14:26:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:26:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/12-bpwg-irc
14:26:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:26:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:26:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:26:58 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:26:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:26:59 <trackbot> Date: 12 January 2010
14:27:56 <francois> Chair: new Jo();
14:28:10 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0002.html
14:28:25 <jo> er
14:28:36 <francois> Regrets: yeliz, kai
14:28:54 <francois> oops, indeed.
14:29:31 <jo> ad hoc conference?
14:29:38 <brucel> brucel has joined #bpwg
14:29:47 <francois> zakim, room for 15?
14:29:48 <Zakim> ok, francois; conference Team_(bpwg)14:29Z scheduled with code 26632 (CONF2) for 60 minutes until 1529Z
14:30:19 <brucel> having trouble getting phone system to accept passcode. anyone else?
14:30:22 <jo> jo has changed the topic to: BPWG call 12 January 2010 - code this week is 26632
14:30:59 <Zakim> Team_(bpwg)14:29Z has now started
14:31:05 <tomhume> tomhume has joined #bpwg
14:31:06 <Zakim> +??P0
14:31:10 <miguel> miguel has joined #bpwg
14:31:16 <jo> zakim, ??P0 is me
14:31:16 <Zakim> +jo; got it
14:31:25 <Zakim> +francois
14:31:25 <EdC> EdC has joined #bpwg
14:31:27 <Zakim> +??P2
14:31:31 <tomhume> Gah. Think my headset's busted... frantically flailing around with cables for a minute...
14:31:42 <francois> zakim, mute me
14:31:42 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
14:31:52 <Zakim> -??P2
14:32:15 <francois> ack me
14:33:36 <miguel> I'm trying to connect but the code is not valid
14:33:42 <tomhume> me too
14:33:47 <jo> use 26632 miguel
14:33:52 <miguel> thx
14:33:55 <Zakim> +??P2
14:33:58 <tomhume> zakim, ??P2 is me
14:33:58 <Zakim> +tomhume; got it
14:34:25 <EdC> I have a problem: the passcode 2794 is declared to be invalid by the teleconference system...
14:34:35 <Zakim> +miguel
14:34:58 <tomhume> edcL use 26632
14:35:06 <Zakim> +EdC
14:35:07 <tomhume> s/edcL/edc/
14:35:32 <jo> zakim, who is here?
14:35:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see jo, francois, tomhume, miguel, EdC
14:35:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see EdC, miguel, tomhume, brucel, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, francois, trackbot
14:36:18 <francois> zakim, mute me
14:36:18 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
14:37:00 <tomhume> me! me! me!
14:37:06 <brucel> Jo
14:37:27 <jo> scribe: Tom Hume
14:37:28 <brucel> am on chat but Zakim mocks my attempts to use passcode
14:37:37 <tomhume> brucel: use 26632
14:37:37 <jo> scribenick: tomhume
14:38:31 <Zakim> +??P5
14:38:43 <jo> zakim, ??p5
14:38:43 <Zakim> I don't understand '??p5', jo
14:38:58 <jo> zakim, ??p5 is brucel
14:38:58 <Zakim> +brucel; got it
14:39:04 <tomhume> Topic: 1. Administrative Arrangements
14:39:07 <jo> Topic: Admin etc
14:39:18 <francois> ack me
14:39:25 <jo> s/Topic: Admin etc//
14:39:51 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/MWBP-WG-charter.html BPWG's charter
14:39:54 <tomhume> francois: the group was extended until the end of June 2010. There was an official announcement, the charter of the WG (linked from home page of WG) shows the end date.
14:40:09 <tomhume> ... Jo, you have been reappointed as co-chair of MWBPG
14:40:12 <tomhume> ... We're back to normal.
14:40:47 <tomhume> jo: I left .mobi and therefore the W3C on 14.12.2009, prior to doing that I made arrangements (effected by Francois) to be appointed an invited expert
14:40:59 <tomhume> ... so have been reappointed as chair. I'm a different chair this year.
14:41:08 <brucel> slightly better padded?
