13:28:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:28:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-irc
13:28:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:28:32 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:28:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:28:34 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:28:35 <trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:28:35 <trackbot> Date: 30 March 2010
13:28:40 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Mar/0009.html
13:28:45 <francois> Chair: Jo
13:28:52 <DKA> DKA has joined #bpwg
13:29:24 <francois> Regrets: SeanP, Yeliz
13:29:25 <tomhume> tomhume has joined #bpwg
13:29:25 <miguel> miguel has joined #bpwg
13:30:17 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started
13:30:24 <Zakim> +??P10
13:30:28 <tomhume> zakim, ??P10 is me
13:30:28 <Zakim> +tomhume; got it
13:30:30 <Zakim> + +0790418aaaa
13:31:02 <Zakim> +francois
13:31:08 <jo> zakim aaaa is me
13:31:14 <DKA> zakim, what is the code?
13:31:14 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), DKA
13:31:17 <DKA> (please)
13:31:19 <francois> zakim, mute me
13:31:19 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
13:31:26 <Zakim> +[W3C-Spain]
13:31:44 <miguel> Zakim, [W3C-Spain] is me
13:31:44 <Zakim> +miguel; got it
13:31:48 <cgi-irc> cgi-irc has joined #bpwg
13:31:53 <miguel> Zakim, mute me
13:31:53 <Zakim> miguel should now be muted
13:31:55 <cgi-irc> zakim, code
13:31:55 <Zakim> I don't understand 'code', cgi-irc
13:31:59 <cgi-irc> zakim, code?
13:31:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), cgi-irc
13:32:24 <EdC> EdC has joined #bpwg
13:32:31 <Zakim> + +0207881aabb
13:32:37 <cgi-irc> zakim, aabb is me
13:32:37 <Zakim> +cgi-irc; got it
13:33:08 <francois> zakim, aabb is adam
13:33:08 <Zakim> sorry, francois, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
13:33:10 <Zakim> + +41.31.972.aacc
13:33:21 <jo> zakim, aacc is EdC
13:33:21 <Zakim> +EdC; got it
13:33:27 <Kai> Kai has joined #bpwg
13:33:42 <Zakim> + +0774811aadd
13:33:54 <DKA> zakim, aadd is me
13:33:54 <Zakim> +DKA; got it
13:34:00 <Zakim> +Kai_Dietrich
13:35:08 <jo> zakim, who is here?
13:35:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see tomhume, +0790418aaaa, francois (muted), miguel (muted), cgi-irc, EdC, DKA, Kai_Dietrich
13:35:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see Kai, EdC, adam, miguel, tomhume, DKA, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, francois, trackbot
13:35:23 <jo> zakim, aaaa is me
13:35:23 <Zakim> +jo; got it
13:36:19 <francois> scribe: Kai
13:36:42 <francois> Topic: Mobile Web Application Best Practices
13:36:56 <Kai> adam: there have been some responses.
13:36:59 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/mwabp-implementation-report Implementation report so far
13:37:17 <Kai> ...we need more implementation reports from people.  Most have been from Google.
13:37:34 <Kai> ...we two for each BP
13:37:45 <Kai> s/we two/we need
13:37:54 <Kai> s/we need/we need two
13:38:08 <Kai> tomhume: we'll do one
13:38:21 <Kai> DKA: already sent ours in
13:38:34 <Kai> Jo: another one? How about it?
13:39:26 <Kai> ...any others?
13:39:28 <francois> ack me
13:39:41 <Kai> ...Francois, outreach to others?
13:39:48 <Kai> francois: not sure who to ask.
13:40:02 <Kai> ...there are many web apps that could be used
13:40:41 <Kai> adam:  there was some called [?] who was going to do something
13:40:56 <EdC> What about operators like ATT and Vodafone? Could they simply ask the contributors to on-deck applications to fill in the questionnaire?
