IRC log of coremob on 2012-08-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:00:11 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #coremob

13:00:11 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-irc

13:00:51 [Jo]

happy for you to Josh. if you would be so kind

13:00:54 [bryan]

oresent+ Bryan_Sullivan

13:01:01 [bryan]

present+ Bryan_Sullivan

13:01:05 [Josh_Soref]

s/oresent/present/

13:01:10 [Josh_Soref]

trackbot, start meeting

13:01:13 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs 25

13:01:13 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #coremob

13:01:15 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be

13:01:15 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

13:01:16 [trackbot]

Meeting: Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference

13:01:16 [trackbot]

Date: 01 August 2012

13:01:23 [Josh_Soref]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:01:29 [bryan]

present+ Bryan_Sullivan

13:01:29 [Josh_Soref]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

13:01:29 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref

13:01:47 [Josh_Soref]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:01:47 [Jo]

present+ Jo, Josh_Soref, Andrew_Betts

13:01:49 [Josh_Soref]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

13:01:49 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref

13:02:01 [Josh_Soref]

Scribe: Jo

13:02:07 [Josh_Soref]

s/Jo/Josh_Soref/

13:02:10 [Josh_Soref]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

13:02:10 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref

13:02:56 [Josh_Soref]

ScribeNick: Josh_Soref

13:02:59 [Josh_Soref]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

13:02:59 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref

13:03:09 [jfmoy]

jfmoy has joined #coremob

13:03:14 [Dan]

Dan has joined #coremob

13:03:19 [Josh_Soref]

s/happy for you to Josh. if you would be so kind//

13:03:25 [Josh_Soref]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

13:03:25 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref

13:04:03 [Josh_Soref]

s/ScribeNick: Josh_Soref//

13:04:06 [Jo]

Josh_Soref - yes

13:04:33 [Josh_Soref]

Chair: Jo Rabin, Robin Berjon

13:04:36 [Josh_Soref]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

13:04:36 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref

13:04:51 [Josh_Soref]

s/Josh_Soref - yes//

13:05:09 [Jo]

Regrets: Aaron_Randall, Chaals, Kenneth_Auchenberg

13:05:22 [Jo]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0056.html

13:05:44 [Josh_Soref]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0056.html

13:06:02 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: present, Jo, darobin, Josh_Soref, andrew_betts

13:06:05 [Josh_Soref]

... jfmoy

13:06:07 [Josh_Soref]

... bryan

13:06:16 [Josh_Soref]

... tobie

13:06:49 [Josh_Soref]

kai: Kai Fritz, vodafone

13:07:28 [jfmoy_]

jfmoy_ has joined #coremob

13:07:34 [Josh_Soref]

jo: who else?

13:07:39 [Josh_Soref]

... is the w3c contact?

13:07:43 [Josh_Soref]

darobin: probably not

13:07:52 [Josh_Soref]

[ Chairs negotiate ]

13:08:16 [Josh_Soref]

i/Agenda:/Topic: Attendance/

13:08:22 [Josh_Soref]

Topic: Review F2F

13:08:26 [Jo]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0055.html

13:09:00 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: the summary took 2 days to produce, which is rather long for me

13:09:09 [chaals]

chaals has joined #coremob

13:09:13 [Josh_Soref]

... i'd like people to make sure the resolutions were recorded correctly

13:09:20 [Josh_Soref]

... particularly the after lunch resolutions on day 2

13:09:26 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt the draft minutes from this meeting with the amendment that the meeting took place on 25 and 26 June not 28 and 29 June as stated

13:09:37 [Josh_Soref]

darobin: sounds good

13:09:48 [Jo]

RESOLUTION: Adopt the draft minutes from this meeting with the amendment that the meeting took place on 25 and 26 June not 28 and 29 June as stated

13:10:10 [Josh_Soref]

s/RESOLUTION: Adopt the draft minutes from this meeting with the amendment that the meeting took place on 25 and 26 June not 28 and 29 June as stated//

13:10:20 [Josh_Soref]

tobie: ian jacobs asked for an executive summary

13:10:34 [Josh_Soref]

... it would be useful for w3, for us internally, and maybe for the w3c blog

13:10:39 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: sounds reasonable

13:10:44 [Josh_Soref]

... since it is rather lengthy

13:10:46 [Josh_Soref]

RESOLUTION: Adopt the draft minutes from this meeting with the amendment that the meeting took place on 25 and 26 June not 28 and 29 June as stated

13:10:47 [chaals]

zakim, code?

