See also: IRC log
<dom> Results of survey on F2F meeting at TPAC
<jeffs> will hopefully know later this week if I will be in Trinidad in November & thus unable to attend the TPAC/F2F or in the States & attending
Topic F2F meeting. Results of the survey indicate that it is not going to take place as originally planned.
<dom> ACTION: francois to cancel TPAC F2F for BPWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1004 - Cancel TPAC F2F for BPWG [on François Daoust - due 2009-09-22].
<scribe> New objective is to find an place in Europe and a suitable date. Is it an urgent task?
Dom: decisions must be made 8 weeks in advance.
Jo: tentatively week on the 16th
November.
... provide an alternative in Europe early
December.
<dom> ACTION: Francois to set up a survey to find dates for F2F, either week of Nov 16, Nov 30 or Dec 7, and ask for hosting offers in Europe [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1005 - Set up a survey to find dates for F2F, either week of Nov 16, Nov 30 or Dec 7, and ask for hosting offers in Europe [on François Daoust - due 2009-09-22].
Jo: we must action Francois to make yet another poll (2009-11-16, or 2009-11-30, or possibly 2009-12-07).
<dom> Yeliz message on wrapping mobileOK checker for Eclipse
Jo: current proposal is to provide a plugin for Eclipse into the source-control tree of mobileOk checker.
Yeliz: This is a proposal to
solve issues with external libraries.
... this requires additional files, but does not entail code
change.
<dom> [sounds good to me]
Jo: no resolution required, but personally the feeling is to go ahead and do it.
Yeliz: will go on with the work and implementing the plugin.
<dom> Adam's plea for a resolution on SVG and canvas
Adam: major topic remaining is SVG/Canvas. We should arrive at a consensus soon in order to finalize the document.
Jo: Is there a proposed resolution? There has been discussion going on.
<brucel> permission to speak?
Adam: Not being an expert on Canvas, difficult to settle alone the matter. Jeff and EdC have expressed their opinion, might propose something.
Bruce: canvas accessibility is limited. SVG is currently more accessible than canvas, worth a clear mention in the text.
<jeffs> yes, svg is more accessible like is avail to DOM
<jeffs> worth adding
Jo: not much feedback on that text. Except for Rotan.
<brucel> ok, will feedback to Edouardo's text before end of week
<brucel> (had escaped my attention previously)
Adam: the text is too detailed and long, but can serve as a starting point.
<jeffs> suggestion: whoever rewrites adds accessibility statement
<dom> ACTION: Bruce to send feedback on Eduardo's proposal on Canvas & SVG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html - due September 18 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1006 - send feedback on Eduardo's proposal on Canvas & SVG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html [on Bruce Lawson - due 2009-09-18].
Jo: we do not mention proprietary technologies explicitly, though we may mention that some exist.
<jeffs> +1
Jo: so explicit mentions of proprietary technologies should be eliminated.
+1
Adam: we are almost there with the document.
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to ask about last call eta?
Jeff: suggest that accessibility issues must be included in the draft.
Dom: what is remaining to be done before a last call?
Jo: a resolution of the group is required.
<dom> 11 open action items on mwabp
Dom: However, there are quite a number of issues/actions remaining to be discharged. What is the situation?
Adam: we nailed many of them last time we went through. Unclear about what is blocking the cleanup of the action items.
Dom: Somebody should go
systematically through these items and check them
carefully.
... When is a draft expected to be ready?
Adam: by the end of the week.
Dom: hopefully we can decide upon a last call next week during the teleconference.
<dom> Latest editors draft of BP 1.5
Jo: there is a draft. Next step is to agree to launch a last call.
<jeffs> +1
Jo: people should review over the
next week
... let us plan to take a final resolution on it next week.
Jo: shows contrition at not
having moved forward with his action points.
... Francois made a call for tests. No progress has been
reported in this area.
<jo> claiming sickness and worse fo not being ale to carry out his action points ...
