[minutes] BPWG Teleconference 2010-01-19

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

[minutes] BPWG Teleconference 2010-01-19

Francois Daoust
Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-bpwg-minutes.html

... and copied as raw text below.

The group resolved to request transition of Mobile Web Application Best
Practices to Candidate Recommendation, and agreed on exit criteria
similar to those of Best Practices 1.0 and a CR phase of two months.


Thanks,
Francois.

-----
19 Jan 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0011.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           miguel, DKA, tomhume, adam, francois, EdC, jo, jey, achuter,
           SeanP

    Regrets
           kai, brucel, nacho, jeffs, sangwhan, yeliz

    Chair
           DKA

    Scribe
           francois

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]MWABP - status
          2. [6]MWABP - Exit Criteria for Candidate Recommendation
          3. [7]MWABP - Transition to Candidate Recommendation
          4. [8]CT guidelines
          5. [9]New Group Member - Jérôme
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

MWABP - status

    <adam>
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/E
    D-mobile-bp2-20100114

      [11]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20100114

    adam: there was one comment from chaals, but I think he just misread
    the changes I had made to the document.
    ... The latest draft is really just a list of typos.
    ... I don't think we need to change anything on response to chaals'
    comments, really.

    dka: do we need to treat this as official comments?

    adam: I don't think so. They were editorial comments.

    dka: so we're done!
    ... Any other comments?

    <EdC> Question -- has anybody performed a general check of
    consistency for all internal document links?

    francois: nothing really to add. Just note that we have placeholders
    for icons we never put in the draft.

    dka: right. Do you think we can publish the document and tackle that
    later on without problems? This is purely editorial, right?

    francois: right. I don't think we'll have any problem with that.

    adam: Some comments of Alan might need to be addressed.

MWABP - Exit Criteria for Candidate Recommendation

    dka: I don't think that should block us. We should go on with the
    publication.
    ... About exit criteria, as I recall, we decided at the F2F that we
    would be using similar criteria to those we used for BP1.
    ... This would be based on voluntary implementation reports.
    ... Is that correct?

    adam: I think that's correct.

    -> [12]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/ CR of mobile
    web best practices 1.0

      [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/

    -> [13]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/#status
    Status of this document section in the CR of BP1 that contains the
    exit criteria

      [13] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/#status

    [[ The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group expects to request
    that the Director advance this document to Proposed Recommendation
    once:

    1. Sufficient reports of implementation experience have been
    gathered to demonstrate that the Mobile Web Best Practices are
    implementable and are interpreted in a consistent manner. To test
    this, the Working Groups expects to evaluate web content (web sites,
    pages) that has been created using the Mobile Web Best Practices. To
    exit "Candidate Recommendation" for each Best Practice, at least two
    web sites/pages which are not solely demonstrations of Best

    Practices implementation should pass the Best Practice.

    2. An implementation report has been produced indicating the results
    of using each best practices for the web sites/pages considered

    ]]

    dka: [ reading exit criteria from BP1 ]

    <DKA> [14]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/mwbp-implementation-report

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/mwbp-implementation-report

    dka: I suggest we basically duplicate this for MWABP. Does anyone
    see any problem with that approach?
    ... From an architectural perpective, this seems correct.

    <DKA> :)

    <jo> [2 implementation reports for each BP should be sufficient]

    adam: This is fine with the understanding that the resulting
    implementation report will be less "green" than the one for BP1. Web
    sites won't implement all of the best practices, only a restricted
    set of them in their Mobile Web application.

    francois: nothing to add. I agree with the approach.

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to ask about NOTs

    <EdC> ...especially since every possible combination of best
    practices might not make sense.

    francois: 2 implementation reports for each BP should be sufficient,
    no need to implement all of the BPs.

    jo: The only slight problem might have to do with negative best
    practices. If we have something with "don't in any case do this",
    then we could have a problem with some Web applications.

    <DKA> e.g. "Do not Execute Unescaped or Untrusted JSON data"

    adam: I don't think we have such strong wording.

    dka: hmm, what about the one on JSON?
    ... We may need to amend the bullet point, then.

    francois: a bit at a loss about the problem with NOT

    dka: we did not have negative BPs in BP1.

    francois: we had, actually. Do not use frames, pop-ups. Avoid
    cookies.

    dka: right.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will use the same exit criteria we
    used for MWBP 1.0 for our CR of MWABP.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will use the same exit criteria we
    used for our CR of MWBP 1.0 for our CR of MWABP.

