IRC log of bpwg on 2008-05-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:58:23 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:58:23 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-irc
13:58:23 [jeffs]: jeffs has joined #bpwg
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
13:58:27 [DKA]: zakim, code?
13:58:28 [trackbot-ng]: Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:58:28 [trackbot-ng]: Date: 15 May 2008
13:58:29 [Zakim]: the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), DKA
13:58:52 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started
13:58:59 [Zakim]: +francois
13:59:15 [Zakim]: + +0207866aaaa
13:59:21 [DKA]: zakim, aaaa is DKA
13:59:21 [Zakim]: +DKA; got it
13:59:31 [Zakim]: + +1.585.278.aabb
13:59:45 [francois]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008May/0012.html
14:00:03 [francois]: zakim, aabb is jeffs
14:00:03 [Zakim]: +jeffs; got it
14:00:23 [francois]: zakim, mute jeffs
14:00:23 [Zakim]: jeffs should now be muted
14:00:43 [abel]: abel has joined #bpwg
14:01:17 [DKA]: zakim, who's here?
14:01:17 [Zakim]: On the phone I see francois, DKA, jeffs (muted)
14:01:18 [Zakim]: On IRC I see abel, Zakim, jeffs, RRSAgent, DKA, seungyun, jo, francois, trackbot-ng, dom
14:01:57 [jeffs]: zakim, unmute me
14:01:59 [Zakim]: jeffs should no longer be muted
14:02:01 [Zakim]: + +0777613aacc
14:02:21 [Zakim]: + +0207881aadd
14:02:36 [Zakim]: + +049211aaee
14:03:18 [hgerlach]: hgerlach has joined #bpwg
14:03:19 [DKA]: zakim, who is here?
14:03:22 [Zakim]: On the phone I see francois, DKA, jeffs, +0777613aacc, +0207881aadd, +049211aaee
14:03:22 [hgerlach]: hi
14:03:28 [Zakim]: On IRC I see hgerlach, abel, Zakim, jeffs, RRSAgent, DKA, seungyun, jo, francois, trackbot-ng, dom
14:03:36 [Zakim]: +[CTIC]
14:03:43 [DKA]: zakim, aadd is Adam
14:03:48 [Zakim]: +Adam; got it
14:03:50 [Zakim]: +Bryan_Sullivan
14:03:57 [jo]: zakim, code?
14:04:06 [Zakim]: the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:04:07 [Bryan]: Bryan has joined #bpwg
14:04:10 [abel]: zakim, [CTIC] holds me
14:04:12 [Zakim]: +abel; got it
14:04:18 [DKA]: zakim, aaee is Heiko
14:04:18 [Zakim]: +Heiko; got it
14:04:31 [DKA]: zakim, aacc is Martin
14:04:31 [Zakim]: +Martin; got it
14:04:33 [cgi-irc]: cgi-irc has joined #bpwg
14:04:34 [abel]: zakim, [CTIC] holds miguel
14:04:34 [Zakim]: +miguel; got it
14:04:35 [DKA]: zakim, who is here?
14:04:35 [Zakim]: On the phone I see francois, DKA, jeffs, Martin, Adam, Heiko, [CTIC], Bryan_Sullivan
14:04:38 [Zakim]: [CTIC] has miguel
14:04:40 [Zakim]: On IRC I see cgi-irc, Bryan, hgerlach, abel, Zakim, jeffs, RRSAgent, DKA, seungyun, jo, francois, trackbot-ng, dom
14:04:45 [Zakim]: + +0208995aaff
14:04:55 [jo]: zakim, aaff is me
14:04:55 [Zakim]: +jo; got it
14:04:56 [SeanP]: SeanP has joined #bpwg
14:05:06 [DKA]: zakim, who is here?
14:05:07 [Zakim]: On the phone I see francois, DKA, jeffs, Martin, Adam, Heiko, [CTIC], Bryan_Sullivan, jo
14:05:10 [abel]: zakim, [CTIC] holds manrique
14:05:13 [Zakim]: [CTIC] has miguel
14:05:15 [Zakim]: On IRC I see SeanP, cgi-irc, Bryan, hgerlach, abel, Zakim, jeffs, RRSAgent, DKA, seungyun, jo, francois, trackbot-ng, dom
14:05:22 [Zakim]: +manrique; got it
14:05:33 [jo]: zakim, who is here
14:05:36 [Zakim]: jo, you need to end that query with '?'