Dom: Regarding the call for
tests, a possible source would be to ask CT vendors (Google,
Novarra, etc). Do they have test suites that they could
contribute to W3C?
... If so, we could make a lot of progress faster.
<dom> ACTION: Sean to check if novarra has tests they could contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1007 - Check if novarra has tests they could contribute for CT guidelines [on Sean Patterson - due 2009-09-22].
SeanP: Might have a few tests, but not all relevant or really suitable for the CT.
Dom: Bruce and Adam could perhaps check within their organization about availability of test suites.
<dom> ACTION: Adam to check if Google has tests they could contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1008 - Check if Google has tests they could contribute for CT guidelines [on Adam Connors - due 2009-09-22].
<brucel> will do.
<dom> ACTION: Bruce to check if Opera has tests they could contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1009 - Check if Opera has tests they could contribute for CT guidelines [on Bruce Lawson - due 2009-09-22].
Jo: Contribution of Jonathan was answered by Jeff.
Jeff: The basic idea: there is a change in the mobile environment. Current mindset in W3C is general phone / feature phone. Jonathan contends that smartphone should now be the primary target for standardization.
Jo: We have discussed the topic
many time. We are considering about a device with basic Web
capabilities -- not specific form factors.
... It is basically ok to refer to the capabilities
corresponding to those of feature phones, but this does not
mean that we are focussing on those specific models of
phones.
... We must note that there are mobiles that are not phones,
but that have Web capabilities.
<dom> ISSUE-296?
<trackbot> ISSUE-296 -- "feature phone vs. smartphone, which handsets will make large web traffic ?" -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/296
Jeff: What is needed is to take into account developments that render phones are no longer just Web-capable devices, but handsets endowed with further capabilities (e.g. location). And these are becoming widespread -- and thus should be the target of standardization.
Jo: Careful about the charter: we deal with mobile Web best practices -- not mobile phones best practices.
Jeff: This is something to keep in mind as we reach the end of the current activities.
Jo: To close this issue -- a resolution.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-296 recognising that Jonathan makes an important point about the growth of smartphone as opposed to feature phone but that the BPWG is about Mobile Devices not mobile phones specifically, so we must take into account minimal Web access capability from any device, not just phones, important though that is
<dom> (works for me)
<SeanP> +1
+1
<miguel> +1
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-296 recognising that Jonathan makes an important point about the growth of smartphone as opposed to feature phone but that the BPWG is about Mobile Devices not mobile phones specifically, so we must take into account minimal Web access capability from any device, not just phones, important though that is
<jo> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-296 recognising that Jonathan makes an important point about the growth of smartphone as opposed to feature phone but that the BPWG is about Mobile Devices not mobile phones specifically, so we must take into account minimal Web access capability from any device, not just phones, important though that is
<dom> close ISSUE-296
<trackbot> ISSUE-296 "feature phone vs. smartphone, which handsets will make large web traffic ?" closed
<jeffs> is this true? "BPWG is about Mobile Devices not mobile phones specifically"
<jeffs> hmmmmmm
<jeffs> move on
Jo: Let us look at pending issues and actions.
<dom> Action items related to MWABP
<jo> Open Actions on BP2
<jo> ACTION-873?
<trackbot> ACTION-873 -- Daniel Appelquist to provide some words on conservative use of resources -- due 2008-10-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/873
Adam: 873 may well be obsolete.
<dom> close ACTION-873
<trackbot> ACTION-873 Provide some words on conservative use of resources closed
<dom> ACTION-911?
<trackbot> ACTION-911 -- Jeffrey Sonstein to get Prof. Bogaard at RIT to review SVG materials and suggest how/if to address in BP -- due 2009-03-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/911
Jeff: nothing more is really needed at this point. We can close it.
<dom> close ACTION-911
<trackbot> ACTION-911 Get Prof. Bogaard at RIT to review SVG materials and suggest how/if to address in BP closed
<dom> ACTION-918?