    <DKA> +1

    <tomhume> +1

    +1

    <miguel> +1

    <achuter> +1

    <adam> +1

    <jey> +1

    RESOLUTION: We will use the same exit criteria we used for our CR of
    MWBP 1.0 for our CR of MWABP.

    dka: about the implementation report, francois?

    francois: I'll do it, yes.

    <scribe> ACTION: daoust to prepare the implementation report for the
    CR of MWABP [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1036 - Prepare the implementation report
    for the CR of MWABP [on François Daoust - due 2010-01-26].

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to suggest that we poll for who is going to
    do an implementation report

    jo: I don't think that implementation reports are going to "fly in".
    We'll have to chase them. We should track people and ensure they
    provide implementation reports.

    adam: true. I can think of a couple of applications within Google,
    but that's not enough.

    jo: Right. What about Vodafone or Betavine

    dka: let's make a WBS report.
    ... We just need to understand what the implementation report will
    look like.
    ... Coming back to the question of time frame, any thoughts on time
    frame.

    <EdC> What is the experience from BP1?

    <jo> iirc was a month or two

    [I think the minimum is 6 weeks, but 2 months is a reasonable
    target, yes]

    dka: shall we do 2 months?

    adam: sounds good.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: 2 months of CR for MWABP

    <DKA> +1

    +1

    RESOLUTION: 2 months of CR for MWABP

MWABP - Transition to Candidate Recommendation

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group resolves to request transition
    to CR of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices (editor's draft
    dated 14 Jan 2010).

    +1

    <EdC> +1

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to suggest that the latest draft has been
    available for less than a week so we need to let folks (including
    me) have a chance to read it

    jo: I do not want to hold this up by any mean. However, we had only
    two working days to review the latest draft.
    ... so we should give people time to review the draft.

    francois: right. I wouldn't call the latest draft a new draft, as it
    only contains a tiny list of typos compared to the previous one.
    ... People should have reviewed the draft before.
    ... but I think we could reformulate the proposed resolution as jo
    mentioned.

    dka: I don't think that holding up this for one more week will do
    any good.
    ... Let's move forward.

    jo: If enough people have reviewed the spec, then I'm fine with it.
    ... I'll rephrase that as a question

    <jo> my sentiment is as francois minuted namely : If enough people
    have reviewed the spec, then I'm fine with it.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group resolves to request transition
    to CR of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices (editor's draft
    dated 14 Jan 2010).

    <adam> +1

    dka: ok, I don't see any good reason to hold this up some more.

    <DKA> +1

    +1

    <achuter> +1

    <EdC> +1

    <jey> +1

    <jo> +1

    <tomhume> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    dka: awesome, let's do it!

    RESOLUTION: The group resolves to request transition to CR of the
    Mobile Web Application Best Practices (editor's draft dated 14 Jan
    2010).

    <jo> plaudits to the editor!

    dka: anything else that we need to do, on top of congratulating the
    editor, of course?

    <jo> ack

CT Guidelines

    francois: just so that people are not surprised, please note that
    the actual transition is likely to require a transition call. It
    won't be done tomorrow.

    <DKA> +1

    <tomhume> :)

    jo: last week, we said that I'd be given 2 weeks to update the CT
    draft. Well, I failed last week, but still plan to do it this week.
    ... but we had a lovely time in Brighton yesterday evening.

    dka: I think it's on scope because it was about sustainability, and
    that included a comparison between a Web app and a native app.
    ... in terms of power consumption.
    ... Anyway, any other business?

New Group Member - Jérôme

    jo: One thing, Dan. We have failed to introduce Jérôme, and we have
    been a little bit rude here, in short. It is traditional to let new
    participants of the group introduce themselves.

    <jo> welcome Jérôme!

    <EdC> Are you joining just this group (whose life-time is limited)
    or also some other W3C activities?

    jey: I'm part of France Telecom. I'm a developer, doing Web
    developments. What we're trying to do is to do some outreach
    internally about possibilities Web applications introduce.
    ... I'm excited to join this group, although I realize I'm a bit
    late.

    dka: never too late to join the group! Welcome to this group.

    <jo> [16]The Green Switch, subject of last night's MobileMonday
    London

      [16] http://www.thegreenswitch.org/

    dka: I'll be happy to talk with you, especially for outreach
    activities.
    ... no other business?
    ... Then I declare the call closed!

    [call adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to prepare the implementation report for the CR
    of MWABP [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]