13:58:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:58:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-irc
13:58:25 <trackbot-ng> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:58:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:58:27 <trackbot-ng> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:58:27 <Zakim> ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:58:28 <trackbot-ng> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:58:28 <trackbot-ng> Date: 17 April 2008
13:58:54 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started
13:59:08 <Zakim> + +0207031aaaa
13:59:35 <jo> zakim, code?
13:59:52 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:00:10 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0054.html
14:00:14 <Zakim> +francois
14:00:33 <miguel> miguel has joined #bpwg
14:00:47 <francois> Regrets: PhilA, EdM, nacho, shah, kemp, MartinJ, Bryan, Yeliz
14:00:59 <francois> Regrets+ rob
14:01:01 <srowen> srowen has joined #bpwg
14:01:10 <dom> zakim, who's on the call?
14:01:20 <Zakim> +Dom
14:01:22 <Zakim> +??P1
14:01:30 <jo> zakim, ??P1 is probably me
14:01:40 <Zakim> +drooks
14:01:43 <Magnus> Magnus has joined #bpwg
14:01:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see +0207031aaaa, francois, ??P1, Dom, drooks
14:01:51 <adam> zakim, aaaa is me
14:01:57 <Magnus> zakim, code?
14:02:00 <jeffs> Zakim, please mute me
14:02:04 <Zakim> +jeffs
14:02:06 <Zakim> +jo?; got it
14:02:19 <Magnus> Zakim, code?
14:02:26 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
14:02:39 <Zakim> +adam; got it
14:02:41 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Magnus
14:02:43 <jo> Chair: Jo
14:02:47 <Zakim> jeffs should now be muted
14:02:51 <Zakim> +[W3C-Spain]
14:03:03 <Zakim> +Sean_Owen
14:03:14 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Magnus
14:03:24 <Zakim> -[W3C-Spain]
14:03:26 <Magnus> yeah, I'm in here already, Zakim
14:03:52 <Zakim> +Magnus
14:04:00 <hgerlach> hgerlach has joined #bpwg
14:04:18 <Zakim> +hgerlach
14:04:49 <jo> zakim, who is making noise?
14:05:22 <hgerlach> noise or voice???
14:05:26 <manrique> manrique has joined #bpwg
14:05:48 <AlanT> AlanT has joined #bpwg
14:06:06 <Zakim> jo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jo? (38%), Magnus (5%), hgerlach (81%)
14:06:14 <Zakim> +SeanP
14:06:21 <Zakim> +Carlos_Iglesias
14:06:23 <jo> zakim, mute hgerlach
14:06:32 <Magnus> I can't be making noise, I'm muted
14:06:37 <miguel> Zakim, Carlos_Iglesias is me
14:06:55 <Zakim> hgerlach should now be muted
14:06:59 <Zakim> +miguel; got it
14:07:43 <jo> zakim, pick a victim
14:07:43 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jo?
14:07:54 <jo> zakim, pick anohter victim
14:07:55 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pick anohter victim', jo
14:08:06 <jo> zakim, pick a victim
14:08:06 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose francois
14:08:21 <francois> Scribe: francois
14:08:24 <francois> ScribeNick: francois
14:08:38 <jo> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0054.html Agenda
14:08:46 <francois> Topic: Content Transformation
14:08:54 <Zakim> +berrueta
14:09:20 <jo> FD: CT Document was published in FPWD earlier this week
14:09:20 <miguel> Zakim, berrueta is probably manrique
14:09:20 <Zakim> +manrique?; got it
14:09:22 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/ CT guidelines FPWD
14:10:06 <jo> FD: Have received one comment so far, and we are continuing to work and to publish a document in Last Call before or at the F2F in June
14:10:15 <dom> i/FD: CT/ScribeNick: jo/
14:10:22 <dom> ScribeNick: francois
14:10:27 <francois> jo: questions?
14:10:44 <francois> ... no question, fine.
