[minutes] BPWG F2F - Day 3/3

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

[minutes] BPWG F2F - Day 3/3

Francois Daoust
Hi again,

Here is a short summary and a copy of the minutes of the third
(half-)day of last week's F2F.

The group discussed remaining work items and resolved to request charter
extension to 30 June 2010 to see Mobile Web Application Best Practices
through to rec and to see CT Guidelines similarly through to rec with an
appropriate level of test suite. A more detailed agenda is available at:
 
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaebQqOaNtbYZGQzams4dl8xNjVwejVrMjhndw&hl=en

The group will not address any additional work item.
I took a few actions to help scope the amount of work needed on the test
suite.

The participants of the F2F thank Vodafone for its kind hospitality in
hosting this F2F!

The minutes of day 3/3 are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.

Thanks,
Francois.


-----
11 Dec 2009

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           DKA, jo, SeanP, francois, achuter

    Regrets
           none

    Chair
           DKA, jo

    Scribe
           SeanP

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Charter Extension
          2. [5]Issues & Actions
      * [6]Summary of Action Items

Minutes of the F2F

      * [7]Day 1/3
      * [8]Day 2/3
      * [9]Day 3/3 (this page)
      _________________________________________________________

       [7] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-bpwg-minutes.html
       [8] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-bpwg-minutes.html
       [9] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html

Charter Extension

    DKA: Proposal is to extend the charter for 6 mos. Is that enough
    time?

    Jo: Should we make it 3 mos.? Sense of urgency?

    DKA: We're not adding any deliverables, not changing the charter
    except for extending it.
    ... There have been some suggestions that we add deliverables.

    Jo: I think the group should close.

    <Jo> [head for the "grey havens"]

    DKA: What do we need to do to extend the charter?

    Francois: How long is enough? Should we make it 3, 4 or 6?

    Jo: What we need to do is shepherd BPA through CR.
    ... How many BPs are there?

    Alan: 35.
    ... Does an implementation need to do all of them?

    Francois: no
    ... just individual ones.

    Alan: Sometimes Web sites do it without knowing it.

    Francois: You can contact the Web site and ask them about it.

    Jo: I wasn't planning on crawling the web. I think we have enough
    members still around with Web sites that we can ask them.

    Francois: We'll look around in the group to see if anyone has
    implementations of the BPs.

    Jo: 6 mos. is sensible.
    ... Let's do a timetable.

    DKA: Should I create the timetable while we are talking?

    Jo: Yes.

    DKA: We might want to do a schedule of all of the calls we want to
    have.
    ... First of all, do we want to have a call on Dec. 18th to see if
    should move any documents along?

    Francois: I don't think the CTG will be ready by then.

    Jo: We also have MWA.

    Francois: I need to contact Adam. We need to contact all of the
    comments of the LC.

    Jo: We need to make sure all of the changes get into the new draft.

    DKA: Does that mean we need to schedule a special call to see if we
    do can do something before the moratorium.

    Jo: OK

    DKA: Should we do a call on the 17th or 18th?

    Francois: Probably the 17th since other documents will try to slip
    in before the deadline.

    DKA: Just want to know if there is any reason to have a meeting
    before the end of the year.

    Jo: probably not.

    Francois: There are some changes we could make to CT before the end
    of the year.

    DKA: What about the 22nd?

    Jo: There are some other meetings on that day.

    DKA: Shall we have a call on the 21st? We could go over any other
    changes to CT.

    Sean: I won't be able to make the meeting on the 21st.

    DKA: Even if we are doing something on the 22nd, I think we could
    spare some time.

    Jo: We could the momo meeting in the morning and do the BPWG meeting
    at the regular time on the 22nd.

    DKA: No call on the 15th.
    ... What is the timetable for Jan? Should we have a call at the
    regular time on Jan. 5?
    ... If so what should the goal of the call be? Advance CT?

    Francois: At that time we'll have the comments from the reviews of
    the MWABP.

