See also: IRC log
francois: The reason this is
topic is agenda, I made some changes in the library, most of
the bugs are fixed
... thanks to Miguel and Abel
... there are a few minor enhancements in the pipeline
... there are some possible enhancements that could be done in
the way resources are described
... Need to discuss on the mobileOK mailing list before we go
ahead with those changes
... I just wanted to give an update on the status of
mobileOK
Francois: Adam updated the document
<francois> new MWABP draft
Adam: there is a new draft
... Thanks to Eduardo, it looks powerful, I will work on your
comments, and then raise issues if
... something is not clear
<jeffs> should be able to finish up empirical tests of canvas & SVG this week
Adam: There is one outsanding
action that may be worth revisiting on login forms...
... We can either go ahead and discuss them
... What we recommended as best practice is not recommended by
security people
... looking forward to comments and feedback
Francois: I think Eduardo had quite a lot of comments about this, any comment Eduardo?
Eduardo: Not quite
... would be good to have more details about the argument
<francois> resolutions on logins
Adam: made recommendations on how
to format passwords, etc. I don't think it is a good idea to
have them presented differently on mobile Web
... we can either be silent on this or discuss it further
Eduardo: Are you saying that we ignore the resolution and do something else?
Adam: we can remain silent on the topic and simply go on with a BP that says "ease login".
Francois: I think I like your suggestion, it is an important topic
Adam: it's important to put BP in
the user experience section
... we made some other changes to BP since then
... and now it talks about something slightly different
Eduardo: this is OK with me
Adam: I haven't actually looked
at the existing resolutions, but they don't match with the
existing versions
... as they talk about some BPs that don't exist
anymore
<francois> ACTION: adam to draft a BP on login forms adapting previous resolutions on the topic for discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/28-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-957 - Draft a BP on login forms adapting previous resolutions on the topic for discussion [on Adam Connors - due 2009-05-05].
Adam: Waiting for feedback on the document, haven't addressed Eduardo's comments yet
Eduardo: there are a couple of
points that need clarification
... my comments don't invalidate BPs but mainly clarifications
are required
Adam: I will address them later
Francois: I also have some minor
comments and I will post them later
... I wonder if it would be good to publish a new draft, a
working group draft
... the new document is way different from the one published in
the past
... so it would be good to publish a new WG draft
Adam: I think that would be good,
yes from me
... looking forward to more comments from the community
Francois: anybody against publication of a new WG draft?
Eduardo: there are two BPs missing, would that be a problem in publising a draft?
Francois: no, that won't be a problem, we will just put editorial notes
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: add a placeholder for login BP in the current draft and publish the a new Working Draft of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices document based on the 17th April 2009 version.
<Adam> +1
<EdC> +1
<achuter> +1
<francois> +1
<miguel> +1
+1
<SeanP> +1
Adam: I can publish it tomorrow
Francois: I can do the necessary changes to move it to a WG draft
RESOLUTION: add a placeholder for login BP in the current draft and publish a new Working Draft of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices document based on the 17th April 2009 version.
Francois: Jeff do you have any update on Canvas?
Jeff: I haven't had any chance to complete it
Francois: Alan posted a new email today
<francois> Alan's latest email on the topic
Francois: This is the latest
version
... is the goal to publish a new WG draft and then a WG
note?
Alan: yes, that's the idea, idea is to get more feedback
Francois: I suppose it is the EO
position
... not many changes, right?
Alan: The main change been that
WCAG is required by all sites but not BP
... but then we updated that
Francois: is there something that needs to be reviewed?
Alan: only that parag. that compares WCAG and MWBP?
Francois: I read it several times, and it looks OK to me
Alan: take a resolution to be
published as a Working draft
... I have implemented the changes EO asked for
... I think they need to vote as well
EO: Education and Outreach WG
Francois: If they say on Friday
that they are OK with this version, we will go ahead and
publish
... If Education and Outreach WG say on Friday that they are OK
with this version, we will go ahead and publish
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: pending EOWG approval, publish the latest version of "Relationship between Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)" as a last public working draft, with a view to issuing a WG Note shortly afterwards.
<EdC> +1
<achuter> +1
<Adam> +1
<jeffs> +1
+1
<francois> +1
<miguel> +1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: pending EOWG approval, publish the latest version of "Relationship between Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)" as a last public working draft, with a view to issuing a WG Note shortly afterwards.
<francois> fd's email on X-Device-* headers registration
<EdC> q
Francois: this requires Jo's approval
Eduardo: regarding the formal definition, you put the whole thing, wouldn't be useful to put the corresponding ..
Francois: I agree, everyone would understand what it means, so I think you are right
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Properly define X-Device-* HTTP headers in the Content Transformation guidelines using references to the appropriate sections of RFC2616
<tomhume> +1
<EdC> +1
<francois> +1
+1
<SeanP> +1
<jeffs> +1
RESOLUTION: Properly define X-Device-* HTTP headers in the Content Transformation guidelines using references to the appropriate sections of RFC2616
Francois: not sure about the remaining topics
<EdC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Apr/0037.html
<francois> Eduardo's proposal for an abstract for CT
Francois: "same origin policy" requires other people to be able to discuss so I suggest we postpone this
<jeffs> +1 on Francois' comment
Francois: lets look at Abstract
suggested by Eduardo
... I think it is quite long
Sean: reference to Web
applications, I know what it means but it can be
confusing
... usually people do transformation on simpler pages
... I think what Eduardo saying here is more than just simple
Web pages, javascript involved, etc
... Web applications to me refers to Widgets
Francois: what about saying "Web
resources"
... Eduardo, what do you think about this?
Eduardo: is there a standard terminology?
Francois: yes, Web resources is
the "standard" terminology
... need to find the exact definition for the record
<francois> WebArch definition of the Web and resources
Francois: this document refers to
"Web resources"
... this needs to be discussed on the mailing list. Can we
postpone the discussion to next week?
... so people have time to look at it and discuss on the
mailing list
<francois> ISSUE-296?
<trackbot> ISSUE-296 -- "feature phone vs. smartphone, which handsets will make large web traffic ?" -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/296
<EdC> I already sent something.
Francois: Jonathan asked for
comments on the mailing list, we will not discuss on the
call
... is there anything that we can possibly discuss here about
your comment Eduardo?
Eduardo: are the results of this discussion will be used?
Francois: the result could affect Web applications BP but not directly
Eduardo: I would be interested to
get an overview of the terminology from far East, since we have
people here from Korea
... South Korea, and Japan, so it would be good to know about
the developments there
Francois: Please take a look at
the document and send an email to the mailing list
... any other business?
<jeffs> <waves/>
Francois: Thanks for all attending
<EdC> bye, till next week.
<jsmanrique> bye