[minutes] BPWG call 2010-08-24

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

[minutes] BPWG call 2010-08-24

Francois Daoust
Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.

Last call comments received on the second last call working draft of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices document got reviewed and resolutions were taken accordingly. See the minutes for more detail. Adam is to enact the changes and circulate the updated draft. No substantive change was introduced.

Drop dead date for implementation reports for the Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies should is around mid-September.


Thanks,
Francois

-----
24 Aug 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Aug/0002.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           francois, adam, EdC, jo, SeanP

    Regrets
           kai, yeliz, miguel

    Chair
           Jo

    Scribe
           Jo

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Mobile Web Application Best Practices
                o [6]LC-2412 — OWASP comment
                o [7]LC-2414 — Assistive technology based interaction
                  (part 1)
                o [8]LC-2416 — Assistive technology based interaction
                  (part 2)
                o [9]LC-2415 — Size of a fingertip
                o [10]LC-2413 — Focus based browser jumps from element
                  to element
                o [11]LC-2407 — sms URI scheme
                o [12]LC-2408 — Decorative images and CSS sprites
          2. [13]CT Guidelines
          3. [14]AOB
      * [15]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Mobile Web Application Best Practices

[16]LC-2412 — OWASP comment

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mwabp-20100713/2412

    jo: comments from open web apps security project, francois?

    francois: they do have some best practices in this area, and have
    made some suggestions as to changes to the document
    ... not sure anything that is mobile specific, therefore probably
    out of scope

    francois: proposed response via link above, any other views on this?

    <EdC> Perhaps include the document in the list of references ?

    adam: I agree with your response, wasn't sure whether we should link
    to or reference their document

    francois: yes, it could be a good reference, not sure what this
    project is about, they are not really focussed on mobile
    ... so I suggest we emphasize that security is important

    adam: our one remaining bp is not of itself specifically mobile

    francois: think it is a bit more sensitive on mobile

    <EdC> OK, another view are to consider BP that are not mobile
    specific, but become particularly relevant in a mobile context.

    adam: OK, I did add in the mobile bit, and we did remove some others
    ... ideally we would drop this section, but if that is too much
    upheaval at this stage then your response is good

    edc: best practices can be valid for both fixed and mobile but have
    a specific relevance to mobile

    francois: yes that's why this one remains
    ... we should refrain from adding or removing best practices at the
    moment, there is a mobile twist to the one that remains

    jo: don't want to make substantive changes at this point, not sure
    if adding a reference is an informative change

    francois: this could just be a link to some examples to avoid making
    substantive reference change

    <EdC> What is the status or relevance of the Open Web Application
    Security Project ? Established ? Any normative / standards
    production ?

    jo: how about we resolve partial to this substantive comment and say
    we will make a non normative reference to some examples of security
    best practices?

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. LC-2412, mark as substantive
    and resolve partial, pointing out that listing best practices that
    are not specific to mobile is out of scope of this document. Update
    the intro text to emphasize that all "desktop" security measures are
    applicable to the "mobile" context and that the best practice listed
    in this section is called out because of its specific mobile twist.
    Add wording along the lines of "example of such regular security
    best practices may be found at" with a reference to OWASP.

    +1

    <EdC> that all "desktop" security measures are applicable to the
    "mobile" context - not necessarily, perhaps replace all by most.

    francois: I think that we should follow Kai's comment on the member
    list namely that we don't have the expertise, but that we'd want to
    emphasize the point in a future version of spec

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. LC-2412, mark as substantive
    and resolve partial, pointing out that we don't have the expertise
    to select best practices related to security in this working group
    and that we focused on the most obvious one that was more
    particularly relevant to mobile. Future version of best practices
    should probably include more detailed security related best
    practices. Update the intro text to emphasize that all "desktop"
    security measures are

    <francois> applicable to the "mobile" context and that the best
    practice listed in this section is called out because of its
    specific mobile twist. Add wording along the lines of "example of
    such regular security best practices may be found at" with a
    reference to OWASP.