14:11:10 <francois> ... We discussed last week about having a workshop-like event for CT
14:11:33 <francois> ... The GSMA has kindly offered to host such an event, so we now need to setup a date for that to happen
14:11:48 <francois> ... I'll work with francois, dan, dom, and marie-claire on that
14:12:04 <francois> ... The likely date: the week immediately after the F2F meeting
14:12:34 <francois> ... the general idea being for people coming from far away to stay over the weekend and attend the event as well
14:12:46 <dom> zakim, who's on the call?
14:12:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see adam, francois, jo?, Dom, drooks, jeffs (muted), Sean_Owen, Magnus, hgerlach (muted), SeanP, miguel, manrique
14:12:51 <dom> zakim, who's on the call from the US?
14:12:51 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, dom.
14:12:51 <francois> ... 23 June 2008 or 24 June 2008 are the likely dates for the moment.
14:13:02 <francois> ... Any comment on the date?
14:13:13 <francois> ... Is it convenient?
14:13:29 <SeanP> I'm from N.A., I think it will be OK, I'll check on it however.
14:13:47 <francois> ... OK, so we'll consider this was an excellent idea we came up with ;-)
14:14:15 <francois> ... We should get back with news within a week or less hopefully.
14:14:28 <francois> Topic: mobileOK issues
14:14:31 <Seungyun> Seungyun has joined #bpwg
14:14:37 <Zakim> +??P48
14:14:38 <Zakim> -??P48
14:14:41 <francois> jo: dom, would you like to introduce the topic?
14:14:45 <jo> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0047.html Dom on mobileOK
14:14:51 <francois> dom: basically 4 open issues on mobileOK Basic
14:15:07 <Seungyun> hi this seungyun from Korea
14:15:11 <francois> ... and none of them are waiting for new inputs, so we need to decide for resolutions on these issues
14:15:21 <Zakim> +??P48
14:15:26 <francois> ... For each of them, I proposed 2-3 possible resolutions
14:15:52 <Seungyun> sorry I am only available with IRC
14:16:32 <Kai> Kai has joined #bpwg
14:16:57 <francois> ... First issue: ISSUE-230: OBJECTS_AND_SCRIPTS
14:17:10 <francois> ... and the problem of multiple objects children
14:17:15 <jo> ISSUE-230?
14:17:15 <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-230 -- OBJECTS_AND_SCRIPTS needs to address <object> with multiple children -- OPEN
14:17:15 <trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/230
14:17:25 <achuter> achuter has joined #bpwg
14:17:54 <francois> ... Currently, we assume that the nesting can only be done as one object inside another one, whereas it can be done recursively.
14:18:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:18:06 <achuter> zakim, IPCaller is me
14:18:07 <Zakim> +achuter; got it
14:18:08 <francois> ... That's not pretty usual, but it may
14:18:18 <francois> ... Few options on the table:
14:18:26 <francois> 1. ignore this, we'll fix it later
14:19:12 <francois> 2. new algorithm suggested by Jo and Sean
14:19:31 <francois> ... I think it would suit us fine
14:19:51 <francois> [scribe says to take a look at Dom's email for more details on the algorithm]
14:19:51 <jo> the proposed algorithm:
14:19:53 <jo>  For each object element that has no object element ancestor
14:19:55 <jo>          Request the object (ingoring the type attribute)
14:19:57 <jo>          Apply the Object Processing Rule
14:19:59 <jo>  Object Processing Rule
14:20:01 <jo>  If the content type of the retrieved object is not image/jpeg or image/gif
14:20:03 <jo>          If it is empty, warn
14:20:03 <francois> ... 3. remove object parsing
14:20:04 <jo>          If it consists only of white space, FAIL
14:20:06 <jo>          For each of its descendant object elements that is not a descendant of another descendant object element, apply the object processing rule
14:20:26 <francois> dom: my proposed resolution would be to use the new algorithm
14:20:35 <francois> s/[scribe says to take a look at Dom's email for more details on the algorithm]/
14:20:38 <francois> s/[scribe says to take a look at Dom's email for more details on the algorithm]//
14:20:51 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt algorithm above as Resolution to ISSUE-230
14:21:00 <francois> jo: comments on that?
