[Agenda] BPWG 2010-09-28

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Agenda] BPWG 2010-09-28

Jo Rabin
We have passed the equinox and there is a distinct Autumnal chill in the air in the part of the northern hemisphere in which I sit.

The leaves are turning brown on the BPWG as well, soon they will fall. In fact we have a month to run before our charter runs out. So we need to make haste to pack things away in preparation for that, just as the squirrel puts aside acorns.

Hyperbole aside:

Attendance is open to W3C Members Only

Chair: Jo

Team Contact: Francois

Known Regrets: None

Please make sure that if you are sending regrets you do so _before_ the
call and please use the member list to do so:

mailto:[hidden email]?subject=Regrets%20for%20BPWG%202010-09-28

Agenda:

1. BP2

Summary of implementation reports to date.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests transition of Mobile Web Applications Best Practices (aka BP2) to Proposed Recommendation. There is no need for the document to go through Candidate Recommendation again.

2. CT Guidelines

With thanks to those who submitted implementation reports, the time has come regretfully to accept that we have not received sufficient reports to progress this document along Rec track.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: "Downgrade" CT Guidelines to a WG Note and request publication as such.

3. AOB

Charter Extension - We will need a couple of extra weeks for BP2 to make its way to the end of that winding path known as Rec track, so we need to request a small extension to see it through. It might be prudent to await the transition call on BP2 to make sure it does make it to PR before requesting the extension.


Logistics:

Date: 2010-09-28T1330Z
[0630 US Pacific, 0930 US Eastern, 1430 UK/Ireland, 1530 CET, 1630
Helsinki]

Phone: tel:+16177616200, tel:+33489063499 or tel:+441173706152
Code 2794 ("BPWG") followed by #

IRC: irc://irc.w3.org:6665#bpwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Agenda] BPWG 2010-09-28

Yeliz Yesilada
Regrets, I won't be able to join the call.

Regards,
Yeliz.
On 27 Sep 2010, at 12:56, Jo Rabin wrote:

> We have passed the equinox and there is a distinct Autumnal chill  
> in the air in the part of the northern hemisphere in which I sit.
>
> The leaves are turning brown on the BPWG as well, soon they will  
> fall. In fact we have a month to run before our charter runs out.  
> So we need to make haste to pack things away in preparation for  
> that, just as the squirrel puts aside acorns.
>
> Hyperbole aside:
>
> Attendance is open to W3C Members Only
>
> Chair: Jo
>
> Team Contact: Francois
>
> Known Regrets: None
>
> Please make sure that if you are sending regrets you do so _before_  
> the
> call and please use the member list to do so:
>
> mailto:[hidden email]?subject=Regrets%20for%20BPWG%202010-09-28
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1. BP2
>
> Summary of implementation reports to date.
>
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests transition of Mobile Web  
> Applications Best Practices (aka BP2) to Proposed Recommendation.  
> There is no need for the document to go through Candidate  
> Recommendation again.
>
> 2. CT Guidelines
>
> With thanks to those who submitted implementation reports, the time  
> has come regretfully to accept that we have not received sufficient  
> reports to progress this document along Rec track.
>
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: "Downgrade" CT Guidelines to a WG Note and  
> request publication as such.
>
> 3. AOB
>
> Charter Extension - We will need a couple of extra weeks for BP2 to  
> make its way to the end of that winding path known as Rec track, so  
> we need to request a small extension to see it through. It might be  
> prudent to await the transition call on BP2 to make sure it does  
> make it to PR before requesting the extension.
>
>
> Logistics:
>
> Date: 2010-09-28T1330Z
> [0630 US Pacific, 0930 US Eastern, 1430 UK/Ireland, 1530 CET, 1630
> Helsinki]
>
> Phone: tel:+16177616200, tel:+33489063499 or tel:+441173706152
> Code 2794 ("BPWG") followed by #
>
> IRC: irc://irc.w3.org:6665#bpwg


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Agenda] BPWG 2010-09-28

Eduardo Casais
In reply to this post by Jo Rabin
> With thanks to those who submitted implementation
> reports, the time has come regretfully to accept that we
> have not received sufficient reports to progress this
> document along Rec track.
>
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: "Downgrade" CT
> Guidelines to a WG Note and request publication as
> such.

After all the time and effort invested in the CTG, this is a
most regrettable conclusion.