13:41:26 <Kai> jo: what about EdC suggestion?
13:41:34 <francois> q+
13:41:38 <Kai> DKA: is a good idea.  I'll follow up.
13:41:47 <jo> ack f
13:41:53 <Kai> francois: what about betavine?  
13:42:14 <francois> zakim, mute me
13:42:14 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
13:42:24 <jo> ACTION: Appelquist to see if on-deck apps and betavine could be a source of implementation reports
13:42:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1043 - See if on-deck apps and betavine could be a source of implementation reports [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-04-06].
13:42:53 <francois> Topic: Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies
13:42:55 <francois> ack me
13:43:06 <Kai> francois: we are done with last call
13:43:17 <Kai> ...there have been no non-editorial comments
13:43:29 <Zakim> +jeffs
13:43:34 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20100211/ Comments on Last Call
13:44:52 <Kai> francois: google have not replied to our own reply but then we would be done with LC period
13:45:02 <Kai> ...we have no one working on the test suite now
13:45:21 <Kai> ... so we will probably not have a test suite for this spec before the end of the charter
13:45:45 <Kai> ...the best option would be to publish as CR and leave it at that for the moment.
13:45:54 <Kai> Jo: then we should do that
13:46:20 <Kai> ... ? was going to work on the test suite
13:46:22 <EdC> Which section of W3C "inherits" the ownership of all documents produced by BPWG? 
13:46:34 <jo> s/>/SeanP
13:46:42 <francois> s/?/SeanP
13:46:42 <jo> s/?/SeanP
13:47:07 <Kai> DKA: we could recharter just to do the test suite
13:47:29 <Kai> jo: we should get CR as soon as possible
13:47:39 <francois> zakim, mute me
13:47:39 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
13:47:43 <Kai> ....let's see what Sean says
13:48:57 <Kai> DKA: i think our best chance is Nokia
13:49:11 <Kai> jo: let's see what Sean says
13:49:35 <Kai> EdC: 06there is a small probability that publishing a formal CR might push other organizations to contribute (even partially) to a test suite.01
13:49:53 <Kai> ...it might entice them
13:50:06 <Kai> jo: it seems like the next step anyways
13:50:31 <Kai> ... Francois, please contact previous commenters
13:50:33 <francois> ACTION: francois to ping previous reviewers on third last call of CT
13:50:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1044 - Ping previous reviewers on third last call of CT [on François Daoust - due 2010-04-06].
13:50:43 <Zakim> -jeffs
13:50:44 <EdC> Yes, let us move forward.
13:50:47 <Kai> ...next call we could ask for transition
13:51:06 <Kai> [all agree verbally]
13:51:09 <jo> ACTION: JO to enact LC-2377 and LC-2377 
13:51:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1045 - Enact LC-2377 and LC-2377  [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-04-06].
13:51:23 <Kai> Jo: anything else on CT?
13:51:27 <Kai> ...AOB?
13:51:32 <francois> ack me
13:51:53 <Kai> DKA: should mention informal feedbag of the TAG on CT
13:52:07 <francois> s/feedbag/feedback
13:52:25 <Kai> ....we got into a confusion around sniffing....there has been a lot of talk about this in TAG
13:52:54 <francois> zakim, mute me
13:52:54 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
13:53:15 <Kai> ...because it has also been coming up in IETF
13:53:37 <Kai> ... CT was discussed it became clear that ? and sniffing are unrelated
13:54:06 <Kai> (scribe can't hear)
13:55:07 <Kai> .... discussion came up why 203 code wasn't used.
13:55:17 <Kai> .... we didn't take it further
13:55:27 <Kai> ...I believe we didn't have discussion on this
13:55:46 <Kai> ... I was asked why we didn't ref work out of IETF
13:56:21 <Kai> .... Larry M. pointed out that this work has been going on in IETF since our work began
13:56:28 <Kai> .... work related to CT
13:56:36 <francois> -> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3238 RFC3238
13:56:40 <Kai> ....what was our view on OPus?