14:41:23 <tomhume> ... We're effectively back to where we are, but I no longer represent dot mobi
14:42:02 <tomhume> ... We took a resolution last year that calls should be an hour long, and we're thinking of dropping the frequency of them (with a certain set of deliverables)
14:42:21 <tomhume> ... At the F2F we sketched out a timetable for delivering deliverables.
14:42:34 <francois> -> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaebQqOaNtbYZGQzams4dl8xNjVwejVrMjhndw&hl=en schedule for 2010
14:43:20 <tomhume> ... We want to get everything done by mid-Feb, then wait for stuff to come through.
14:43:32 <tomhume> ... With no call last week, we're already behind.
14:43:49 <francois> q+
14:43:56 <jo> ack f
14:44:22 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
14:44:40 <tomhume> francois: the focus of the group is on MWABP, but we don't expect to spend much time on it. The second focus is on CT where we still have a lot of work - the test suite, issuing another last call (and replying to comments). Expect more work on CT than MWABP, which should just move forwards.
14:44:56 <francois> zakim, mute me
14:44:56 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
14:44:58 <tomhume> Topic: 2. BP2
14:45:18 <francois> ack me
14:45:20 <tomhume> Jo: Don't see Adam here, so not sure we can do anything. Francois?
14:45:44 <tomhume> francois: I agree. 
14:45:49 <tomhume> jo: postpone til next week then.
14:45:56 <tomhume> Topic: 3. CT Guidelines
14:46:19 <SeanP> Zakim, code?
14:46:19 <Zakim> the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), SeanP
14:46:28 <tomhume> jo: Timetable says a new draft would be available today, but it isn't. I don't think I'm going to be able to do that in the next week, looking at my schedule. 
14:46:41 <tomhume> ... Eduardo, you expressed a non-lack-of-resistance to the idea of doing some editing
14:46:48 <Zakim> + +1.630.414.aaaa
14:46:55 <tomhume> ... Will it be time-effective for me to hand that over to you, or quicker for me to Just Do It?
14:47:00 <SeanP> Zakim, aaaa is me
14:47:01 <Zakim> +SeanP; got it
14:47:07 <tomhume> ... It's probably 3-4h work for me to do, 2h for me to hand over.
14:47:52 <tomhume> EdC: I have the same misgivings as you, but if you could start and then run the risk of not completing, you could consider sending me the document with an indication of what's missing and let me try to do something with it.
14:48:09 <tomhume> jo: what's needed is to go through resolutions from the last f2f on changes we agreed as last-call comments....
14:48:38 <tomhume> ... you'll need to learn to edit in XMLSpec which is a wonderful invention by the W3C. It's not hard, not not trivial either.
14:49:01 <tomhume> ... I'll try and do this in the next 2 weeks, and if I can't, I'll call on you.
14:49:15 <tomhume> EdC: That's fine. We should clear up the late comments...
14:49:36 <tomhume> jo: moving onto comments...
14:49:39 <jo> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2010JanMar/0000.html further LC comments
14:49:55 <francois> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0001.html Some comments on the comments from fd
14:50:18 <tomhume> jo: francois  has already answered these for us ;)
14:50:40 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/2358 LC-2358
14:51:18 <jo> "Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies"
14:51:40 <tomhume> jo: As Francois has pointed out, we've already discussed title changes and decided that we can't be clear we are talking about mobile here.
14:52:09 <tomhume> francois: Yes. We tried many titles, none of which were fantastic. It's not the first time that people have read the spec and expected something broader...
14:52:28 <tomhume> ... most of the guidelines are about transformation for mobile delivery, so it might make sense to update the title.
14:52:44 <tomhume> ... I have no strong opinion on this.
14:52:51 <tomhume> ... There's just One Web, right?
14:53:06 <SeanP> q+
14:53:17 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2358 resolve no, we understand the point but have debated this at length previously and this is the best title we could think of
14:53:24 <tomhume> +1
14:53:30 <jo> ack s
14:53:39 <francois> +1
14:53:47 <tomhume> seanp: I have trouble rememberign the current title, if it gets longer no-one will be able to remember or say it.