I cannot believe the lack of implementation reports is
caused by an inability of the operators; after all, they
know very well what their deployed transcoders are
capable of and how they are configured, have had largely
enough time to prepare themselves for the final version of
the CTG, filling ICS is part of the job in telecoms, and they
could draw some marketing advantage from being
compliant with the guidelines. As for test suites, I am
convinced they exist at the transcoder vendors, since
otherwise how would they even check that their systems
implement what they are supposed to do?

I presume that no ICS are forthcoming because the main
parties have lost interest in the matter; the hot topic
currently is not browsing, nor supporting a wide spectrum
of mobile phones -- but apps and apps store for high-end
devices.

All this is a bit sad, since

a) In several markets, the state of affairs regarding
transcoders is essentially as bad today as it was three
years ago (try Vodafone Portugal for one example). We
remain without a formal guideline to compell bad citizens to
respect good practices in the mobile Web ecosystem.

b) There was a first wave of transcoding ten years ago
(making Web sites available to WAP 1 devices); the
current one, initiated three years ago, is largely to make
desktop sites available to WAP 2 devices (driven by the
emergence of iPhone and "full-web-capable" phones).
If history is any guide, there will be another game changer
in three years which will result in yet another wave of
transcoding -- perhaps something like converting evolved,
rich e-book content from tablet/reader formats to mobile
phone HTML5-based formats. At that time, we will
just have an informational document, no experience with
recording and enforcing guidelines, nor any feedback on
their practicality or completeness, nor an evaluation of
some of the most contentious issues (such as HTTPS
rewriting), nor a process to incorporate changes entailed
by new technology.

I look forward to hearing how group members (especiallly
operators and transcoder vendors) will utilize the CTG,
even if only as a WG note.

E.Casais


     


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Agenda] BPWG 2010-09-28

Jo Rabin
Eduardo

I agree with your sentiment here and wish that it was all otherwise.

I think that the existence of a WG note does, though, provide some force and is referenceable by those that wish to reference it. As you say, it would be nice to hear from group members how they wish to take advantage of the existence of this document.

Jo

On 28 Sep 2010, at 13:53, Eduardo Casais wrote:

>> With thanks to those who submitted implementation
>> reports, the time has come regretfully to accept that we
>> have not received sufficient reports to progress this
>> document along Rec track.
>>
>> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: "Downgrade" CT
>> Guidelines to a WG Note and request publication as
>> such.
>
> After all the time and effort invested in the CTG, this is a
> most regrettable conclusion.
>
> I cannot believe the lack of implementation reports is
> caused by an inability of the operators; after all, they
> know very well what their deployed transcoders are
> capable of and how they are configured, have had largely
> enough time to prepare themselves for the final version of
> the CTG, filling ICS is part of the job in telecoms, and they
> could draw some marketing advantage from being
> compliant with the guidelines. As for test suites, I am
> convinced they exist at the transcoder vendors, since
> otherwise how would they even check that their systems
> implement what they are supposed to do?
>
> I presume that no ICS are forthcoming because the main
> parties have lost interest in the matter; the hot topic
> currently is not browsing, nor supporting a wide spectrum
> of mobile phones -- but apps and apps store for high-end
> devices.
>
> All this is a bit sad, since
>
> a) In several markets, the state of affairs regarding
> transcoders is essentially as bad today as it was three
> years ago (try Vodafone Portugal for one example). We
> remain without a formal guideline to compell bad citizens to
> respect good practices in the mobile Web ecosystem.
>
> b) There was a first wave of transcoding ten years ago
> (making Web sites available to WAP 1 devices); the
> current one, initiated three years ago, is largely to make
> desktop sites available to WAP 2 devices (driven by the
> emergence of iPhone and "full-web-capable" phones).
> If history is any guide, there will be another game changer
> in three years which will result in yet another wave of
> transcoding -- perhaps something like converting evolved,
> rich e-book content from tablet/reader formats to mobile
> phone HTML5-based formats. At that time, we will
> just have an informational document, no experience with
> recording and enforcing guidelines, nor any feedback on
> their practicality or completeness, nor an evaluation of
> some of the most contentious issues (such as HTTPS
> rewriting), nor a process to incorporate changes entailed
> by new technology.
>
> I look forward to hearing how group members (especiallly
> operators and transcoder vendors) will utilize the CTG,
> even if only as a WG note.
>
> E.Casais
>
>
>
>
>