13:10:47 [Zakim]

sorry, chaals, I don't know what conference this is

13:10:50 [Jo]

ACTION: Rabin to summarise the summary and post on CG blof

13:10:50 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-46 - Summarise the summary and post on CG blof [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-08-08].

13:12:34 [Jo]

> http://coremob.github.com/level-1/index.html Current Draft Level 1

13:13:08 [Josh_Soref]

Topic: Level 1

13:13:17 [Josh_Soref]

tobie: i'm going through the updates on the spec

13:13:27 [Josh_Soref]

... i've gone through most if not all of the actions specific to it

13:13:33 [Josh_Soref]

... there's a couple i have not done yet

13:13:46 [Josh_Soref]

... mostly because i have further questions about them

13:13:48 [Josh_Soref]

... or a bit of work to do

13:13:54 [Josh_Soref]

... but mostly i've closed the related actions

13:14:01 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: we'll step through your actions

13:14:08 [Josh_Soref]

... i've moved your actions to pending-review

13:14:17 [Josh_Soref]

... anything you'd like to raise?

13:14:21 [Josh_Soref]

tobie: not really

13:14:31 [Josh_Soref]

... i need to do some research before bringing them back to the group

13:14:39 [Josh_Soref]

... i don't want to bother the group before

13:14:47 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: anything else on level 1 current draft?

13:14:49 [Josh_Soref]

[ no ]

13:14:53 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: thanks tobie

13:15:06 [Josh_Soref]

Topic: Discussion of offer by AT&T to edit Level 0 Spec

13:15:16 [Jo]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0031.html

13:15:16 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: AT&T offered

13:15:26 [Josh_Soref]

... to redraft level 0

13:15:29 [darobin]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0038.html

13:15:55 [Josh_Soref]

... my action-2 was to propose something different about level 0

13:16:06 [Josh_Soref]

... a way that would allow it to proceed in some orderly form

13:16:37 [Josh_Soref]

... we baselined features based on Matt Kelly's list

13:16:48 [Josh_Soref]

... there's also a discussion based on Mobile Web Best Practices

13:17:29 [Jo]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0043.html

13:17:45 [Josh_Soref]

... here's my action-2 + action-4

13:17:51 [Josh_Soref]

... i've joined those two things together

13:17:59 [Josh_Soref]

... i'm proposing reconsidering what level 0 is

13:18:10 [Josh_Soref]

... to focus on a small set of UCs from Matt Kelly's defintions

13:18:20 [Josh_Soref]

s/defintions/definitions

13:18:42 [Josh_Soref]

... i wonder if anyone has any views?

13:18:43 [Josh_Soref]

q+

13:18:43 [bryan]

q+

13:18:58 [Jo]

ack bry

13:19:09 [Josh_Soref]

bryan: i sent to the list our intent here

13:19:18 [tobie]

q+

13:19:50 [Josh_Soref]

... we're ok with creating a document based on a wide range of devices/browsers

13:19:55 [Josh_Soref]

... or a defined set of features

13:20:01 [Josh_Soref]

s/or/for/

13:20:07 [Josh_Soref]

... or taking a UC based approach

13:20:14 [Josh_Soref]

... analyze the features

13:20:23 [Josh_Soref]

... i think the UC based approach is interesting

13:20:35 [Josh_Soref]

... but i think people need information about what's available in browsers

13:20:48 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: isn't that exactly what derailed progress on Level 0 initially?

13:21:00 [Josh_Soref]

... i'd rather not capture the initial state

13:21:11 [Josh_Soref]

... but capture definitional

13:21:19 [Jo]

q?

13:21:22 [Josh_Soref]

... the group has reached a point where we can say Level 0 is aspirational

13:21:23 [Jo]

ack Josh

13:21:48 [darobin]

Josh_Soref: I think that we've reached a point where calling Level Zero is going to be a third rail

13:22:04 [darobin]

... so if someone wants to draft something they shouldn't mention level or zero

13:22:19 [darobin]

... there are sites that list features and support on browsers

13:22:30 [darobin]

... and don't do compliance, but some sites do things like it

13:22:48 [darobin]

... while we don't have test suites that do compliance, we should defer to other sites (e.g. caniuse.com)

13:22:56 [bryan]

public sites e.g. caniuse provide support info inconsistently and incompletely

13:22:59 [darobin]

... it doesn't seem like a very good use of resources for us here to do that

13:23:20 [darobin]

... and I'm okay with something aspirational or definitional, but it should be somewhat narrow

13:23:32 [darobin]

... working from Matt Kelly's list isn't unreasonable

13:23:38 [darobin]

... but it should be limited in scope

13:23:43 [bryan]

I do support the strategic focus either on verification or aspiration

13:23:44 [Jo]

q?