14:05:42 [jo]: zakim, who is here?
14:05:46 [Zakim]: On the phone I see francois, DKA, jeffs, Martin, Adam, Heiko, [CTIC], Bryan_Sullivan, jo
14:05:50 [Zakim]: [CTIC] has manrique
14:05:56 [Zakim]: On IRC I see SeanP, cgi-irc, Bryan, hgerlach, abel, Zakim, jeffs, RRSAgent, DKA, seungyun, jo, francois, trackbot-ng, dom
14:06:05 [DKA]: zakim, who hasn't scribed recently?
14:06:07 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, DKA.
14:06:09 [francois]: zakim, pick up a victim
14:06:09 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'pick up a victim', francois
14:06:21 [jo]: zakim, ctic also holds miguel
14:06:21 [Zakim]: +miguel; got it
14:06:32 [abel]: zakim, ctic also holds abel
14:06:32 [Zakim]: +abel; got it
14:06:38 [francois]: Scribe: Bryan
14:06:41 [francois]: ScribeNick: Bryan
14:06:47 [jo]: zakim, who is here?
14:06:47 [Zakim]: On the phone I see francois, DKA, jeffs, Martin, Adam, Heiko, [CTIC], Bryan_Sullivan, jo
14:06:49 [Zakim]: [CTIC] has manrique, miguel, abel
14:06:51 [Zakim]: On IRC I see SeanP, cgi-irc, Bryan, hgerlach, abel, Zakim, jeffs, RRSAgent, DKA, seungyun, jo, francois, trackbot-ng, dom
14:07:02 [francois]: Regrets: drooks, murari, scott, EdM, PhilA, nacho, dom, rob
14:07:15 [Zakim]: + +1.630.414.aagg
14:07:23 [manrique]: manrique has joined #bpwg
14:07:24 [SeanP]: zakim, aagg is me
14:07:24 [Zakim]: +SeanP; got it
14:07:24 [francois]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008May/0012.html
14:07:30 [francois]: Chair: DKA
14:07:37 [Zakim]: + +0496151aahh
14:07:41 [MartinJ]: MartinJ has joined #bpwg
14:07:47 [DKA]: zakim, aahh is Kai
14:07:47 [Zakim]: +Kai; got it
14:08:23 [Bryan]: topic: CT TF progress
14:09:48 [Bryan]: Francois: explaining issue with the CT TF, by charter we agreed CT would be informative, but this has consequences. It means we can't identify which parts are normative.
14:10:41 [jo]: q+ to ask Francois if it is also a consequence that the idea of a "conformance claim" does not apply?
14:10:56 [Bryan]: Francois: also state conformance. The big problem is the patent policy, in a normative document any patent issues that conflict must prevent the related aspects from being included
14:11:15 [DKA]: q?
14:11:19 [DKA]: ack jo
14:11:19 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to ask Francois if it is also a consequence that the idea of a "conformance claim" does not apply?
14:11:22 [Bryan]: Francois: otherwise there are implications on the status of the patent if the functions are included
14:12:40 [Bryan]: Francois: same issue occured with BP, the link to mobileOK and tests is a normative recommendation and conformance is per mobileOK, but there is no conformance claim against BP itself
14:13:22 [Bryan]: Dan: that was acceptable as BP was per existing standards, but in mobileOK we needed the additional standing provided by normative status.
14:14:08 [Bryan]: Dan: in CT we are working with specific HTTP semantics for signaling and headers etc. This gets into potential patent realms, and represents a risk. An important issue.
14:14:23 [jo]: q+ to observe that this is a "curate's egg" in that on the one hand we are slightly bending HTTP and so it's best to be non-normative, but on the other hand we'd like the idea of conformance to be meaningful
14:14:53 [DKA]: ack jo
14:14:53 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to observe that this is a "curate's egg" in that on the one hand we are slightly bending HTTP and so it's best to be non-normative, but on the other hand we'd like
14:14:56 [Zakim]: ... the idea of conformance to be meaningful
14:14:56 [Bryan]: Francois: Agrees, the CT should be a normative recommendation, which requires a charter change, or a new charter i.e. recreate the BPWG
14:15:00 [jo]: q+ to add that perhaps we could have a TranformingOK Basic
14:15:16 [Kai]: Kai has joined #bpwg
14:16:06 [Bryan]: Jo: rechartering would waste time, we should avoid it. patent policy should also be avoided. we need conformance though. Could we use a 2nd document as a conformance checker?