    DKA: Could request that MWABP is transitioned to CR.
    ... For CT we'll possibly have a new draft that we can resolve to
    publish for a new last call.

    [Working on timetable in Google Docs on the screen in the room]

    DKA: My view is that we need to be a reduced schedule for 2010. I
    don't expect any more F2F meetings.
    ... Are there any opportunities for us to have a F2F where we'll all
    be around someplace anyway?
    ... I was thinking of the WWW conference in Bali--Apr. 26-30.
    ... For the 5th of Jan...

    Jo: Doing what you said, would require the documents be done and
    people had time to review them which might work for MWABP, but not
    for CT.

    DKA: OK, I changed it to the 12th.

    Jo: We can do MWABP on the 5th.

    Francois: I think that is possible; we'll need to check with Adam
    this week.
    ... There were no strong comments in the last batch.

    Jo: We should attempt to do it on the 5th.

    DKA: It depends on our call schedule. We should have a reduced call
    schedule. Shorter calls and not weekly (biweekly and then even less
    frequently)

    Jo: I think shorter calls on a weekly basis would be better to keep
    attendance up.

    DKA: Don't agree. I think biweekly would be better for me.
    ... Frequency of calls is what affects my workload.

    Jo: I think we should do weekly until CR.

    Francois: Biweekly didn't work for us internally. I think weekly
    works better.
    ... I think it is a good idea to have an agenda.

    DKA: Have themes for first two calls.
    ... Let's reduce the time to an hour.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In 2010 we will reduce the call time to
    an hour but retain weekly calls for now until both CT and MWABP go
    to CR.

    +1

    <achuter> +1

    <DKA> +1

    <Jo> +1

    RESOLUTION: In 2010 we will reduce the call time to an hour but
    retain weekly calls for now until both CT and MWABP go to CR.

    DKA: What else can we add to the timeline?

    Jo: We'll get CT into LC on the 12th. We need to give people 4 weeks
    to review.

    Francois: If we decide to publish the LC on Jan 12th, it will ship
    on the 14th.
    ... We could give them to the 9th of Feb to review.

    Jo: We review LC comments on the 9th.
    ... We may get some more substantial last call comments.
    ... on the 16th of Feb. we would reply to the LC comments and then
    go to CR.

    DKA: On Feb. 16th reduce the call schedule.

    Jo: We may not need so many calls while CT is in LC.

    Francois: We have to reply to the LC comments and work on the test
    suite.

    Jo: When does the test suite have to be done?

    Francois: When the CR period is over.
    ... We need to validate implementations with the test suite.

    Jo: Is there anything I can do to help?

    Francois: You can contribute tests.

    Jo: What language will be used for the tests?

    Francois: I thought maybe we could use Java, but no strong
    preference.

    DKA: Which doc are we talking about.

    Francois: CT. There won't be a test suite for MWABP.

    DKA: Is there any thought for additional work on the Checker for
    MWABP?

    Jo: No.
    ... It will be worth it in Jan. to keep the group going to review
    the tests.
    ... We should write out the tests in pseudo code for people to
    review.

    Francois: We already have the ICS that has all of the normative
    statements. I suggest that we use that to create another document
    that would define a series of tests in some human language first,
    then we try to implement these in code.
    ... I'll create the framework to get this started.

    Jo: Logically we can't do this until CT is in CR, but in practice it
    could largely be done before CR.

    Francois: The tests could be done while CT is in LC and may generate
    some more comments.

    Jo: In practice a couple of people will be doing it.

    Francois: The first step doesn't require any coding.
    ... doesn't need to be done on a teleconference; could be done on
    the mailing list.

    Jo: We'll need to find some additional people besides Francois and
    Sean to get this work done.
    ... It's not an insignificant piece of work. It will require
    possibly several tests per normative statement with client and
    server tests.
    ... And it will all need documenting.

    Francois: Why all the documentation.