13:23:47 [bryan]

q+

13:23:47 [darobin]

... and use meaningful names in its title

13:23:47 [Jo]

ack t

13:24:01 [Josh_Soref]

tobie: one of the mistakes we made when we announced level things

13:24:08 [Josh_Soref]

... was not to consider the audience of these documents

13:24:13 [Josh_Soref]

... we got feedback from the implementers

13:24:16 [Josh_Soref]

... who are the audience

13:24:20 [bryan]

but we need to be clear which we are trying to achieve

13:24:25 [chaals]

[seems that it would make more sense to spend effort providing information so caniuse.com or whatever you like most is more accurate and complete. It's the same work that would be required anyway]

13:24:29 [Josh_Soref]

... was that they are *REALLY* not interested in documenting things we're moving away from

13:24:36 [Josh_Soref]

... but would rather document things we're moving towards

13:24:45 [Josh_Soref]

... this is something to keep in mind when talking about level 0

13:24:53 [Josh_Soref]

... the main target is developers

13:25:01 [Josh_Soref]

s/the/if the/

13:25:05 [bryan]

Tobie, what does "moving away from" mean?

13:25:06 [Jo]

ack b

13:25:15 [Josh_Soref]

... then produce a document like that which would make implementers less cringy

13:25:26 [Josh_Soref]

bryan: what did you mean by "moving away from"

13:25:41 [Josh_Soref]

tobie: a document containing "EcmaScript 3"

13:25:49 [Josh_Soref]

... where implementers are moving to EcmaScript 5

13:25:57 [Josh_Soref]

... implementers are moving from HTML4 to HTML5

13:26:07 [Jo]

q+

13:26:10 [Josh_Soref]

... that's the crux around documenting anything around the main market of mobile devices

13:26:18 [Josh_Soref]

bryan: i think i understand what you said

13:26:21 [Josh_Soref]

... i'm not sure i get it

13:26:27 [darobin]

q?

13:26:28 [Josh_Soref]

... as i dropped on irc

13:26:38 [Josh_Soref]

... i think the group needs to decide if it's going to document what's supported

13:26:50 [Josh_Soref]

... or to establish aspirations

13:27:04 [Josh_Soref]

... if you're looking at aspirations, you can look at what's around the corner

13:27:11 [Josh_Soref]

... i don't think caniuse.com/browser scope

13:27:16 [Josh_Soref]

... is complete or consistent

13:27:25 [Josh_Soref]

... the methodology is extremely fragmented

13:27:32 [Josh_Soref]

... it's extremely difficult to use as a developer

13:27:46 [tobie]

q+

13:27:50 [Jo]

ack me

13:27:52 [Josh_Soref]

... one of our main focuses is to draw that together into a place that's automated, easy to consume

13:28:35 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: i don't think it's this group's job to repeat what's done by browserscope/caniuse

13:28:45 [Josh_Soref]

... i'd like us to agree to move on if that's a consensus view

13:28:46 [jfmoy]

q+

13:29:08 [Josh_Soref]

... it seems the group has proven by a non-existence proof

13:29:13 [Josh_Soref]

... that the baseline doesn't exist

13:29:28 [Josh_Soref]

... and to move to an aspirational thing

13:29:52 [Jo]

q?

13:29:52 [Josh_Soref]

... defining "if it has this, this and this" then it is a mobile application [host?]

13:29:58 [Jo]

ACK T

13:30:16 [Josh_Soref]

tobie: if we're interested in giving a good picture of the world today

13:30:29 [Josh_Soref]

... this could be done by publishing the results of how well existing browsers fair on the level 1 spec

13:30:34 [bryan]

agree, we are not trying to replace caniuse etc, but trying to promote consistency or agreement on what should be consistent

13:30:44 [darobin]

q+

13:30:46 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: This group does not intend to reproduce the results of Browserscope or CanIUse

13:30:46 [Josh_Soref]

... if we have a good test suite, then the current state

13:30:55 [Jo]

ack j

13:31:26 [Josh_Soref]

... of browsers is whatever percentile you're interested in

13:31:33 [Josh_Soref]

... say 90% of the browsers get as results

13:31:41 [bryan]

how do developers fill the gaps then?