14:16:35 [Bryan]: Francois: that doesn't change that to add the other document as normative we need a charter change
14:17:02 [jo]: ack me
14:17:03 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to add that perhaps we could have a TranformingOK Basic
14:17:29 [Bryan]: Dan: thus to the final point; we could roll the change into charter extension if we seek it. Francois has indicated we may need an extension and 6 mos will probably be needed.
14:18:22 [Bryan]: Dan: to the conclusion that we should table this and amend the charter at extension time, and release it then (doing the work now but republish it as normative then)
14:19:01 [jo]: [think we should aim to bring the work to a conclusion within the charter and not mess around leaving it in limbo]
14:19:12 [Bryan]: Bryan: could an interim publication be done per the IPR issues?
14:19:25 [Bryan]: Francois: we could take it to last call but not publish it
14:19:34 [jo]: q+ to reiterate what I just typed into IRC
14:19:56 [DKA]: q?
14:20:00 [DKA]: ack jo
14:20:00 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to reiterate what I just typed into IRC
14:20:01 [Bryan]: Dan: the question is whether the IPR issues are important for the long term, and whether it will inhibit implementations in the meantime
14:20:21 [Bryan]: Jo: we should conclude with a non-normative document and leave it at that
14:20:38 [Zakim]: +??P34
14:21:14 [Bryan]: Dan: a question to the vendors here; what is your stance per implementation if the status is normative, any risks that would delay implementation?
14:21:15 [SeanP]: q+
14:21:20 [francois]: zakim, who is making noise?
14:21:30 [Zakim]: francois, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 12 (39%), DKA (15%), ??P34 (85%), SeanP (5%)
14:21:56 [DKA]: zakim, who is here?
14:21:56 [Zakim]: On the phone I see francois, DKA, jeffs, Martin, Adam, Heiko, [CTIC], Bryan_Sullivan, jo, SeanP, Kai, ??P34
14:21:58 [Zakim]: [CTIC] has manrique, miguel, abel
14:21:59 [Zakim]: On IRC I see Kai, MartinJ, manrique, SeanP, cgi-irc, Bryan, hgerlach, abel, Zakim, jeffs, RRSAgent, DKA, seungyun, jo, francois, trackbot-ng, dom
14:22:05 [seungyun]: sorry noise for seungyun
14:22:14 [jo]: zakim, ??p34 is seungyun
14:22:14 [Zakim]: +seungyun; got it
14:22:18 [francois]: zakim, mute seungyun
14:22:18 [Zakim]: seungyun should now be muted
14:22:18 [seungyun]: ok
14:22:31 [francois]: ack SeanP
14:22:31 [DKA]: ack seanp
14:24:17 [Bryan]: Sean: don't have a clear understanding of the normative vs informative issue; inclination is that it probably doesn't matter much
14:25:16 [Bryan]: Dan: it relates to IPR and patent infringement, an important topic; if non-normative, any patents that are essential to the implementation of the recommendation do not have to be clearly stated
14:26:11 [Bryan]: Dan: thus implementors could be liable for payments after the fact, whereas if normative these patents dependencies must be declared during publication
14:27:01 [jo]: Q+ to point out that the patent disclosure only applies to members of the group so the protection is limited
14:27:09 [DKA]: ack jo
14:27:09 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to point out that the patent disclosure only applies to members of the group so the protection is limited
14:28:26 [Zakim]: +DKA.a
14:28:34 [Zakim]: -DKA
14:28:44 [DKA]: zakim DKA.a is DKA
14:28:50 [DKA]: zakim, DKA.a is DKA
14:28:50 [Zakim]: +DKA; got it
14:29:15 [Bryan]: Jo: patent disclosures only apply to group members, and outside patents don't get disclosed so there are still risks of infringement. the W3c rules are there to prevent deliberate/covert patent dependencies created by members.
14:29:53 [Bryan]: Jo: what guarantee is there of protection against patents even if the document is normative? not much
14:30:09 [Bryan]: Francois: agree, this is limited to members.