14:21:07 <jo> +1
14:21:13 <dom> +1
14:21:19 <Kai> +1
14:21:24 <adam> +1
14:21:55 <francois> RESOLUTION: Adopt algorithm above as Resolution to ISSUE-230
14:22:16 <francois> Second issue: ISSUE-231: MINIMIZE should take into account whitespace in CSS
14:22:18 <jo> ISSUE-231?
14:22:18 <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-231 -- MINIMIZE should take into account whitespace in CSS -- OPEN
14:22:18 <trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/231
14:22:57 <francois> dom: whitespaces are currently not counted in CSS, only in the markup, so we could extend it.
14:23:07 <francois> ... actually, that was already implemented in the checker
14:23:18 <jo> s/whitespaces are/whitespace is/
14:23:26 <francois> ... 2 possibilities:
14:23:31 <francois> ... 1. we include CSS white space in the test
14:23:37 <francois> ... 2. we leave that for a next version of mobileOK basic
14:23:57 <francois> ... I suggest to wait for next version. It's not a broken test, we should keep things simple.
14:24:27 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Leave mobileOK as is and look at CSS redundant whitespace in a new version of mobileOK
14:24:27 <Kai> I had written a technique on that, which could be used by the checker
14:25:06 <jo> q?
14:25:33 <francois> jo: kai, before you comment, the checker already has some dormant code that is not executed, so it's more about changing the code, but rather the document
14:25:42 <francois> kai: ok, understood
14:25:48 <francois> jo: any other comment?
14:25:53 <francois> ... ok.
14:25:57 <jo> s/more about/less about/
14:26:04 <francois> RESOLUTION: Leave mobileOK as is and look at CSS redundant whitespace in a new version of mobileOK
14:26:04 <jo> +1
14:26:07 <dom> +1
14:26:09 <Kai> +1
14:26:11 <jeffs> +1
14:26:13 <miguel> +1
14:26:14 <adam> +1
14:26:43 <jo> ISSUE-234?
14:26:43 <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-234 -- PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT Should Objects Tasted count towards the overall page weight -- OPEN
14:26:43 <trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/234
14:27:11 <francois> Third issue: ISSUE-234 Counting the bytes that travel through the network in case an object is not supported by the browser
14:27:26 <francois> dom: the most controversial one
14:27:48 <francois> ... jo suggested we should actually count that as part of the total page size, given the 20K limit test.
14:28:10 <francois> ... we did a bit of experimentation to see in which cases a browser downloads objects it doesn't support
14:28:13 <Seungyun> agreed
14:28:37 <francois> ... 2 options again:
14:28:41 <francois> ... 1. we add that algorithm in our calculation of PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT
14:28:46 <francois> ... 2. we keep it for the next version of mobileOK basic
14:28:58 <jo> q?
14:29:01 <francois> I personally prefer option 2, but I know there were some discussion on that
14:29:14 <francois> s/I personally/dom: I personally
14:29:49 <francois> jo: I fear that this might end up labelling mobileOK pages that actually downloads 10s and 100s of Kb of code
14:30:35 <Kai> q+
14:31:05 <francois> ... I would prefer that we count objects that don't set a media type
14:31:22 <dom> s/media type/type attribute:
14:31:29 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add the size of ojects referenced without a type attribute indicating what type they are
14:31:30 <dom> s/attribute:/attribute/
14:32:06 <jeffs> srowen: /ojects/objects
14:32:08 <francois> dom: [convinced by jo's crying]
14:32:22 <jo> +1
14:32:27 <dom> +1
14:32:29 <jeffs> +1
14:32:49 <Seungyun> +1
14:32:54 <francois> RESOLUTION: Add the size of objects referenced without a type attribute indicating what type they are
14:33:18 <jo> ISSUE-240?
14:33:18 <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-240 -- Remove requirement of validity to self-declared DTD -- OPEN
14:33:18 <trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/240
14:33:22 <jo> q?