    Jo: Needs to be done in real conditions.

    Francois: Isn't this going to be kind of impossible.

    Sean: Are there any examples we can look at?

    Francois: There are some other documents that have test suites.

    Jo: My point is that a laptop using a phone as a modem would rarely
    be a valid test.

    DKA: If you configured your laptop to use the phone as a modem going
    through a WAP APN, it would make work OK.

    Jo: We should establish the viability of ever running the tests.

    DKA: Why do these tests need to be done in the wild? Couldn't these
    tests be done in a controlled environment?

    Francois: We don't want to keep people from claiming conformance
    when they've tested on private network.

    Jo: No, the deployment needs to be publicly available on the
    non-over the air network.

    Francois: We're just talking about the connection.

    Jo: It is not completely obvious to me how you would execute these
    tests and get a meaningful result.
    ... Maybe someone could write something up on how this works.

    Francois: We don't say that access needs to be free.
    ... Section 5 doesn't say that you need to make the deployment
    available on a mobile network.
    ... We could build a widget that does all of the tests?

    Jo: It would be kind of cool if the test suite was available as a
    widget for people to download to their phones.

    Francois: I'm not sure we can change the UA header using an XHR
    request.

    Jo: It would be a good objective to do as many tests as possible
    with a widget.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT test suite work, we will
    build a cool widget.

    Francois: We can try to do as many tests as possible with a client
    side widget.

    Jo: We could deploy using J2ME
    ... we need to a bit more thinking of how we are going to run the
    tests and who is going to run the tests.

    Francois: We need to try to have a client that uses just regular web
    browsing techniques.

    Jo: It would be nice to have software the automatically runs through
    all of the tests.
    ... we can define the tests without worrying about the deployment,
    but when we write the code we'll need to think about it up front.

    Francois: We could use regular Web technologies and use some glue
    code to run tests that can't be done frorm JavaScript.

    <francois> ACTION: francois to think carefully about how tests in
    the CT test suite could be run from mobile phones and report (Web
    App? Widget? J2ME?) [recorded in
    [10]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    Francois: the first part is about listing the tests that we want
    applied.

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1030 - Think carefully about how tests in
    the CT test suite could be run from mobile phones and report (Web
    App? Widget? J2ME?) [on François Daoust - due 2009-12-18].

    Alan: Presumably phone manufacturers have ways to test apps on
    phones.

    DKA: We have a test network.

    [Jo drawing a diagram on the whiteboard]

    Jo: Maybe the focus should be on creating a Java client. It could be
    used to generate a J2ME client and generating a GWT app.
    ... just need to follow some rules to make sure that J2ME and GWT
    apps can ge generated from J2SE code.

    Sean: This looks like it may take several months to do.

    Francois: How long did it take to do the mobileOK Checker test
    suite?

    Jo: Took a couple of years.

    <francois> ACTION: francois to create the initial document that is
    to contain human-readable descriptions of the tests to implement.
    [recorded in
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1031 - Create the initial document that is
    to contain human-readable descriptions of the tests to implement.
    [on François Daoust - due 2009-12-18].

    DKA: Resource issue here, not necessarily people currently in the
    group.
    ... We may be able to get some VF people to work on this.

    Jo: What about Jeff? Maybe he has some students can work on it.

    DKA: What are the skills required?
    ... HTTP, Java, etc.

    Jo: A student would do this would learn a lot about HTTP. It would
    be work to debug their code, however.

    DKA: If you had a number of people collaborating, it could be quite
    effective.

    Jo: Need to be a project plan.

    DKA: The risk is that if we don't get it done, the document could
    stay in CR a long time.

    Sean: Do you need actual code, or is pseudo code OK?

    DKA: Need actual code.
    ... We need a test sute, no document, etc.

    Jo: We need a separate document that documents the test sute.
    ... Could test the document with pseudo code for correctness, then
    test the actual test suite for correctness using the document.

    DKA: We need to get additional people to help out with writing the
    tests.