14:30:27 [jo]: [conclusion being that we should seek qualified/competent legal advice]
14:30:56 [Bryan]: Dan: an opinion from W3C legal is good, but opinions from vendors are also helpful
14:31:05 [SeanP]: q+
14:31:12 [DKA]: ack seanp
14:31:33 [jo]: q+ to say that we should hold off on further discussion and to defer till we have more info via FD
14:31:37 [Bryan]: Sean: may be able to get an opinion
14:32:23 [Bryan]: Sean: don't want to hold up the work though
14:32:38 [jo]: ack me
14:32:38 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to say that we should hold off on further discussion and to defer till we have more info via FD
14:32:41 [Bryan]: Dan: that's a motive for rechartering the group
14:32:59 [jo]: ACTION: daoust to seek further legal advice on the patent issues around CT
14:32:59 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-756 - Seek further legal advice on the patent issues around CT [on François Daoust - due 2008-05-22].
14:33:26 [Bryan]: Dan: let's take an action to get vendor internal legal opinions (at least from Sean) and come back with results, and from W3C via Francois
14:33:28 [DKA]: q?
14:33:43 [Bryan]: Topic: accessibility document status
14:34:01 [jo]: ACTION: Patterson to seek opinion on CT Patent issue
14:34:01 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-757 - Seek opinion on CT Patent issue [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-05-22].
14:34:13 [Bryan]: Dan: may have to push this to next week as Allen is not here
14:34:20 [Bryan]: Topic: MobileOK status
14:34:24 [jo]: s/Allen/Alan
14:34:52 [Bryan]: Dan: need to take resolution to move this to last call again as substantive changes have occured
14:35:08 [Bryan]: Jo: there was discussion on this that can be referenced
14:35:21 [jo]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008May/0002.html Last (4) Call Draft discussion on MobileOK Basic
14:36:18 [Bryan]: Jo: it was related to object size and tasting requests
14:37:52 [Bryan]: Miguel: recommend to use the same algorithm for both test, for page size limit its OK, for embedded objects e.g. scripts it's complicated and needs simplification
14:38:35 [Bryan]: Miguel: correction, we should use two algorithms (not one)
14:38:48 [jo]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008May/0001.html The Publication Notice on Last Call Draft (4) of MobileOK Basic
14:39:20 [Bryan]: Dan: the document is long overdue, the request seems an optimization of the current document. this could be done but am reluctant to reopen the discussion
14:39:49 [Bryan]: Dan: the one substantive change is the point of the 2nd last call; if we reopen general comments, worried about where this goes
14:40:15 [Bryan]: Jo: asked for input on this as the algorithms are different, based on that they are different use cases
14:41:26 [Bryan]: Jo: the change is an attempt to fix an incorrect text. it may be OK for the algorithms to be different thoughas browser behavior is different for the use cases
14:41:50 [Bryan]: Jo: as editor I have made the right change, but group discussion may be helpful to be sure
14:42:12 [jo]: s/I have/I feel that I have/
14:42:37 [Bryan]: Dan: if we want to change this, them Miguel should explain in great detail what is requested with a specific proposal, and discuss this on the next call
14:42:45 [Bryan]: Miguel: can do that
14:42:56 [Bryan]: Dan: should raise an issue for this
14:43:15 [DKA]: q?
14:43:29 [jo]: ACTION: Jo to raise an Issue on the differences between the algorithms in OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT
14:43:29 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-758 - Raise an Issue on the differences between the algorithms in OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-22].
14:44:04 [Bryan]: Dan: any other things we can resolve on the last call, other than just to resolve to move it back?
14:44:30 [Bryan]: Jo: to review the algorithms
14:44:41 [Bryan]: Topic: checker TF status
14:45:47 [jo]: s/to review the algorithms/there is a need to to review the algorithm for OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT as it is not what we resolved as a correction to the CR version of the algorithm
14:45:58 [Bryan]: Francois: the checker TF has no leader; DOM is busy and said no. Norminative an active member is another approach.
14:46:23 [jo]: s/Norminative/Nominate/
14:46:28 [Bryan]: Abel: have talked to Nacho, but he can't take this role; but Miguel and I have offered to chair the TF
14:46:47 [Bryan]: Dan: any other contenders?