14:33:26 <jo> ack k
14:33:26 <francois> Fourth issue: ISSUE-240 validation to the declared DTD
14:34:08 <francois> dom: currently, mobileOK Basic says you have to be noth valid to the declared DTD and the XHTML Basic 1.1 or MP1.2 DTD
14:34:34 <jo> s/noth/both
14:34:48 <francois> ... the problem is in terms of implementation, it's a pain to do SGML-validation for HTML 4.x and ancestors docs
14:35:19 <jeffs> IMHO validity testing should be there
14:35:29 <francois> ... If the declared DTD is external, that means the checker has to download the DTD from an unknown server
14:36:17 <francois> ... So I think we should remove the validation to the declared DTD, while still keeping the XHTML Basic1.1 or MP1.2 DTD
14:36:44 <francois> ... Second option is to validate only on well-known DTDs (OMA, W3C)
14:36:58 <francois> ... Little consensus for the time being.
14:37:33 <jeffs> IMHO option 2 is okay
14:37:37 <dom> q?
14:37:51 <jeffs> zakim unmute me
14:37:51 <francois> jo: even if you are valid to your declared doctype, then you won't be mobileOK if you're not also valid to XHTML Basic 1.1 or MP1.2
14:38:36 <jeffs> zakim, unmute me
14:38:36 <Zakim> jeffs should no longer be muted
14:38:54 <francois> ... I don't quite see the point of validation agains well-known DTDs, because that's not coherent.
14:39:34 <francois> ... for the sake of simplicity, my preference would be that we drop the test on the declared DTD
14:39:45 <francois> jeffs: I can see your argument
14:40:14 <francois> ... The only thing I'm concerned is the future
14:41:05 <jeffs> zakim, mute me
14:41:05 <Zakim> jeffs should now be muted
14:42:03 <jeffs> can live fine with "validate only on well-known DTDs (OMA, W3C)"
14:42:23 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Drop validation against declared DOCTYPE as it does not represent sufficient added value compared with the complications it introduces
14:42:31 <jo> +1
14:42:34 <dom> +1
14:42:35 <jeffs> -1
14:42:35 <Kai> +1
14:42:36 <francois> srowen: no further comment, I agree.
14:42:50 <jeffs> okay
14:42:52 <jeffs> +1
14:42:57 <jeffs> sorry
14:43:06 <francois> RESOLUTION: Drop validation against declared DOCTYPE as it does not represent sufficient added value compared with the complications it introduces
14:43:54 <francois> dom: that's it. But we need to discuss the implications in terms of W3C process for the doc.
14:44:23 <francois> ... The changes could be substantive enough, IMO, to require another Last Call draft
14:44:49 <francois> ... ISSUE-230: it's just a reword, so we'd be safe on that one
14:45:44 <francois> ... ISSUE-234 (counting tasted objects) and ISSUE-240 (validation against DTD): substantive changes because you could be mobileOK before and not anymore (well, for ISSUE-234 only actually)
14:46:00 <Kai> q+ to ask about potential changes resulting from mobileOK Pro work
14:46:11 <jo> ack k
14:46:11 <Zakim> Kai, you wanted to ask about potential changes resulting from mobileOK Pro work
14:46:22 <francois> ... Given that this would be the 4th Last Call, so the plan could be that we go to Last Call, wait for 4 weeks, and then jump directly to Proposed Recommendation
14:46:51 <francois> Kai: I wanted to know if we should address potential changes that work on mobileOK Pro may bring
14:46:52 <dom> s/4 weeks/3 weeks/
14:47:23 <francois> srowen: Kai, I thought you were talking about Best Practices in your email
14:47:31 <francois> kai: yes, indeed.
14:48:42 <francois> jo: Best Practices should soon be cleared to go to Rec, since XHTML Basic is likely to move soon to PR
14:49:01 <francois> ... so mobileOK Basic Test could be cleared to go to PR shortly after that.
14:49:02 <dom> [just a reminder that to go to PR we still need to complete our CR exit criteria]
14:49:46 <francois> ... there's a possibility that both BP1 and mobileOK Basic be Rec before June's F2F
14:50:16 <francois> dom: yes... that would be possible
14:50:26 <francois> jo: I don't think we should do that, kai.
14:50:38 <francois> kai: that's fine, I just wanted to bring that point.