13:31:45 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2: There is no test suite below Level 1

13:31:52 [bryan]

above the 85-90%

13:32:00 [Josh_Soref]

jfmoy: i agree with bryan

13:32:02 [Josh_Soref]

... on these concerns

13:32:12 [Josh_Soref]

... i'm surprised with discussions on caniuse / similar tools

13:32:19 [Josh_Soref]

... the results they provide is far from being

13:32:26 [Josh_Soref]

... i don't have a good level of trust in them

13:32:52 [Josh_Soref]

... we found discrepancies when comparing with our own internal testing

13:32:56 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 3: Level 0 (if it exists at all) exists as a definition only what it means to be a mobile web app

13:33:04 [Jo]

q?

13:33:08 [Jo]

ack d

13:33:17 [Josh_Soref]

darobin: as a data point

13:33:17 [darobin]

http://w3c-test.org/framework/app/report/matrix-maker

13:33:33 [Josh_Soref]

... matrix maker is being built

13:33:41 [Josh_Soref]

... so you could pick browsers, specifications

13:33:51 [Josh_Soref]

... to give you a matrix of support for various browsers/specifications

13:33:59 [Josh_Soref]

... and you'll be able to save that report

13:34:06 [Josh_Soref]

... it ought to be available by the end of the month

13:34:24 [bryan]

that will be useful, and CoreMob could then based upon that data issue some statement as to the baseline

13:34:25 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: This group does not intend to reproduce the results of Browserscope or CanIUse

13:34:48 [bryan]

+1

13:34:51 [darobin]

+1

13:35:05 [jfmoy]

+1

13:35:17 [Josh_Soref]

XX: i'm blocked from irc

13:35:27 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: have you tried http://irc.w3.org/ ?

13:35:30 [dan]

dan has joined #coremob

13:35:44 [jfmoy]

s/XX/dan

13:35:59 [Josh_Soref]

present+ Dan_Sun

13:36:00 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2: There is no test suite below Level 1

13:36:08 [Josh_Soref]

RESOLUTION: This group does not intend to reproduce the results of Browserscope or CanIUse

13:36:16 [bryan]

but based upon some testing somewhere, will the group establish what t thinks *is* the current state of the "Core Mobile Web" support?

13:36:55 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: bryan, no, i don't think it will do that

13:37:03 [Josh_Soref]

... it might define what it means to be a mobile web application

13:37:13 [Josh_Soref]

bryan: and explain why/when it matters

13:37:26 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: i think defining the difference between a mobile web site and a mobile web application

13:37:39 [Josh_Soref]

bryan: defining the state/aspiration

13:37:49 [Jo]

q?

13:37:49 [Josh_Soref]

... the output needs to be something that is useful for developers

13:38:01 [Josh_Soref]

... if things aren't supported, but are filled through libraries

13:38:08 [Josh_Soref]

... that has a place in the landscape

13:38:32 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: i think that could be discussed on list

13:38:42 [Josh_Soref]

bryan: i think that should be noted

13:39:04 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2: This group will not produce a test suite that is below the aspirational Level 1

13:39:05 [dan]

q?

13:39:18 [bryan]

how polyfills play a role in current levels of support across browsers, and that they are a fact of the "mobile web" experience for developers

13:39:34 [Josh_Soref]

dan: for level 0, if we only have documentation

13:39:45 [Josh_Soref]

... are we recommending developers use browserscope/caniuse?

13:40:01 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: we're saying we want to complete a range of features across a range of browsers

13:40:08 [Josh_Soref]

... the point of the group is to look forwards

13:40:17 [Josh_Soref]

... maybe slightly in the future being december

13:40:41 [Josh_Soref]

... any test suite that would cover level 1 will cover the features that are important today

13:41:03 [bryan]

I think one can only look forward and make sense of what is seen, by knowing the current point from which the observation is made, e.g. is the camera ahead or behind us?

13:41:10 [Josh_Soref]

... aside from a discussion of what is in a level 0 test suite

13:41:24 [Josh_Soref]

dan: will we include all the specific features from level 0 into level 1?