14:47:33 [Bryan]: Dan: we should take a resolution
14:47:54 [Bryan]: Abel: the point of co-chairing is to ensure availability of one of us at least
14:48:03 [DKA]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group accepts Miguel's and Abel's offer to co-chair the checker task force.
14:48:23 [Bryan]: +1
14:48:23 [francois]: +1
14:48:28 [jeffs]: +1
14:48:31 [seungyun]: +1
14:48:45 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group accepts Miguel's and Abel's offer to be co-leaders of the checker task force.
14:48:53 [francois]: +1
14:48:54 [jo]: +1
14:48:58 [jeffs]: +1
14:49:04 [MartinJ]: +1
14:49:20 [Bryan]: RESOLUTION: The group accepts Miguel's and Abel's offer to be co-leaders of the checker task force.
14:49:40 [Bryan]: Topic: report from the Korean TF
14:49:48 [francois]: zakim, unmute seungyun
14:49:48 [Zakim]: seungyun should no longer be muted
14:50:15 [seungyun]: I try but...
14:50:47 [seungyun]: yes
14:51:04 [seungyun]: my microphone has some problem I will check
14:51:04 [Bryan]: Topic: BP2
14:51:42 [Bryan]: Dan: proposes we step back and review the current document as it is, and take actions for volunteers for changes etc
14:52:13 [francois]: Scribe: francois
14:52:23 [francois]: ScribeNick: francois
14:52:51 [seungyun]: Sure I will
14:53:19 [Bryan]: Topic: Korean TF status
14:53:30 [francois]: i/Topic: Korean TF/ScribeNick: Bryan
14:53:38 [seungyun]: see --> http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_20hqnfq7fr
14:54:38 [Bryan]: Seungyun: sent an email status to the list; we had the 1st meeting on May 8, discussion on consensus of deliverables list and milestones
14:55:15 [Bryan]: Seungyun: three deliverables for this year; gap analysis, new standard proposals, and mobileOK trial service report
14:56:19 [Bryan]: Seungyun: discussed how to make a gap analysis and new standard proposal. we have a lot of documents in BPWG, so we needed to categorize them first prior to gap analysis
14:57:06 [Pontus]: Pontus has joined #bpwg
14:57:25 [Bryan]: Seungyun: also the gap analysis should address the Korean market. 1st draft of gap analysis will be reviewed in the next meeting.
14:57:58 [Bryan]: Seungyun: We have a request for the BPWG to update the TF milestones and TF home page editing ability.
14:58:09 [Zakim]: +??P50
14:58:19 [francois]: [I will handle home page update and request edition rights as needed]
14:58:23 [Bryan]: Seungyun: the 1st meeting was F2F, the 2nd will be a call next week (5/20).
14:58:40 [Pontus]: zakim, P50 is me
14:58:40 [Zakim]: sorry, Pontus, I do not recognize a party named 'P50'
14:58:48 [jo]: zakim, ??P50 is Pontus
14:58:48 [Zakim]: +Pontus; got it
14:59:02 [Bryan]: Seungyun: we have assigned the work items to the members as the scope is broad, to prepare the work for next week.
14:59:15 [Zakim]: -Martin
14:59:27 [Bryan]: Dan: Francois will take care of the web site editing and roadmap requests
14:59:53 [Zakim]: +Martin
15:00:07 [francois]: ACTION: daoust to update home page roadmap with the Korean TF documents
15:00:07 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-759 - Update home page roadmap with the Korean TF documents [on François Daoust - due 2008-05-22].
15:00:14 [Bryan]: Dan: any input that the Korean TF can provide to us re the pending issue on the MobileOK last call?
15:00:53 [Bryan]: Dan: as the status of MobileOK for Korea is a question, this could be a topic for the next TF call.
15:01:18 [jo]: q+
15:01:19 [Bryan]: Dan: also need to know if there will be a TF rep at Sophia Antopolis
15:01:21 [DKA]: ack jo
15:01:26 [Bryan]: Seungyun: unclear at this point
15:01:45 [Bryan]: Jo: how far has the gap analysis gone, and any idea how big the gap may be?
15:02:59 [Bryan]: Seungyun: this is unclear (how big) at this point; many people want W3C standards to be useful in Korean market, so the gap analysis is just the starting point
15:03:55 [Bryan]: Jo: in the Seoul meeting it was clarified that MobileOK is not something to aim for, but is a minimum possible exerience and web sites should aim higher.