14:53:55 <tomhume> francois: then we can get an acronym!
14:54:02 <SeanP> +1
14:54:06 <jo> +1
14:54:10 <EdC> I believe the introduction makes things clear.
14:54:12 <EdC> +1
14:54:17 <tomhume> jo: objections?
14:54:25 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2358 resolve no, we understand the point but have debated this at length previously and this is the best title we could think of
14:54:32 <tomhume> jo: next up is LC-2359
14:54:35 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/2359 LC-2359
14:55:03 <DKA> DKA has joined #bpwg
14:55:07 <tomhume> q+ 
14:55:18 <DKA> zakim, what is the code?
14:55:18 <Zakim> the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), DKA
14:55:43 <Zakim> +DKA
14:56:04 <tomhume> tom: this is something we've spoken about before - HTTP signalling different sorts of transformations on and off is a limitation we have noted but can't do anything about here.
14:56:06 <DKA> zakim, slap Jo
14:56:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'slap Jo', DKA
14:56:24 <tomhume> jo: I agree partially, we can amplify the note that already exists here (around WAP gateways not working).
14:56:33 <tomhume> ... objections?
14:57:21 <DKA> Apologies to all for arriving late for our first call of the new year.
14:57:32 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2359, resolve partial. We agree that it is heavy handed but it is the only mechanism provided by RFC 2616. We will amplify the note regarding possible damaging effects of using it - at present this notes that WAP gateways may mis-operate in its presence
14:57:50 <tomhume> +1
14:57:54 <jo> +1
14:57:55 <francois> +1
14:57:57 <DKA> +1 
14:57:58 <SeanP> +1
14:58:00 <miguel> +1
14:58:01 <brucel> concur
14:58:04 <tomhume> objections?
14:58:05 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2359, resolve partial. We agree that it is heavy handed but it is the only mechanism provided by RFC 2616. We will amplify the note regarding possible damaging effects of using it - at present this notes that WAP gateways may mis-operate in its presence
14:58:32 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/2360 LC-2360
14:59:16 <EdC> That is again the issue of validation (SHOULD) and well-formedness (MUST).
14:59:21 <tomhume> jo: this is about introducing ARIA attributes with accessibility. I agree with Francois that this is a SHOULD, so no changes are required.
14:59:31 <EdC> Yes.
14:59:57 <Zakim> -tomhume
15:00:30 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2360, resolve no. The document specifies a SHOULD for validation, so this should not be an issue, we think
15:00:45 <tomhume> skype hang
15:00:55 <tomhume> back in the room...
15:01:11 <Zakim> +??P16
15:01:14 <jo> +1
15:01:18 <tomhume> zakim, ??P16 is me
15:01:21 <SeanP> +1
15:01:29 <Zakim> +tomhume; got it
15:01:38 <EdC> +1
15:01:44 <brucel> no objections
15:01:48 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2360, resolve no. The document specifies a SHOULD for validation, so this should not be an issue, we think
15:02:15 <Kai> Kai has joined #bpwg
15:02:46 <tomhume> Topic: 4. AOB
15:02:52 <tomhume> jo: anything else?
15:04:07 <brucel> hang loose and be groovy. Bye.
15:04:11 <tomhume> byeee
15:04:11 <DKA> ahoy
15:04:31 <SeanP> bye
15:04:32 <Zakim> -EdC
15:04:34 <Zakim> -tomhume
15:04:36 <jo> thanks tomhume for scribing
15:04:46 <Zakim> -DKA
15:04:48 <Zakim> -francois
15:04:51 <Zakim> -brucel
15:04:54 <Zakim> -miguel
15:05:00 <Zakim> -SeanP
15:05:16 <brucel> brucel has left #bpwg
15:05:19 <Zakim> Team_(bpwg)14:29Z has ended
15:05:23 <Zakim> Attendees were jo, francois, tomhume, miguel, EdC, brucel, +1.630.414.aaaa, SeanP, DKA
15:05:40 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/12-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:06:13 <jo> jo has left #bpwg
15:19:21 <francois> rrsagent, bye
15:19:21 <RRSAgent> I see no action items