The minutes of today's meeting are available at:
... and copied as text below:
Resolved today on the Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies:
- no change on mandating the public disclosure of an implementation
conformance statement, as it is required to "claim" conformance (in
public) and not to "be conformant". The clarification that this only
applies to public claims may be added by the editor if so requested
during the upcoming transition call.
We're still looking for implementation reports on the Mobile Web
Application Best Practices.
08 Jun 2010
See also: IRC log
jo, miguel, francois, yeliz, SeanP, adam, EdC
2. CT Guidelines
* Summary of Action Items
Jo: Anything there?
Adam: Nothing from me.
Jo: How far do we need to go on this?
Adam: There need to be 2 implementations. We have only been counting
multiple implementations within Google as one implementation.
... Numbers would look better if we counted the multiple projects in
Google as multiples.
Francois: An implementation is independent, so different projects
from different teams in Google could be different implementations.
... In practice it would be better to get some different
implementations outside of Google.\
... There is no policy against counting multiple implemetations
inside Google; in practice it wouldn't look so good if all of the
implementations were from Google.
Adam: We need to highlight which BPs we need more implementations
<francois> Latest MWABP implementation report
<EdC> Are these the most "advanced" or "recent" best practices?
<EdC> I mean, those that are in question.
Adam: If we take the view that implementations within Google are
independent, then we have something like 2 best practices missing.
If we don't, then we have around 10.
Jo: It's most important to cover the 1.5 implementations.
Francois: It is most important to cover the 1.
... W3C implementations normally don't count.
Adam: There was a guy from W3C in Israel that was going to
Jo: We just need to push for more implementation reports and get all
Francois: It is a bit unusual to mandate the public disclosing of an
conformance statement. The should be allowed to implement it in
private and not disclose it.
... The way we have defined it is that if someone claims conformance
(in public), then they need to publish a conformance statement.
... One change we could make is to say something about how to claim
EdC: I think I basically agree with Francois.
... We can keep it as it is.
Jo: When we have the transition call, are we going to be asked to
make a wording change? Do we need to add public or formal or
something like that to the wording?
... In summary, if we are asked to make a wording change, that won't
be a problem for anyone.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref. the need to publish an
implementation conformance statement, we note that we take "to claim
conformance" to mean "to claim conformance in public". We don't feel
that it is necessary to clarify that in the guidelines. The group
considers the change as editorial and the editor will make it if
requested to do so during the transition call.
RESOLUTION: Ref. the need to publish an implementation conformance
statement, we note that we take "to claim conformance" to mean "to
claim conformance in public". We don't feel that it is necessary to
clarify that in the guidelines. The group considers the change as
editorial and the editor will make it if requested to do so during
the transition call.
Francois: The point may be larger than that. The main push back will
be on the lack of a test suite.
<EdC> Ok, would the answer not be that a public claim of conformance
means publish an ICS -- which is a minimum requirement for the
public to check.
Jo: Sean, you were looking into creating some tests.
<francois> [yes, EdC, the problem being that we should not rely on
the public, but should rather provide a real test suite]
<francois> [but it's still better than nothing]
SeanP: I looked into whether I would have time to do some work on a
test suite and it looks like I will have some time here and there
but not a huge amount, so I'll try to do something on the test
<EdC> [which brings us to the point I raised regarding having at
least a process in place to let additional test cases be contributed
Jo: So, Francois, is this somthing we can use on the transition
<EdC> When does the TC take place exactly?
Jo: What are are processes for working on this beyond the end of the
Francois: There is none really.
... There is no precedent for a working group that ended whose test
suite was picked up by some other working group or XG, etc.
Jo: We need to have a transition call and report back to the group
in next week's call.
<francois> [Transition call should be on Thursday afternoon EU time,
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|