W3C

Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

09 Feb 2010

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
DKA, francois, jeffs, EdC, miguel, tomhume, SeanP
Regrets
jo, sangwhan, achuter, brucel, jerome, adam, yeliz
Chair
DKA
Scribe
EdC

Contents


Mobile Web Application Best Practices

Francois on the transition call. The transition to candidate recommendation accepted. Publication expected Thursday.

The group should not expect implementation feedback to flow in on its own, some action plan is required.

<DKA> Francois: We had a "great" transition call.

General congratulation to everybody.

DKA asks how such an action plan would look like. Francois has a template for providing implementation feedback ready.

<francois> MWABP Implementation report template

It is derived from the corresponding implementation report for mobile web app best practices 1.0.

DKA asks whether it makes sense to have a fail? Not all aspects of the document are relevant to all developers.

Francois asks perhaps there was a fundamental reason to have a "fail" column initially?

DKA states that we are no longer interested in whether implementations actually cover every single aspect of every practice, just the ones relevant to their applications.

<francois> ACTION: daoust to update the implementation report template based on the discussion, i.e. remove the "fail" column and emphasize that all of the best practices do not need to be implemented, that we're looking into "atomic" feedback on one or two best practices each time. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1037 - Update the implementation report template based on the discussion, i.e. remove the "fail" column and emphasize that all of the best practices do not need to be implemented, that we're looking into "atomic" feedback on one or two best practices each time. [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2010-02-16].

DKA asks who would be able to actually report on the BP, based on the document? Tom perhaps?

The intention being to get feedback from actual implementations.

DKA impresses upon the members that the W3C wants to get evidence that the BP are actually used.

DKA asks about getting feedback on the W3C WWW site itself?

Francois will check about the possibility to match BP to actual implementation -- for instance Mobile checker -- within W3C itself.

DKA will make a post about the BP in order to entice people to provide feedback on them.

<DKA> e.g. dabr.co.uk

A question: what about Vodafone itself ? Aren't they labs and developers and apps suitable for feedback?

DKA will check internally and get an implementation.

<francois> ACTION: daoust to look into mobile Web Applications within W3C that implement some of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1038 - Look into mobile Web Applications within W3C that implement some of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices. [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2010-02-16].

<francois> ACTION: tom to look into mobile Web Application within Future Platforms and provide implementation report for MWABP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1039 - Look into mobile Web Application within Future Platforms and provide implementation report for MWABP [on Tom Hume - due 2010-02-16].

<francois> ACTION: dan to make a post about MWABP to entice people to provide feedback [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1040 - Make a post about MWABP to entice people to provide feedback [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-02-16].

CT guidelines

Jo made edits on legibility comments from EdC. Draft 1z is available.

<DKA> Draft 1z (director's cut) http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100209

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: request transition for draft 1z of CT guidelines.

<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: request transition to Last Call Working Draft of CT guidelines draft 1z.

<DKA> replies to comments: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/

Francois says we can take decisions on the draft first, and resolve on answers to commenters second. We must just make sure the answers are ok.

If a LC, which period should it be?

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT guidelines draft 1z; with six weeks comment period.

Francois reminds that 6 weeks is a minimum. This brings us in March.

Francois checks whether the formal minimum is 4 weeks.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT guidelines draft 1z; with 3 weeks comment period.

Francois peruses the process document, which states 3 weeks comment period.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT guidelines draft 1z; with a 4 week comment period.

<DKA> +1

Francois states that 1 month is ok given dependencies with other groups. The end date is 2010-03-11, which is good.

<francois> +1

+1

<jeffs> +1

<miguel> +1

<tomhume> +1

<francois> [note that jo approved the transition via email]

RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT guidelines draft 1z; with a 4 week comment period.

CT Replies to comments

Francois drafted replies to commenters from the last LC, based on resolutions in teleconferences and f2f meeting. They will be sent as soon as the draft is published (Thursday, probably).

Francois exhorts people to check the comments for inconsistencies or illegible statements.

<EdC:> I looked at the answers, they looked ok, by the way.

Francois raises the issue of ICS.

<francois> new ICS statement

There is a small change in the format -- each normative item has an id. This should ease the implementation of the test suite.

How were the id selected ???

Francois states that the id are hash values of the statements.

In that case, should there be a small note in the ICS stating that one should not try to derive any semantics from the id?

Francois and DKA remark that the test suite is still to be done, in any case.

DKA considers that the CT topic is exhausted today.

DKA checks whether there are special actions for the LC. Francois will use the same list as last time.

The list contains the names of the groups that must be notified of the LC (TAG among them).

DKA mentions that TAG is working on content tasting (possibly similar to content sniffing), so TAG must not be forgotten.

<francois> [ The list of reviewers we asked last time was: TAG, HTML WG, XHTML2 WG, WebApps WG, HCG, Web Security Context WG ]

AOB

Sean is informed of the resolutions (since he joined late in the call).

The teleconference concludes.

bye

<miguel> bye

<SeanP> bye

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: dan to make a post about MWABP to entice people to provide feedback [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to look into mobile Web Applications within W3C that implement some of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to update the implementation report template based on the discussion, i.e. remove the "fail" column and emphasize that all of the best practices do not need to be implemented, that we're looking into "atomic" feedback on one or two best practices each time. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: tom to look into mobile Web Application within Future Platforms and provide implementation report for MWABP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/02/09 15:28:23 $