<dom> ACTION-697?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-697 -- Daniel Appelquist to summarize the points he can glean from examination of the frost library -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/697

<dom> ACTION-699?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-699 -- Bryan Sullivan to insert an Appendix listing the Device properties that BP2 is dependent upon -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/699

Bryan: appendix has been added, but there are no details yet

<dom> close ACTION-699

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-699 Insert an Appendix listing the Device properties that BP2 is dependent upon closed

<dom> ACTION-700?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-700 -- Bryan Sullivan to introduce a BP on classification of devices into High, Mid, Low etc on a per application basis - with an extended non-normative example, pethaps -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/700

<dom> close ACTION-700

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-700 Introduce a BP on classification of devices into High, Mid, Low etc on a per application basis - with an extended non-normative example, pethaps closed

<dom> ACTION-712?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-712 -- Yeliz Yesilada to review ARIA to see what could be relevant to BP2 -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/712

<dom> ACTION-704?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-704 -- Kai Scheppe to ensure that mobileOK Pro Tests doc is put on BPWG agenda -- due 2008-03-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/704

<dom> close ACTION-704

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-704 Ensure that mobileOK Pro Tests doc is put on BPWG agenda closed

<dom> ACTION-712?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-712 -- Yeliz Yesilada to review ARIA to see what could be relevant to BP2 -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/712

<dom> ACTION-713?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-713 -- Sean Owen to review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to do so -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/713

<dom> close ACTION-713

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-713 Review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to do so closed

srowen: done

<dom> Sean's review of AJAX resources

srowen: Bryan has digested it and incorporated what seems useful

DKA: any checker updates?

srowen: no, keep fixing bugs -- report some more issues for us

DKA: how about the issue on communicating with Korea?

<dom> ACTION-719?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-719 -- Jeffrey Sonstein to take a look at the ref in 5.9.4 and summarize it -- due 2008-03-27 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/719

srowen: not sure, but nothing specific: everyone should be reviewing now, not later. It will be too late in a few weeks

jeffs: will send some more code by emai (?)

5.9.4 and 5.9.5 in latest draft

<dom> Jeff's contribution

<jeffs> will send better-formatted-for-html versions today for posting

<dom> Jeff's contribution on ACTION-719

DKA: no more actions to review today, any others?

let's switch to ISSUEs

<dom> open issues

<dom> ISSUE-237?

<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-237 -- What is the definition of a "Mobile Web Application" for the purposes of BP2? -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/237

<dom> [29 messages exchanged on ISSUE-237]

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close issue-237

<dom> Scope of BP2 describes mobile web applications

DKA: how about mobileOK Basic tests issues?

srowen: Think they are errata for 1.1 -- can leave on the shelf

dom: not sure, may need 1.0 discussion

<dom> [typically, I don't think we can leave mobileOK Basic with ISSUE-230 not resolved]

<dom> ISSUE-229?

<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-229 -- Scope of mobile web applications best practices -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/229

<dom> +1 to closing ISSUE-229

<DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-237

<DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-229

DKA: ISSUE-226 -- resolved by chartering of Korea TF, so close this

<DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-226

<dom> ISSUE-226?

<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-226 -- Recommendations on how to improve relevance of BPs to Korean market -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/226

DKA: checker issues?

srowen: no, don't need group discussion

DKA: CT issues?

francois: "Jo's CT Shopping List" is the important issue but Jo's not here, not on the agenda

<dom> [I think ISSUE-210 should be moved to the checker bugzilla]

(srowen: OK with that --- this is an enhancement request and not really an issue, yes)

(also happy to close ISSUE-214 with 'no')

<DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-210

dom: I'll move it into bugzilla now

DKA: any other business?

(none heard)

<JonathanJ> bye