13:41:33 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: i'm not sure how one would do a test suite of HTTP

13:41:55 [Josh_Soref]

tobie: i've already folded all the non-controversial parts of level 0 into level 1

13:42:08 [Josh_Soref]

... i did that before the f2f

13:42:19 [bryan]

Folding level 0 into level 1 is I think a good compromise approach, if we want only to look forwrd

13:42:23 [Josh_Soref]

dan: what do you mean by the controversial stuff

13:42:36 [bryan]

appcache etc?

13:42:45 [Josh_Soref]

tobie: there were a number of features included in the early draft of level 0

13:42:50 [Josh_Soref]

... some accidentally

13:42:55 [Josh_Soref]

... which made a lot of people very unhappy

13:43:04 [Josh_Soref]

... these included things that were encumbered by patents

13:43:16 [Josh_Soref]

... and vendor prefixed css features

13:43:30 [Josh_Soref]

dan: for prefixed features

13:43:42 [Josh_Soref]

... i thought we agreed to test nonprefixed

13:43:45 [Josh_Soref]

jo: we're going off topic

13:43:57 [Josh_Soref]

... we agreed at the F2F to only focus on spec'd features

13:43:59 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2: This group will not produce a test suite that is below the aspirational Level 1

13:44:03 [Josh_Soref]

... i'd like to return to the conversation

13:44:07 [tobie]

+1

13:44:09 [darobin]

+1

13:44:14 [Josh_Soref]

Josh_Soref: +1

13:44:26 [Josh_Soref]

RESOLUTION: This group will not produce a test suite that is below the aspirational Level 1

13:44:28 [bryan]

+1 given that level 1 is as described by Tobie

13:44:44 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 3: Level 0 (if it exists at all) exists as a definition only what it means to be a mobile web app

13:45:06 [tobie]

bryan: http://coremob.github.com/level-1/index.html

13:46:00 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: we define a mobile application

13:46:19 [Jo]

q?

13:46:27 [bryan]

thanks, I will review the current level 1 spec

13:46:42 [Josh_Soref]

... as something which has a degree of autonomy

13:46:53 [Josh_Soref]

... and doesn't require online access for extended periods in order to do whatever it does

13:47:17 [Josh_Soref]

... whatever came out of it would be a minimal spec

13:47:26 [Josh_Soref]

... http capable, bootstrap from the web

13:48:01 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: is it meaningful to call that level 0?

13:48:03 [bryan]

I think it's a useful definition

13:48:16 [Josh_Soref]

dan: i think that's too minimal

13:48:29 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: what i'm proposing is that we review the list of features that matt kelly came up with

13:48:37 [tobie]

q+

13:48:40 [Josh_Soref]

... if it can do this, you can't call it a mobile web app

13:48:43 [Jo]

ack t

13:49:20 [Josh_Soref]

q+ to suggest there's some confusion between an App and an App Host

13:49:29 [Josh_Soref]

tobie: there's been a notion of dropping leveling

13:49:30 [chaals]

for everyone else) than deciding a priori whether there is something people might accept and value]

13:49:38 [Josh_Soref]

... since we don't have a level 0, and don't have a notion of a level 2

13:49:51 [Josh_Soref]

... let's release level 1 as "Core Mob ..." or "Mobile ..."

13:50:12 [Josh_Soref]

... and then see if we want to do things as yearly snapshots

13:50:13 [chaals]

i/for everyone/[WHy not let Bryan have a go and see if he writes something that convinces us? It might be quicker

13:50:14 [Josh_Soref]

... or levels

13:50:28 [bryan]

I would like to see some results from whatever testing is done, either in the Testing IG or elsewhere, factored into the discussion on defining "what a mobile web app is" as what is supported clearly limits what an app "can be"

13:50:34 [Josh_Soref]

... maybe later have a modern web app definition

13:51:14 [Josh_Soref]

... have something distinct from level 1

13:51:16 [Josh_Soref]

Josh_Soref: +1

13:51:19 [Josh_Soref]

dan: i agree

13:51:26 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION:Rename proposed definition doc as "What is a Web App" drop the whole idea of Level 0 and rename Level 1 as ScoreMob 2012

13:51:52 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION:Rename proposed definition doc as "What is a Web App" drop the whole idea of Level 0 and rename Level 1 as CoreMob 2012

13:52:11 [darobin]

+1

13:52:15 [dan]

+1

13:52:21 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: any objections to dropping level 0?