    Jo: We need to take the rest of this discussion offline. Has
    possible charter extension consequences.

    DKA: We may be making too much out of this. If we approach it in a
    systematic way, then we should be able to get it done in a
    reasonable amount of time.
    ... We need a better idea of what resources we have to bear.
    ... How it impacts our schedule, after MWC, we will only have this
    test suite to work on until the end of June.

    Jo: The object, then would be to exit CR when the test suite is
    done.

    Francois: When we exit CR, the time between PR and Rec should be
    short.

    Jo: We aim to transistion between PR and Rec in June, which means
    that we should go to PR at the beginning of June for a 3 week
    transition.
    ... We have 4 months to create the test suite then.
    ... which is pushing it.
    ... Some of what is Mobile OK Checker could be reused, right?

    Francois: Some of it, but not the hard stuff. What makes it hard is
    that we need to two sides. None of the tests are hard to write, but
    it will take a while to do the work.
    ... I could check to see if it will be OK just to provide the tests
    in written form. It might be seen as kind of a failure,but we could
    say that we have resource constrants.
    ... For some tests you can't write tests for anyway; for example the
    requirement of a transparant proxy would require the entire HTTP
    protocol.
    ... It will need to be lightweight test suite; it won't be like the
    MobileOK checker which really has to be detailed since it is a
    checker.
    ... I can check to see if the written form would be sufficient.
    ... Our intention is to cover all of the normative guidelines but
    not all of the underlying requirements since that is impossible.
    ... For example, would be hard to test is a proxy is really
    transparent.

    DKA: For the schedule, should we finish by the beginning of June?

    Francois: Yes.

    <francois> ACTION: francois to investigate on the possibility to
    restrict ourselves to a pseudo-code written test suite document for
    CT. [recorded in
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1032 - Investigate on the possibility to
    restrict ourselves to a pseudo-code written test suite document for
    CT. [on François Daoust - due 2009-12-18].

    Jo: I think charter extension any longer than 6 mos is pushing our
    luck.

    DKA: We don't want to keep extending the charter.
    ... That's why I want to get additional people working on the tests
    so we can finish up the group.

    Francois: Most of the tests will require some human intervention and
    won't be fully automatic.
    ... We have several guidelines that require human intervention.

    [break]

    DKA: We could say we are going to reduce the call schedule in March.

    Jo: Let's wait on that.

    DKA: By Jan 19th we need to have an idea of what we need to do for
    the test suite and resources we have.

    Francois: What I can do by then is give an idea what tests can be
    code and which ones will need human tests.

    DKA: Do we still need to write a human readable test plan?

    Francois: Yes.

    <francois> ACTION: francois to highlight normative statements that
    can be automatically tested, and those that will be hard or
    impossible to test on an automated basis by 2010-01-19 [recorded in
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1033 - Highlight normative statements that
    can be automatically tested, and those that will be hard or
    impossible to test on an automated basis by 2010-01-19 [on François
    Daoust - due 2009-12-18].

    <francois> ACTION-1033 due 2010-01-19

    <trackbot> ACTION-1033 Highlight normative statements that can be
    automatically tested, and those that will be hard or impossible to
    test on an automated basis by 2010-01-19 due date now 2010-01-19

    Francois: Final thing is to request charter extension.

    DKA: We expect the major work of the extension period to be the test
    suite for CT.