14:51:23 <francois> jo: in that case, I would acknowledge your point kai, but propose we don't do anything for that
14:52:36 <dom> [the publications moratorium ends on April 28; so we should try to have mobileOK basic ready to go to LC by then]
14:52:53 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Basic to be changed in the three ways noted above, to re-enter last call for the minimum period, and then to seek transition to PR as soon as possible given CR exit criteria met
14:53:10 <jo> +1
14:53:14 <jeffs> +1
14:53:16 <dom> +1
14:53:19 <Kai> +1
14:53:23 <achuter> +1
14:53:38 <francois> RESOLUTION: mobileOK Basic to be changed in the three ways noted above, to re-enter last call for the minimum period, and then to seek transition to PR as soon as possible given CR exit criteria met
14:53:51 <jo> ACTION: Jo to enact changes to mobileOK as noted above
14:53:51 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-736 - Enact changes to mobileOK as noted above [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-24].
14:54:20 <francois> Topic: BP2
14:54:50 <francois> jo: lots of things to talk about BP2, but I'm not sure we'll be able to make much progress in Bryan's absence.
14:55:06 <francois> ... Let's put the comments on one side.
14:55:26 <francois> ... and discuss two issues that I raised yesterday
14:55:54 <francois> ... But before we do that, let's talk about the Korean TF
14:55:59 <francois> Topic: Korean TF
14:56:04 <Seungyun> thanks
14:56:35 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/ Korean TF home page
14:56:52 <jo> [francois just giving perspective on set up of home page etc.]
14:56:55 <Seungyun> I sent a email to all of you with updated proposal link -->  http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddkw3489_18gg7zjk57
14:57:51 <Zakim> -manrique
14:57:53 <francois> public-bpwg-korean@w3.org
14:58:13 <francois> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-korean/ archives of the Korean mailing-list
14:58:32 <jo> Seungyun, we'll review your note separately, do you want to make some comments via IRC on current status?
14:58:43 <Seungyun> sure
14:59:14 <Seungyun> we have disscussed about TF operation with mobile web 2.0 forum members yesterday.
15:00:04 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:00:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:00:14 <Seungyun> so you can see the results from http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddkw3489_18gg7zjk57 
15:00:20 <DKA> +1
15:01:00 <jo> OK, thanks, Seungyun, 
15:01:07 <DKA> (just catching up with previous resolutions -- sorry)
15:01:10 <Zakim> -drooks
15:01:11 <Seungyun> please review them and comment me
15:01:14 <francois> zakim, list attendees
15:01:14 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +0207031aaaa, francois, Dom, drooks, jeffs, jo?, adam, [W3C-Spain], Sean_Owen, Magnus, hgerlach, SeanP, miguel, manrique, achuter
15:01:22 <Zakim> -Magnus
15:01:34 <jo> OK Seungyun, we'll aim to comment and close this issue next week
15:01:43 <jo> thanks for the update
15:01:47 <Seungyun> ok thanks
15:02:04 <francois> Topic: mobileOK Pro TF
15:02:27 <francois> kai: lately, not much had happened. We've had had no feedback, so nothing is happening.
15:02:46 <dom> q+
15:02:54 <francois> jo: ok. So what would you suggest to stimulate progress on this subject?
15:03:26 <dom> ack me
15:03:28 <Zakim> + +00044122347aabb
15:03:30 <francois> ... ok, I think we should aim for resolving for publication as FPWD within 2 weeks
15:04:09 <francois> dom: kai, you said there was no feedback, but from my understanding, you added new tests recently. Is there a new draft available?
15:04:31 <francois> kai: yes and no. I was willing to wait until we have all tests finished.
15:05:12 <francois> dom: I haven't sent feedback on current version as I sent feedback on previous version and am waiting for the next one.
15:05:26 <francois> kai: your feedback was the only one and was taken into account
15:05:29 <dom> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/716
15:06:04 <francois> kai: I think we have fairly improved the reliability of the tests
15:06:31 <francois> dom: I think we should have a clear picture of this before moving to FPWD
15:06:49 <francois> kai: suggestion on the best way to proceed?
15:07:08 <francois> ... should I post the doc as it is? should I wait until it is finished?