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. LC-2412, mark as substantive
    and resolve partial, pointing out that we don't have the expertise
    to select best practices related to security in this working group
    and that we focused on the most obvious one that was more
    particularly relevant to mobile. Future version of best practices
    should probably include more detailed security related best
    practices. Update the intro text to emphasize that most "desktop"
    security measures are applicable to the "mobile" context and that
    the best practice listed in this section is called out because of
    its specific mobile twist. Add wording along the lines of "example
    of such regular security best practices may be found at" with a
    reference to OWASP.

    <francois> +1

    <adam> +1

    <EdC> +1

    +1

    <SeanP> +1

    RESOLUTION: ref. LC-2412, mark as substantive and resolve partial,
    pointing out that we don't have the expertise to select best
    practices related to security in this working group and that we
    focused on the most obvious one that was more particularly relevant
    to mobile. Future version of best practices should probably include
    more detailed security related best practices. Update the intro text
    to emphasize that most "desktop" security measures are applicable to
    the "mobile" context and that the best practice listed in this
    section is called out because of its specific mobile twist. Add
    wording along the lines of "example of such regular security best
    practices may be found at" with a reference to OWASP.

    <scribe> ACTION: Adam to circulate the proposed text ref LC-2412 to
    list [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1063 - Circulate the proposed text ref
    LC-2412 to list [on Adam Connors - due 2010-08-31].

[18]LC-2414 — Assistive technology based interaction (part 1)

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mwabp-20100713/2414

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. LC-2414, mark as editorial and
    resolve partial. Add a reference to assistive technology and voice
    controlled applications as examples of other types of possible
    interaction methods.

    <EdC> +1

    <adam> +1

    <francois> +1

    francois: other interaction methods do exist so we should point out
    as an editorial change that such other interaction methods, e.g.
    assistive input, do exist and that other methods can be expected to
    continue to arise

    adam: are there any APIs for voice control

    francois: not as such

    jo: so we should elaborate the bit on other as-yet-undreamt-of
    interaction methods arising

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. LC-2414, mark as editorial and
    resolve partial. Add a reference to assistive technology and voice
    controlled applications as examples of other types of possible
    interaction methods, noting that new interaction methods are likely
    to emerge in the future.

    <adam> +1

    <EdC> +1

    +1

    <francois> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    RESOLUTION: ref. LC-2414, mark as editorial and resolve partial. Add
    a reference to assistive technology and voice controlled
    applications as examples of other types of possible interaction
    methods, noting that new interaction methods are likely to emerge in
    the future.

    <scribe> ACTION: adam to circulate proposed text on LC-2414
    [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1064 - Circulate proposed text on LC-2414
    [on Adam Connors - due 2010-08-31].

[20]LC-2416 — Assistive technology based interaction (part 2)

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mwabp-20100713/2416

    <EdC> does "For mobile web applications that allow creation of web
    content," apply to user-generated content, or is it something else?

    jo: so maybe a note saying that there is non specifically mobile
    best practice to be followed here - for example see (cited
    references)

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2416, mark as editorial and
    resolve partial. Add wording along the lines of "Other guidelines
    and best practices are available. For instance, WCAG2.0". Do not
    reference ATAG as it's for authoring tools implementers and not Web
    developers.

    <EdC> +1

    +1

    <francois> +1

    <adam> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    RESOLUTION: ref LC-2416, mark as editorial and resolve partial. Add
    wording along the lines of "Other guidelines and best practices are
    available. For instance, WCAG2.0". Do not reference ATAG as it's for
    authoring tools implementers and not Web developers.

[21]LC-2415 — Size of a fingertip

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mwabp-20100713/2415

    <EdC> The e.g. in the original text allows the utilization of other
    measurement units such as em, ex (in CSS)...

    <scribe> ACTION: Adam to enact LC-2416 [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1065 - Enact LC-2416 [on Adam Connors -
    due 2010-08-31].

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2415, mark as editorial and
    resolve yes. Replace 30px by physical size of a fingertip.

    <adam> +1

    +1

    <EdC> +1

    <francois> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    RESOLUTION: ref LC-2415, mark as editorial and resolve yes. Replace
    30px by physical size of a fingertip.

    <scribe> ACTION: adam to enact LC-2415 [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1066 - Enact LC-2415 [on Adam Connors -
    due 2010-08-31].