15:04:47 [Bryan]: Seungyun: Understand; we expect BP2 will be more useful for the Korean market and will provide input (have done so already)
15:05:10 [DKA]: q?
15:05:22 [Bryan]: Dan: proposes Jo send an email to clarify the point about MobileOK not being the expected experience as the baseline for gap analysis
15:05:28 [Bryan]: Topic: BP2
15:05:34 [jo]: ACTION: Jo to reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce
15:05:34 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-760 - Reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-22].
15:06:39 [Bryan]: Dan: proposes to provoke discussion about the existing document areas and where we want it to go
15:06:43 [francois]: zakim, mute seungyun
15:06:45 [Zakim]: seungyun should now be muted
15:06:46 [seungyun]: I muted
15:07:03 [Bryan]: Dan: from a scratchpad into a document which represents group consensus
15:07:44 [Bryan]: Dan: perhaps list the BP and get direct feedback on any issues remaining related to it
15:08:01 [francois]: ScribeNick: francois
15:08:04 [francois]: Scribe: francois
15:08:25 [Bryan]: q+
15:08:46 [francois]: Dan: jo, wisdom? Bryan suggested we hold a separate meeting
15:08:55 [francois]: jo: we should probably do that
15:09:18 [francois]: ... to get the group's input on what is wrong, missing, etc...
15:09:42 [francois]: ... we're mostly concerned about stuff that may be wrong or may be additional
15:09:58 [francois]: ... we don't want to go to FPWD with something that we know is wrong
15:10:11 [DKA]: ack bryan
15:10:20 [francois]: ... As for things missing, that's the point of getting external comment with a FPWD
15:11:14 [jo]: [general assessment criteria: what's missing? what's additional (out of scope)? Anything wrong, or uncertain? Typographic Errors.
15:11:14 [francois]: Bryan: the way the document is structured very much grew out of what was BP1.
15:11:35 [francois]: ... I made some proposals regarding restructuring back in November
15:12:20 [francois]: ... Question of scope: I don't think anything is wrong. But perhaps some things are out of scope. We may need to define what we mean by Web for instance
15:12:26 [francois]: ... We should settle those first.
15:12:59 [DKA]: q?
15:13:26 [francois]: Dan: not sure there's such a great divergence of opinions, but I may be overly optimistic
15:14:21 [jo]: q+ to point out that he have to live with a loose definition of "Web"
15:14:59 [jeffs]: agree it seems to me as new to group that there may indeed be some basic diff of opinions about what we mean by "Web" and "mobile"
15:15:09 [francois]: Bryan: in the draft I sent last night, I would like to give a quick overview of the changes
15:15:37 [francois]: ... We had a discussion on what could constitutes a best practice.
15:16:40 [francois]: ... I eliminated the issue with persistent storage. I think we'll have to deal with that, but that does not constitute a real best practice for the time being
15:17:42 [francois]: ... I think I improved section 2.1 to 2.5, to bring a network service provider perspective.
15:18:06 [francois]: ... That's why, we, AT&T, try to promote these kinds of documents.
15:18:38 [francois]: Dan: I agree with these comments.
15:19:05 [abel_]: abel_ has joined #bpwg
15:19:41 [francois]: ... I sent an email to adam to flag sections that require changes, more work.
15:19:48 [francois]: ... I'll paste it to the mailing-list
15:21:02 [francois]: Adam: I think they are very subtle differences on the way we see "mobile web", so I would like to contribute with specific wording to settle scope
15:21:13 [francois]: ... No big dissensions
15:21:55 [francois]: ... Title: Mobile Web Application Best Practices, should we change it?
15:22:08 [francois]: Bryan: my mistake, I didn't make that change, we resolved on that
15:22:52 [Bryan]: q+
15:23:03 [francois]: Adam: Other general question. I think the document is quite wordy. Sections 2 and 5, is this the normal way to go?
15:23:05 [jo]: q-
15:23:48 [francois]: Dan: based on the structure of BP1. I think that having the list of BPS on top of the document allows people that consume the doc to access BPs directly.