15:07:38 <francois> dom: my concern was more on how we want to position mobileOK Pro compared to mobileOK Basic, what public are we targetting
15:08:00 <francois> kai: I understood the discussion would be headed by having a document at hand
15:08:32 <jo> ACTION-716?
15:08:32 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-716 -- Phil Archer to summarise discussion on Pro subjectivity and to get ball rolling for a PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the subject -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN
15:08:32 <trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/716
15:08:40 <francois> kai: so the action is there, but the issue needs to be raised?
15:08:59 <francois> dom: yes, and more than raised, we need to discuss it, and find a consensus on that
15:09:42 <francois> jo: the real test of subjectivity is probably not what the WG thinks, but what the community thinks
15:09:49 <dom> [re assigning ACTION-716 to Kai]
15:10:19 <srowen> (I apologize, I need to drop off early today)
15:10:45 <francois> kai: if it's ok that the doc is not completely finished, then I'll update a fresh version of the doc
15:10:46 <Kai> i will
15:10:48 <dom> [I'll be away the next 2 weeks]
15:11:02 <francois> Jo: btw, how many people will be in Beijing?
15:11:10 <achuter> I won't
15:11:18 <jo> PROPOSOED RESOLUTION: Hold a call next week, as only a few people will be in Beijing
15:11:21 <jo> +1
15:11:23 <dom> [note that the following Thursdays after next May 1st and 8 may be closed in a few European countries]
15:11:24 <francois> +1
15:11:25 <jeffs> +1
15:11:26 <Seungyun> I will be there :)
15:11:36 <miguel> +1
15:12:28 <francois> RESOLUTION: Hold a call next week, as only a few people will be in Beijing
15:12:42 <Zakim> -Sean_Owen
15:12:49 <francois> Topic: Back to BP2
15:13:19 <francois> jo: 2 issues I raised based on discussions on the mailing-list
15:13:23 <jo> ISSUE-245
15:13:26 <dom> ISSUE-245?
15:13:27 <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-245 -- ADC, A Wooden Stake and Some Garlic Needed -- OPEN
15:13:27 <trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/245
15:14:18 <francois> jo: kai, as a proponent of the idea of the ADC, would you like to speak in favor of it?
15:14:38 <francois> ... as I have explained, I'm not much in favor of defining the ADC, would be impractical
15:15:26 <francois> kai: If I transpose the DDC into the ADC, it gives the public a mean to shoot for
15:15:58 <francois> ... for people that are not inclined to use content transformation, then the ADC gives a delivery context that would work on most devices
15:16:59 <francois> ... We're answering the call of the public for something more modern.
15:17:15 <francois> jo: other comments?
15:17:53 <adam> q+
15:17:57 <francois> kai: I'm amazed that nobody has anything to say about that.
15:18:07 <jo> ack adam
15:19:03 <francois> adam: I'm wondering if there's something that would not be called ADC that could be used in the doc.
15:19:13 <francois> ... in BP1, we said "don't rely on this"
15:19:30 <jeffs> the more we can tell people concrete things they can actually do to exploit dev caps, the better
15:19:34 <francois> ... in BP2, it's more "to rely on this, do that"
15:20:46 <francois> jo: provided we can name the capabilities and features of a device, and how to tell if the capabilities are there or not, then we get a clearer doc and useful document
15:21:17 <francois> ... I strongly support the idea that each BP we advocate may not apply to all devices
15:21:28 <jeffs> how to test for caps, how to exploit what you find... expect to find this in a document entitled "Best Practices"
15:21:38 <francois> ... BP2 as an extension to BP1 on "exploit device capabilities"
15:22:06 <dom> +1 to Jo's approach
15:22:28 <francois> ... Agreeing on an ADC would take too much time and market goes fast as Adam points out
15:22:32 <Kai> q+ to ask what it would mean then to be mobileOK
15:22:38 <francois> ... and I think that's just not needed.
15:23:21 <jo> ack k
15:23:21 <Zakim> Kai, you wanted to ask what it would mean then to be mobileOK
15:23:57 <francois> kai: what form would mobileOK take with BP2?