[24]LC-2413 — Focus based browser jumps from element to element

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mwabp-20100713/2413

    francois: (discussion of proposed resolution)

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. 2413, mark as editorial and
    resolve partial. Update the text to read "The browser focus jumps
    from element to element". Leave the example "from link to link" in
    3.5.3.2 intact though as it's a good example of mobile browser
    behavior.

    <adam> +1

    +1

    <francois> +1

    <EdC> +1

    RESOLUTION: ref. 2413, mark as editorial and resolve partial. Update
    the text to read "The browser focus jumps from element to element".
    Leave the example "from link to link" in 3.5.3.2 intact though as
    it's a good example of mobile browser behavior.

    <SeanP> +1

    <scribe> ACTION: adam to enact resolution on LC-2413 [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1067 - Enact resolution on LC-2413 [on
    Adam Connors - due 2010-08-31].

[26]LC-2407 — sms URI scheme

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mwabp-20100713/2407

    <EdC> Unfortunately, sms and smsto are both very widespread...

    francois: implementations seem to vary widely from device to device
    and so this would be hard to recommend

    adam: would be useful for developers to know about

    francois: but not a good example today of "other uri schemes" since
    it may not work

    adam: more useful to put in with a health warning than to leave it
    out

    francois: OK

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2407, mark as editorial and
    resolve yes. Mention the sms URI scheme with a link to the
    appropriate RFC with a warning that implementation vary very widely.

    <adam> +1

    <EdC> .. and that other schemes serve the same purpose e.g. smsto:

    <EdC> +1

    +1

    <francois> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    RESOLUTION: ref LC-2407, mark as editorial and resolve yes. Mention
    the sms URI scheme with a link to the appropriate RFC with a warning
    that implementation vary very widely.

    <scribe> ACTION: Adam to enact resolution to LC-2407 [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1068 - Enact resolution to LC-2407 [on
    Adam Connors - due 2010-08-31].

    <EdC> OK with me.

[28]LC-2408 — Decorative images and CSS sprites

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mwabp-20100713/2408

    edc: it doesn't have to be strictly decorative, for example sprited
    stars with rankings in may be used to convey information

    jo: and that's OK as long as the alt text is adjusted to reflect the
    information content

    <SeanP> You may want to removet the "background images" text from
    Francois' resolution since you can't put alt text on background
    images (I don't think)

    <EdC> Basically - if decorative, no problem. If informational,
    remind developer that alt="..." become impossible, then some other
    alternative must be envisioned (such as explicit text in the page).

    PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2408 resolve as editorial and partial,
    add a reminder that informational images really require an alt= on
    them

    PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2408 resolve as editorial and partial,
    add a reminder that informational image require alternative text
    (whereas decorative images don't)

    <francois> +1

    <EdC> +1

    +1

    <SeanP> +1

    RESOLUTION: ref LC-2408 resolve as editorial and partial, add a
    reminder that informational image require alternative text (whereas
    decorative images don't)

    <adam> +1

    <scribe> ACTION: adam to enact resolution to LC-2408 [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1069 - Enact resolution to LC-2408 [on
    Adam Connors - due 2010-08-31].

    francois: we are still in need of a couple of extra implementation
    reports, in any case once the changes are made let's push the
    document forward
    ... it would be better to have only green status on them

CT Guidelines

    jo: still need implementation reports

    <EdC> Problem is that people with action points to inquire about
    implementation reports are not present today...

    francois: we haven't received anything from anyone

    seanp: this has been escalated in my organisation
    ... should know next week

    francois: we need to move forward mid-September
    ... as the PR stage must last 4 weeks at a minimum

    jo: so the drop dead date for implementation reports is then

AOB

    <EdC> Yes - when will the gateway be in order?

    francois: this is being "actively" investigated

    jo: can I recommend an alternative VOIP provider

    francois: yes
    ... I will forward the message to them?

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: adam to circulate proposed text on LC-2414 [recorded
    in [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Adam to circulate the proposed text ref LC-2412 to
    list [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: adam to enact LC-2415 [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Adam to enact LC-2416 [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: adam to enact resolution on LC-2413 [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Adam to enact resolution to LC-2407 [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: adam to enact resolution to LC-2408 [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]

    [End of minutes]