    <Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG requests charter extension to 20 June
    2010 to see MWABP through to rec and to see CT Guidelines similarly
    through to rec with and appropriate level of test suite

    <Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG requests charter extension to 30 June
    3010 to see MWABP through to rec and to see CT Guidelines similarly
    through to rec with and appropriate level of test suite

    <francois> [We will also gather implementation reports on Mobile Web
    Application Best Practices]

    <Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG requests charter extension to 30 June
    2010 to see MWABP through to rec and to see CT Guidelines similarly
    through to rec with and appropriate level of test suite

    <DKA> +1

    +1

    <francois> +1

    <Jo> +1 reluctantly

    RESOLUTION: BPWG requests charter extension to 30 June 2010 to see
    MWABP through to rec and to see CT Guidelines similarly through to
    rec with and appropriate level of test suite

Issues & Actions

    DKA: Can close ACTION-1026

    Francois: Can close ACTION-1024
    ... Already have an action to ping internally for CT test resources
    in VF

    DKA: For ACTION-987, draft a blog post on mobileOK Scheme, whenever
    I think about this I think we need awareness of mobileOK and I don't
    think one blog post is going to do it.
    ... We need to engage W3C to help promote awareness of mobileOK.

    Francois: I'm not what else I can do. I talk about mobileOK at every
    conference I go to. We try to contact companies that make tools for
    mobile web content.
    ... We already did a press release.

    Jo: We talked about an event.

    Francois: Everything right now is about HTML 5, etc. Flashy stuff.

    DKA: mobileOK still has an important role to play and there
    communities that aren't aware of it.

    <Jo> dka: "one swallow does not a summer make"

    <Jo> dka: "let a thousand flowers bloom"

    DKA: So we need some sort of event to get people more aware of
    mobileOK. One blog post is not going to do it; we need some other
    event to go along with it. Maybe some sort of Twitter campaign.

    Phil: It is difficult to inspire people on mobileOK. It's not a sexy
    thing.

    DKA: We had a teen panel; teens don't necessarily have fancy phones.
    ... This lines up with Tommy Ahonen who says that not everyone has
    an iPhone.

    Jo: I think the most appropriate channels for pushing mobileOK is
    the developing nations initiative and academia.

    Francois: What do you mean by academia?

    Jo: Computer science programs.
    ... Don't think it is worth pushing the mobileOK message which has
    to do with validity and so on when the HTML message is the opposite
    of that.

    Alan: Gov't Web sites should be obliged to be mobileOK.

    Jo: I think a general awareness campaign would be doomed to failure.

    Alan: We could work with the European Commision E-Inclusion Unit.

    Francois: I often go to conferences of the European Commision and
    present mobileOK.

    DKA: Maybe this is something you can investigate with Philip to get
    more awareness with the European Commision.

    <francois> ACTION: francois to investigate about opportunities to
    promote mobileOK with the European Commission [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1034 - Investigate about opportunities to
    promote mobileOK with the European Commission [on François Daoust -
    due 2009-12-18].

    DKA: Let me develop a plan on a mobileOK awareness campaign.

    <francois> ACTION: dan to create a plan to raise awareness on
    mobileOK through some campaign [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1035 - Create a plan to raise awareness on
    mobileOK through some campaign [on Daniel Appelquist - due
    2009-12-18].

    <francois> close ACTION-987

    <trackbot> ACTION-987 Draft a blog post on mobileOK Scheme closed

    DKA: Any other actions we can close?

    Francois: Can close ACTION-987.
    ... Need to keep Bruce Lawson's action open for new because will
    need it.

    DKA: Do we want to raise an issue around the test suite.

    Francois: yes.

    <Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG thanks Vodafone for its kind
    hospitality in hosting this F2F

    +1

    <francois> +1

    RESOLUTION: BPWG thanks Vodafone for its kind hospitality in hosting
    this F2F

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: dan to create a plan to raise awareness on mobileOK
    through some campaign [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: francois to create the initial document that is to
    contain human-readable descriptions of the tests to implement.
    [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: francois to highlight normative statements that can be
    automatically tested, and those that will be hard or impossible to
    test on an automated basis by 2010-01-19 [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: francois to investigate about opportunities to promote
    mobileOK with the European Commission [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: francois to investigate on the possibility to restrict
    ourselves to a pseudo-code written test suite document for CT.
    [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: francois to think carefully about how tests in the CT
    test suite could be run from mobile phones and report (Web App?
    Widget? J2ME?) [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]