13:56:52 <Kai> ...was it tangential?
13:57:04 <Kai> Jo: no, but it wasn't actionable.
13:57:11 <EdC> This is the intent of RFC3238: "This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
13:57:12 <EdC>    not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
13:57:12 <EdC>    memo is unlimited."
13:57:43 <Kai> DKA: we need to get clarification from TAG or do research about latest results on OPUS.
13:58:01 <Kai> jo: why don't you talk to Larry to get that info?
13:58:05 <EdC> s/OPUS/OPES/
13:58:33 <jo> ACTION: Dan to ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238
13:58:33 <Kai> (typing is very loud)
13:58:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1046 - Ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-04-06].
13:58:54 <francois> q+ to ask about 203
13:58:58 <Kai> Jo: please proceed with previous plan and request transition to CR
13:59:00 <francois> q-
13:59:35 <Kai> ... on 203.... it is not referred to under transform section.  Can  somebody offer justification for the point of view?
13:59:58 <Kai> ... we might get some question about this not being in the RFC
14:00:28 <Kai> .... anybody want to investigate the 203 status?
14:00:31 <DKA> +1 to considering it discussed
14:00:37 <Kai> ....anybody?
14:00:43 <Kai> ...it's been discussed
14:01:30 <Kai> DKA: for a resolution somebody needs to take an action to do proper research on how 203 has been used
14:01:38 <francois> q+
14:01:54 <francois> ack me
14:02:26 <Kai> francois: i can take an action to have an informal discussio with Eve who can say something on this
14:02:41 <francois> s/Eve/Yves/
14:02:50 <jo> ACTION: francois to discuss status code 203
14:02:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1047 - Discuss status code 203 [on François Daoust - due 2010-04-06].
14:02:56 <Kai> DKA: that would be good
14:03:07 <francois> zakim, mute me
14:03:07 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
14:03:32 <Kai> jo: if we could bring these actions in by next week, then would could ask for transition to CR
14:03:36 <Kai> ...any more?
14:03:57 <Kai> ...closing the call
14:04:02 <Zakim> -cgi-irc
14:04:06 <Zakim> -tomhume
14:04:06 <tomhume> bye
14:04:18 <jo> zakim, drop me
14:04:18 <Zakim> jo is being disconnected
14:04:20 <Zakim> -jo
14:04:24 <Zakim> -DKA
14:04:26 <Zakim> -miguel
14:04:27 <Kai> DKA: regrets for next two weeks
14:04:34 <Zakim> -francois
14:04:40 <Zakim> -EdC
14:04:44 <Zakim> -Kai_Dietrich
14:04:46 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
14:04:47 <Zakim> Attendees were tomhume, +0790418aaaa, francois, miguel, +0207881aabb, cgi-irc, +41.31.972.aacc, EdC, +0774811aadd, DKA, Kai_Dietrich, jo, jeffs
14:04:51 <DKA> I will work towards get the result of my action sent in on email.
14:04:56 <DKA> ciao
14:05:14 <Kai> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:05:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html Kai
14:05:25 <jo> jo has left #bpwg
14:05:45 <Kai> zakim, bye
14:05:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #bpwg
14:06:35 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:06:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:21:23 <francois> RRSAgent, bye
15:21:23 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-actions.rdf :
15:21:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Appelquist to see if on-deck apps and betavine could be a source of implementation reports [1]
15:21:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-irc#T13-42-24
15:21:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: francois to ping previous reviewers on third last call of CT [2]
15:21:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-irc#T13-50-33
15:21:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JO to enact LC-2377 and LC-2377  [3]
15:21:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-irc#T13-51-09
15:21:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Dan to ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [4]
15:21:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-irc#T13-58-33
15:21:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: francois to discuss status code 203 [5]
15:21:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-irc#T14-02-50