13:52:22 [bryan]

+1 (sorry, don't want to belabor a difficult discussion, the group should move on)

13:52:28 [Josh_Soref]

Josh_Soref: +1 from me for dropping it

13:53:07 [Josh_Soref]

RESOLUTION: Rename proposed definition doc as "What is a Web App" drop the whole idea of Level 0 and rename Level 1 as CoreMob 2012

13:53:48 [Josh_Soref]

Jo: is there support for doing a small definitional document on what is a web app?

13:53:56 [Josh_Soref]

... bryan, would you volunteer to do it?

13:54:08 [Josh_Soref]

... you volunteered for something different

13:54:57 [bryan]

we will have opportunity to do what is needed, once we have the data to do so - any document prior to that would be preliminary

13:55:54 [andrew_betts]

+1 to the need for a clearer understanding of what a 'web app' is.

13:55:59 [darobin]

ScribeNick: dan

13:56:02 [darobin]

gah!

13:56:04 [darobin]

ScribeNick: darobin

13:56:05 [Jo]

ACTION: Sullivan to draft a chapter outline of "What is a Web App?"

13:56:05 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-47 - Draft a chapter outline of "What is a Web App?" [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2012-08-08].

13:56:27 [Josh_Soref]

s/gah!//

13:56:29 [darobin]

jo: we won't have time to do action bashing

13:56:32 [darobin]

Topic: AOB?

13:56:48 [darobin]

jo: three things to discuss

13:56:58 [Josh_Soref]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

13:56:58 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref

13:56:58 [darobin]

... 1) shall we have another call in 2 weeks' time?

13:57:13 [darobin]

jfmoy: I would prefer a month

13:57:13 [darobin]

+1

13:58:13 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Further meeting in 1 month

13:58:26 [darobin]

RESOLUTION: Further meeting in 1 month

13:58:39 [Jo]

ACTION: Jo to arrange September call

13:58:40 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-48 - Arrange September call [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-08-08].

13:58:40 [bryan]

jo, please send me what you described as the basic characteristics of a "mobile web app", and we will flesh it out

13:59:17 [darobin]

jo: 2) noting the dates of the f2f are Oct 2-3, with logistics to follow, any further questions? I'll circulate details

13:59:20 [darobin]

... AOB?

13:59:36 [darobin]

... then let us thanks the FT

13:59:59 [Jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Coremob thanks the FT for hosting the voice channel for this call

14:00:07 [dan]

+1

14:00:16 [darobin]

RESOLUTION: Coremob thanks the FT for hosting the voice channel for this call

14:00:19 [darobin]

[Adjourned]

14:00:30 [bryan]

bryan has left #coremob

14:00:42 [Jo]

rrsagent draft miniutes

14:01:11 [Jo]

rrsagent: draft minutes

14:01:11 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Jo

14:02:31 [Jo]

present+ dan_sun, Jean-francois_Moy

14:02:39 [Jo]

present+ chaals

14:02:44 [Jo]

regrets- chaals

14:03:27 [Jo]

present+ Tobie_Langel

14:04:25 [Jo]

rrsagent: draft minutes

14:04:25 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Jo

14:04:40 [Jo]

s/member:rrsagent draft miniutes//

14:05:07 [Jo]

s/rrsagent draft miniutes//

14:07:20 [Jo]

present+ Kai Fritz

14:07:45 [Josh_Soref]

s/Kai Fritz/Kai_Fritz/

14:12:50 [Jo]

[Following the adjournment co-Chair realised that he'd been dreadfully rude in not thanking the Scribe]

14:13:09 [Jo]

rrsagent: draft minutes

14:13:09 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Jo

14:17:18 [darobin]

darobin has left #coremob

14:32:50 [Jo]

regrets- Chaals

14:33:03 [Jo]

member:rrsagent: draft minutes

14:34:02 [Jo]

rrsagent: draft minutes

14:34:02 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html Jo

15:12:29 [Josh_Soref]

Zakim, bye

15:12:29 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #coremob

15:12:34 [Josh_Soref]

s/Zakim, bye//

15:30:27 [jfmoy]

jfmoy has joined #coremob

16:40:30 [jet]

jet has joined #coremob

17:20:18 [jfmoy]

jfmoy has joined #coremob

18:38:08 [jet]

jet has joined #coremob

18:44:03 [jet]

jet has joined #coremob