[minutes] BPWG Teleconference 2010-02-09

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

[minutes] BPWG Teleconference 2010-02-09

Francois Daoust
Hi,

The great minutes of today's call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.

The group resolved to publish as a third Last Call Working Draft the CT
guidelines draft 1z; with a 4 week comment period.

Participants of the WG are invited to review the responses to the
reviewers of the previous by Thursday midday GMT:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/


Noted during the call:
- Publication of Mobile Web Application Best Practices as a W3C
Candidate Recommendation was approved. It should happen later this week.

- Tom, Dan and I took an action to investigate whether we could find Web
application candidates that implement some of the best practices. All
the participants are invited to pass the word around once the candidate
recommendation is published: we are looking for implementations of the
Mobile Web Application Best Practices!

- The group is looking for "atomic" implementation reports. In other
words, we do not expect to see all the best practices implemented at
once, but rather to see reports that a mobile web application implements
one or two of the best practices. I am to update the implementation
report template to clarify that point.


Thanks,
Francois.

-----
09 Feb 2010

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           DKA, francois, jeffs, EdC, miguel, tomhume, SeanP

    Regrets
           jo, sangwhan, achuter, brucel, jerome, adam, yeliz

    Chair
           DKA

    Scribe
           EdC

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Mobile Web Application Best Practices
          2. [5]CT guidelines
          3. [6]CT Replies to comments
          4. [7]AOB
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Mobile Web Application Best Practices

    Francois on the transition call. The transition to candidate
    recommendation accepted. Publication expected Thursday.

    The group should not expect implementation feedback to flow in on
    its own, some action plan is required.

    <DKA> Francois: We had a "great" transition call.

    General congratulation to everybody.

    DKA asks how such an action plan would look like. Francois has a
    template for providing implementation feedback ready.

    <francois> [9]MWABP Implementation report template

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/mwabp-implementation-report-template

    It is derived from the corresponding implementation report for
    mobile web app best practices 1.0.

    DKA asks whether it makes sense to have a fail? Not all aspects of
    the document are relevant to all developers.

    Francois asks perhaps there was a fundamental reason to have a
    "fail" column initially?

    DKA states that we are no longer interested in whether
    implementations actually cover every single aspect of every
    practice, just the ones relevant to their applications.

    <francois> ACTION: daoust to update the implementation report
    template based on the discussion, i.e. remove the "fail" column and
    emphasize that all of the best practices do not need to be
    implemented, that we're looking into "atomic" feedback on one or two
    best practices each time. [recorded in
    [10]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1037 - Update the implementation report
    template based on the discussion, i.e. remove the "fail" column and
    emphasize that all of the best practices do not need to be
    implemented, that we're looking into "atomic" feedback on one or two
    best practices each time. [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2010-02-16].

    DKA asks who would be able to actually report on the BP, based on
    the document? Tom perhaps?

    The intention being to get feedback from actual implementations.

    DKA impresses upon the members that the W3C wants to get evidence
    that the BP are actually used.

    DKA asks about getting feedback on the W3C WWW site itself?

    Francois will check about the possibility to match BP to actual
    implementation -- for instance Mobile checker -- within W3C itself.

    DKA will make a post about the BP in order to entice people to
    provide feedback on them.

    <DKA> e.g. dabr.co.uk

    A question: what about Vodafone itself ? Aren't they labs and
    developers and apps suitable for feedback?

    DKA will check internally and get an implementation.

    <francois> ACTION: daoust to look into mobile Web Applications
    within W3C that implement some of the Mobile Web Application Best
    Practices. [recorded in
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1038 - Look into mobile Web Applications
    within W3C that implement some of the Mobile Web Application Best
    Practices. [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2010-02-16].

    <francois> ACTION: tom to look into mobile Web Application within
    Future Platforms and provide implementation report for MWABP
    [recorded in
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1039 - Look into mobile Web Application
    within Future Platforms and provide implementation report for MWABP
    [on Tom Hume - due 2010-02-16].

    <francois> ACTION: dan to make a post about MWABP to entice people
    to provide feedback [recorded in
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1040 - Make a post about MWABP to entice
    people to provide feedback [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-02-16].

CT guidelines

    Jo made edits on legibility comments from EdC. Draft 1z is
    available.

    <DKA> Draft 1z (director's cut)
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-draf
    ts/Guidelines/100209

      [14]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100209

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: request transition for draft 1z of CT
    guidelines.

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: request transition to Last Call
    Working Draft of CT guidelines draft 1z.

    <DKA> replies to comments:
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidel
    ines-20091006/

      [15]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/

    Francois says we can take decisions on the draft first, and resolve
    on answers to commenters second. We must just make sure the answers
    are ok.

    If a LC, which period should it be?

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT
    guidelines draft 1z; with six weeks comment period.

    Francois reminds that 6 weeks is a minimum. This brings us in March.

    Francois checks whether the formal minimum is 4 weeks.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT
    guidelines draft 1z; with 3 weeks comment period.

    Francois peruses the process document, which states 3 weeks comment
    period.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT
    guidelines draft 1z; with a 4 week comment period.

    <DKA> +1

    Francois states that 1 month is ok given dependencies with other
    groups. The end date is 2010-03-11, which is good.

    <francois> +1

    +1

    <jeffs> +1

    <miguel> +1

    <tomhume> +1

    <francois> [note that jo approved the transition via email]

    RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT guidelines
    draft 1z; with a 4 week comment period.

CT Replies to comments

    Francois drafted replies to commenters from the last LC, based on
    resolutions in teleconferences and f2f meeting. They will be sent as
    soon as the draft is published (Thursday, probably).

    Francois exhorts people to check the comments for inconsistencies or
    illegible statements.

    <EdC:> I looked at the answers, they looked ok, by the way.

    Francois raises the issue of ICS.

    <francois> [16]new ICS statement

      [16]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-100209

    There is a small change in the format -- each normative item has an
    id. This should ease the implementation of the test suite.

    How were the id selected ???

    Francois states that the id are hash values of the statements.

    In that case, should there be a small note in the ICS stating that
    one should not try to derive any semantics from the id?

    Francois and DKA remark that the test suite is still to be done, in
    any case.

    DKA considers that the CT topic is exhausted today.

    DKA checks whether there are special actions for the LC. Francois
    will use the same list as last time.

    The list contains the names of the groups that must be notified of
    the LC (TAG among them).

    DKA mentions that TAG is working on content tasting (possibly
    similar to content sniffing), so TAG must not be forgotten.

    <francois> [ The list of reviewers we asked last time was: TAG, HTML
    WG, XHTML2 WG, WebApps WG, HCG, Web Security Context WG ]

AOB

    Sean is informed of the resolutions (since he joined late in the
    call).

    The teleconference concludes.

    bye

    <miguel> bye

    <SeanP> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: dan to make a post about MWABP to entice people to
    provide feedback [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to look into mobile Web Applications within W3C
    that implement some of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices.
    [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to update the implementation report template
    based on the discussion, i.e. remove the "fail" column and emphasize
    that all of the best practices do not need to be implemented, that
    we're looking into "atomic" feedback on one or two best practices
    each time. [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: tom to look into mobile Web Application within Future
    Platforms and provide implementation report for MWABP [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([22]CVS log)
     $Date: 2010/02/09 15:19:20 $

      [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/