- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:36:06 +0200
- To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Hi,
The minutes of our call today are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html
and copied as text below.
Among the decisions taken today:
* BPWG won't meet at TPAC after all, and might be having a F2F
mid-November or early December in Europe
* the road to publishing the Mobile Web Application Best Practices as
last call has been nearly cleared, with hopefully a last week of
internal review starting next week, for a possible last call the week
after
* the addendum to bp 1.0 is going to be published as a Working Group
note next week unless objections are raised before next call
* some of the CT vendors rep will check if they can get tests
contributions from their companies to help build a test suite around the
content transformation guidelines
Dom
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
15 Sep 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/4AAF3F18.5020409@mtld.mobi
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
jeffs, brucel, Dom, Yeliz miguel, EdC, adam, SeanP, jo
Regrets
Francois, Dan, Kai, PhilA, Manrique, Alan, Ignacio, Abel, Tom
Chair
Jo
Scribe
Ed
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]F2F meeting (ISSUE-299)
2. [6]Integration of MobileOK Checker into Eclipse
3. [7]MWABP 2.
4. [8]BP 1.5.
5. [9]CT guidelines
6. [10]ISSUE-296
7. [11]Action items review
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
F2F meeting (ISSUE-299)
<dom> [13]Results of survey on F2F meeting at TPAC
[13] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/tpac2009-2/results
<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
[14]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
[15]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).
Integration of MobileOK Checker into Eclipse
<dom> [16]Yeliz message on wrapping mobileOK checker for Eclipse
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2009Sep/0004.html
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.
MWABP 2.
<dom> [17]Adam's plea for a resolution on SVG and canvas
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0019.html
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.
<jo> [18]Eduardo's Proposed Text
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html
<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
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.htm
l - due September 18 [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1006 - send feedback on Eduardo's proposal
on Canvas & SVG
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.htm
l [on Bruce Lawson - due 2009-09-18].
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html
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> [22]11 open action items on mwabp
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14
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.
BP 1.5.
<dom> [23]Latest editors draft of BP 1.5
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090914
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.
CT guidelines
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
[24]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
[25]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
[26]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].
ISSUE-296
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>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/296
[27] 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.
Action items review
<dom> [28]Action items related to MWABP
[28] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14
<jo> [29]Open Actions on BP2
[29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14
<jo> ACTION-873?
<trackbot> ACTION-873 -- Daniel Appelquist to provide some words on
conservative use of resources -- due 2008-10-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/873
[30] 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>
[31]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/911
[31] 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>
[32]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/918
[32] 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>
[33]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/924
[33] 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>
[34]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/957
[34] 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>
[35]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/958
[35] 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>
[36]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/964
[36] 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>
[37]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/997
[37] 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>
[38]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/998
[38] 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>
[39]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/790
[39] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/790
Jo: Accessibility of Javascript. Do we have anything on that.
<dom> [40]Alan's proposal on accessibility of javascript
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Sep/0081.html
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>
[41]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1003
[41] 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
[42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.htm
l closed
[42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html
Jo: only two items left on MWABP.
<jo> [43]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open
[43] 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.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Adam to check if Google has tests they could
contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Bruce to check if Opera has tests they could
contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Bruce to send feedback on Eduardo's proposal on Canvas
& SVG
[46]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.htm
l - due September 18 [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: francois to cancel TPAC F2F for BPWG [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] 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
[49]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to check if novarra has tests they could
contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 14:36:43 UTC