15:24:25 <francois> jo: mobileOK Basic is simply an expression of how the content would display on a device with minimal capabilities
15:25:02 <hgerlach> hgerlach has joined #bpwg
15:25:02 <francois> ... I don't have a mobileOK equivalent to BP2 on my agenda although that certainly needs to be discussed
15:25:25 <francois> kai: if we expect people to go to a certain point, then we should give them a goal to shoot for.
15:27:00 <francois> jo: that's not what BP2 are about. It's about saying: "get your nose up!"
15:27:25 <francois> ... It's perfectly ok to have the basic thing, that was needed.
15:27:44 <francois> ... BP2 need to be practical enough to be implementable.
15:27:46 <jeffs> IMHO: mobileOK is minimum, not *best* practices...
15:28:39 <jeffs> that is why we need both
15:29:04 <francois> kai: the point I'm missing is why not providing a set of values that people should program against?
15:29:47 <francois> ... whether we have an ADC or not, if the ADC gets outdated, then the capabilities would be outdated, and so would be the doc
15:30:17 <francois> ... I think we're not giving the community something useful
15:31:03 <francois> jo: DDC is representative of the minimum capabilities to render pages, it's not linked to any point in time.
15:31:11 <hgerlach> hgerlach has joined #bpwg
15:31:30 <dom> [related to device capabilities detection, screenshots of the recently released Web Compatibility Test for Mobile Browsers http://www.w3.org/2008/04/wctmb/ ]
15:31:31 <francois> ... It's all about Web experience: the minimum width, ...
15:31:42 <hgerlach> sorry, I have to leave - bye
15:31:51 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We continue not to define an ADC but will treat each of the capabilities in its own right in BP2
15:31:58 <Kai> -1
15:32:03 <adam> +1
15:32:03 <dom> q+
15:32:08 <dom> ack me
15:32:11 <Zakim> -hgerlach
15:32:24 <jo> +1
15:32:32 <jeffs> +1
15:32:42 <francois> dom: I think Jo's approach is the right one: for each BP, what properties/capabilities are associated with it.
15:32:49 <DKA> +1
15:33:02 <francois> ... I guess we can't resolve right now as there doesn't seem to be a consensus here.
15:33:45 <francois> ... kai, you probably should continue and make your points about how ADC will help the community at large on the mailing-list
15:33:58 <jo> ACTION: Kai to take the discussion forward on ISSUE-245
15:33:58 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-737 - Take the discussion forward on ISSUE-245 [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-04-24].
15:34:08 <jeffs> I ust go
15:34:36 <francois> jo: ok, thanks everybody, we'll resume on that next week.
15:34:40 <jeffs> bye
15:34:42 <francois> [adjourned]
15:34:44 <Zakim> -Dom
15:34:44 <Seungyun> bye all
15:34:45 <Zakim> -adam
15:34:45 <Zakim> -??P48
15:34:46 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:34:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:34:47 <miguel> bye
15:34:47 <Zakim> -SeanP
15:34:49 <Zakim> -jeffs
15:34:50 <Zakim> - +00044122347aabb
15:34:52 <Zakim> -achuter
15:34:53 <Zakim> -francois
15:34:55 <Zakim> -miguel
15:35:04 <Zakim> -jo?
15:35:05 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended
15:35:06 <Zakim> Attendees were +0207031aaaa, francois, Dom, drooks, jeffs, jo?, adam, [W3C-Spain], Sean_Owen, Magnus, hgerlach, SeanP, miguel, manrique, achuter, +00044122347aabb
15:37:26 <francois> i/Jo: btw, how/Topic: Next week's call/
15:37:31 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutse
15:37:31 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minutse', francois.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:37:37 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:37:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:41:24 <francois> Present+ adam
15:41:26 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:41:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:44:12 <jo> jo has joined #bpwg
15:45:18 <francois> RRSAgent, bye
15:45:18 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-actions.rdf :
15:45:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to enact changes to mobileOK as noted above [1]
15:45:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-irc#T14-53-51
15:45:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Kai to take the discussion forward on ISSUE-245 [2]
15:45:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-bpwg-irc#T15-33-58