15:24:09 [francois]: Adam: yes, I just don't really understand the differences in intent between both sections
15:25:01 [jo]: q+ to say that we need to express clearly "what are the questions we are trying to answer" and "what are the answers"
15:25:08 [francois]: Bryan: 1. come from with BP1, 2. typical of technical docs. I agree, I think we should consolidate section 2 and section 5.
15:25:18 [jo]: q?
15:25:22 [francois]: ack Bryan
15:25:30 [jo]: ack me
15:25:30 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to say that we need to express clearly "what are the questions we are trying to answer" and "what are the answers"
15:25:41 [francois]: Dan: editorial meeting?
15:26:29 [francois]: jo: can I just say, that re. section 2. and 5., I don't think the structure has to be the same, but we should express clearly the questions we are trying to answer, and then the answers
15:26:59 [francois]: ... I agree that devs being what they are, they speed up to BPS, but they are wrong.
15:27:15 [DKA]: q?
15:27:31 [jeffs]: agree that 2 & 5 should *not* be consolidated, Q's and avail A's are not the same things
15:27:47 [francois]: Bryan: Recraft section 2 in terms of what you're talking about, shifting some details to consolidate section 5.
15:29:05 [francois]: Dan: we could try to organize this editorial meeting. I could organize a room here in London. Next week is not good for me. Let's try to fnid a date on the mailing-list.
15:29:24 [francois]: ... Editorial meetings are opened to anyone who is willing to attend
15:30:06 [francois]: Topic: Registration for F2F
15:30:16 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-June-2008/ F2F questionnaire
15:30:52 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/Sophia/logistics.html F2F logistics
15:31:53 [francois]: fd: respond to the questionnaire!
15:31:54 [hgerlach]: bye, thanks!
15:31:58 [Zakim]: -DKA
15:31:59 [Zakim]: -Heiko
15:32:00 [Zakim]: -jo
15:32:01 [Zakim]: -jeffs
15:32:02 [Zakim]: -Pontus
15:32:02 [seungyun]: thanks bye
15:32:03 [Zakim]: -SeanP
15:32:04 [Zakim]: -francois
15:32:04 [Zakim]: -Adam
15:32:05 [Zakim]: -Martin
15:32:07 [Zakim]: -Bryan_Sullivan
15:32:08 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:32:08 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:32:09 [Zakim]: -Kai
15:32:09 [manrique]: bye
15:32:11 [Zakim]: -[CTIC]
15:32:12 [francois]: Zakim, list attendees
15:32:13 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been francois, +0207866aaaa, DKA, +1.585.278.aabb, jeffs, +0777613aacc, +0207881aadd, +049211aaee, Adam, Bryan_Sullivan, abel, Heiko, Martin,
15:32:16 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:32:16 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:32:17 [DKA]: Thx, Francios!
15:32:18 [Zakim]: ... miguel, +0208995aaff, jo, manrique, +1.630.414.aagg, SeanP, +0496151aahh, Kai, seungyun, Pontus
15:32:23 [MartinJ]: MartinJ has left #bpwg
15:34:29 [francois]: Present+ Pontus
15:34:56 [francois]: Present+ jo
15:35:20 [francois]: Present+ SeanP
15:36:40 [francois]: Present+ Kai
15:37:07 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, seungyun, in MWI_BPWG()10:00AM
15:37:11 [francois]: Present+ seungyun
15:37:11 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended
15:37:12 [Zakim]: Attendees were francois, +0207866aaaa, DKA, +1.585.278.aabb, jeffs, +0777613aacc, +0207881aadd, +049211aaee, Adam, Bryan_Sullivan, abel, Heiko, Martin, miguel, +0208995aaff, jo,
15:37:15 [Zakim]: ... manrique, +1.630.414.aagg, SeanP, +0496151aahh, Kai, seungyun, Pontus
15:37:28 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:37:28 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:57:02 [francois]: zakim, bye
15:57:02 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #bpwg
15:57:06 [francois]: RRSAgent, bye
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-actions.rdf :
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: daoust to seek further legal advice on the patent issues around CT [1]
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-irc#T14-32-59
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Patterson to seek opinion on CT Patent issue [2]
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-irc#T14-34-01
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Jo to raise an Issue on the differences between the algorithms in OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT [3]
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-irc#T14-43-29
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: daoust to update home page roadmap with the Korean TF documents [4]
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-irc#T15-00-07
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Jo to reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce [5]
15:57:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-irc#T15-05-34