<trackbot> ACTION-918 -- Daniel Appelquist to write a relevant section at Webapps Wiki to act as reference for On MWABP 1.3.2 DKA -- due 2009-04-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/918
<dom> close ACTION-918
<trackbot> ACTION-918 Write a relevant section at Webapps Wiki to act as reference for On MWABP 1.3.2 DKA closed
<dom> ACTION-924?
<trackbot> ACTION-924 -- Daniel Appelquist to and Jeffs to wander the highways and byways of SVG and Canvas and cook something up for the group's approval -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/924
<jeffs> 924 and 958 are really the same thing
<dom> close ACTION-924
<trackbot> ACTION-924 And Jeffs to wander the highways and byways of SVG and Canvas and cook something up for the group's approval closed
<dom> ACTION-957?
<trackbot> ACTION-957 -- Adam Connors to draft a BP on login forms adapting previous resolutions on the topic for discussion -- due 2009-05-05 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/957
Jeff: this is done -- being properly baked by Adam.
<dom> close ACTION-957
<trackbot> ACTION-957 Draft a BP on login forms adapting previous resolutions on the topic for discussion closed
<dom> ACTION-958?
<trackbot> ACTION-958 -- Jeffrey Sonstein to review some of the 3.4 & 3.5 examples from the perspective of the average developer and report -- due 2009-05-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/958
<jeffs> I think this should be closed
<dom> close ACTION-958
<trackbot> ACTION-958 Review some of the 3.4 & 3.5 examples from the perspective of the average developer and report closed
Jeff: it was so long ago, no longer relevant.
<dom> ACTION-964?
<trackbot> ACTION-964 -- Tom Hume to review AtomDB for potential inclusion/reference in MWABP -- due 2009-06-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/964
Jo: leave this action open till Tom can report.
<dom> ACTION-997?
<trackbot> ACTION-997 -- Adam Connors to write first text based on the listserve discussion of Media Queries -- due 2009-07-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/997
Adam: done.
<dom> close ACTION-997
<trackbot> ACTION-997 Write first text based on the listserve discussion of Media Queries closed
<dom> ACTION-998?
<trackbot> ACTION-998 -- Adam Connors to extract some useful info from the discussion around ACTION-790 and add it to the doc -- due 2009-07-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/998
<dom> ACTION-790?
<trackbot> ACTION-790 -- Alan Chuter to produce some text around accessibility of Javascript for Web Application Best Practices -- due 2008-07-03 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/790
Jo: Accessibility of Javascript. Do we have anything on that.
<dom> Alan's proposal on accessibility of javascript
Adam: kind of unclear; screen readers have problems with Javascript-based content. Thorough experimentation is missing.
Jo: Combine this with the accessibility of canvas?
<brucel> too disparate
Adam: they are separate topics (though canvas is essentially Javascript).
<jeffs> generalized statement(s) about lack of interaction between JavaScript-based technologies and acessibility needs might work
Bruce: the concept of live regions might help. There is a W3C method to go around the issues of Javascript with screen readers.
Adam: a reference to that work with a note about how to deal with the impact of Javascript on usability might be good.
Jo: so this is the new interpretation of 998.
<dom> ACTION-1003?
<trackbot> ACTION-1003 -- Bruce Lawson to follow up within Opera as to what exactly the XSS test scripts supplied by chaals guard against -- due 2009-09-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1003
Bruce: no feedback yet, but reply
is expected soon.
... No feedback yet on action 1006, but Adam is editing the
document anyway. We should note that SVG is xml and text, so is
accessible (potentially). Canvas has no DOM and so
accessibility hooks.
<dom> close ACTION-1006
<trackbot> ACTION-1006 send feedback on Eduardo's proposal on Canvas & SVG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html closed
Jo: only two items left on MWABP.
<jo> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open
Jo: several actions left on CTG
(most of the items remaining in the list). I will progress with
them, and we can tidy them up from next week onwards.
... AOB?
... the meeting is concluded. Next week, let us take a
resolution on BP, and review MWABP.