See also: IRC log
<steph> http://www.w3.org/2007/04/12-uwawg-minutes.html
Steph: This will be the procedure for each
call.
... Anyone want to make comments on the minutes before we publish them?
... Silence = approve
<scribe> ACTION: Stephane to record that minutes are to be published, and to publish them, and send messages accordingly. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-uwawg-minutes.html#action01]
Steph: First action was on Cedric. We heard nothing back.
<cedric> CC/PP 2.0
Cedric: OK, no, we didn't.
Steph: We will record group decision to move to LC. Anybody have concerns, before I record resolution?
<silence>
Steph: OK, record resolution then.
... Cedric, can you take action to activate the LC tracking tool?
Rhys: Recommend we use the LC tracker that Dom
wrote.
... We've used it on DISelect. Much easier than EXIT.
... To get enabled, just send email to Dom.
Steph: Otherwise we have to decide about the
mailing list for the comments.
... Should we use the public list?
... Or prefer to have a dedicated comment list?
<cedric> [we could use www-mobile to separate ccpp/uwa matters]
Steph: No idea how many comments we will get.
Probably few.
... We could use www-mobile
Rhys: In managing LC comments, found it useful
that comments were on a single mailing list. Easier to find them.
... Probably more useful for DISelect, comments over a long time.
... If I were editor, would prefer dedicated mailing list
Steph: Yes, people can then just subscribe and
follow it. Keep DispOfComments available.
... Cedric, as you are going to manage them, what do you think?
Cedric: It would be my first time. Doesn't
really matter if Dom's tool is working OK.
... In spec, I said to use UWA mailing list./
... Because most people are watching it, not necessarily the www-mobile
list/
... Doesn't really matter.
Steph: propose we move to have a dedicated
mailing list.
... Let's give action to Cedric/Steph to publish CC/PP 2.0 and enable LC
tracking tool.
<scribe> ACTION: Steph to work with Cedric to publish CC/PP 2.0, enable LC tool, and create dedicated mailing list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-uwawg-minutes.html#action02]
Steph: looking at other actions, nothing much
to report there.
... Any mail sent to the old lists will be discarded, with a response to
sender to highlight new lists.
... Moving on...
Rhys: Managed to publish update about an hour
ago.,
... Main thing, making sure that we've gone back to say we support DOM 2 and
3.
... Number of questions have come up, as result of editorial.
... Have found a few things that could potentially be substantive.
... Probably time to set up an issue tracker.
... There are a number of issues coming up.
... One to do with how you find the root/starting-point for DC.
... Because DCCI has its own DOM, browser not aware of it, need way for code
to find it.
... Keith's implementation based on DOM 3.
... Not available in DOM 2.
... My proposal, write up how Keith's implementation does it. The DOM 3 way
of doing it.
... Uses a standard DOM 3 way.
... Then say for DOM 2 it is up to implementation to decide what it wants to
do.
... Option around use of global variables.
... One of the references for this already uses DOM 3 capability.
Keith: extra capability in DOM relatively
new.
... What is required is a primer.
... Describe in more detail the two types of implementations.
... Can take that as an action.
... Not sure if this should be in this doc.
... Do we need to be that explicit?
Rhys: Let's talk about DOM 3 for now.
Understand yours uses DOM 3 mechanism.
... Perfectly reasonable way. Could standardise that.
... Would not affect your implementation.
Keith: Happy to go in whatever direction
supports implementation.
... We don't want to insist that DOM 3 is the *only* way to have a reference
implementation.
... Might attract criticism from DOM group.
Rhys: I have expanded description of how things
work in DOM 2 and 3.
... Suggest (in section about locating root) we specify your mechanism as
normative.
... Then, in an informative way, suggest global variable for DOM 2.
... DOM 3 normative. DOM 2 informative.
Keith: I like that.
<steph> +1 to this solution, otherwise we would need a dom2 implementation
Keith: Current situation does not demand
particular models. Needs to say "why". Could take issue offline and
discuss.
... Need to explain "why".
Rhys: There is some justification in there to
explain why we have used DOM in general.
... Intended to explain the DOM 2/3 issue.
... Started to add more text around DOM 2/3. Differences etc.
... May need to revise the conformance section.
... "DOM in general" then "DOM 3".
... Key thing is we agree on approach. Normative DOM 3, informative DOM 2.
Keith: Want to follow up on context of
implementation.
... In FT we make sure we have one or two consistent implementations.
<Keith> http://www.w3.org/2001/di/dci/ir/
Keith: Draw your attention to part of
diagrams...
... Have notion of namespace URI.
... Root node component.
... Need action item for group to consider this a testing layout.
... Look under figure, individual DCI test. Has test case.
... If you have implementation, JavaScript will execute and come back with
Failed if your implementation doesn't have it,.
... Group should take look at this layout.
Rhys: Looks good to me.
... Would you like me to use items from that diagram in the DCCI doc
itself?
Keith: Doesn't need to be correlated.
... Don't mind if it's different.
... Don't want to give impression in spec that this is the way data must be
laid out.
Rhys: OK, will leave it the way it is.
... The only other question I have is...
... We have a DCIPropertyChange event.
... Cannot find definition of it.
... Will come back on list to discuss.
... Do you have implementation.
Franklin: Think it's just "event"
Rhys: DOM event with a special value?
Franklin: Yes.
Rhys: OK, I'll follow this up.
Steph: About DOM 2/3 issue. We don't have a DOM 2 implementation, right?
Keith: Not strictly true.
... We had a DOM 2 prior to this discussion about DOM 3.
... Maybe not 100% consistent with spec any more.
Steph: Be careful we will pass the CR phase.
... If DOM 2 is normative, we need implementation.
Rhys: DOM 3 not yet Recs. Still in WD,
right?
... Events in particular.
Keith: perhaps Franklin can help us on this.
... Reading what Franklin was posting, a fresh pair of eyes could help.
... If we put it in normative section, we need implementation to
demonstrate.
... Sailesh had task in this area too.
Rhys: OK, I'll take action to investigate this issue.
<scribe> ACTION: Rhys to investigate issue of DOM 2 and DOM 3 based implementations of DCCI, and whether DOM 2 should be only informative, while DOM 3 based solution is normative. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-uwawg-minutes.html#action03]
Rhys: Latest work is happening in WebAPI.
... Work is active at the moment.
... Can't remember what was said on HCG recently.
... Impression is that things will happen in the next few months.
Keith: THings are picking up again. Nice to know what their schedule would be.
Rhys: Would not affect going to CR. Might be sufficient for your (FT) purposes.
Steph: Don't like specs being in CR.
Rhys: Namespaces also going to be used.
... Normative DOM 3 references are OK.
Steph: Anything else on this?
Keith: Thanks Rhys for doing editorial.
... Our time and effort here is going to focus on normative sections,
implementation report up to speed, test harnesses etc./
... Prompt Sailesh and Franklin to do implementations soon.
... What are we saying in terms of when you'll finish your first pass through
the document.
Rhys: Editorial work now complete.
... Found some things needing discussion. Tomorrow.
... Will depend on discussion in this area.
... Property change event, error codes, etc.
... Not going to take long to resolve.
... Have to check that meaning has not been affected by reordering of
words.
... Move towards another public draft.
Keith: OK, thanks.
Steph: Admin points re trackbot
... I am about to request the setup for this group.
... Opinion of people: member or public tracker?
... Trackbot screens mailing list and keeps record. Also monitors IRC.
... Should this be an internal or public tool?
... Personal opinion, may want to have public view of current open issues.
... Think process of updating should be kept member-only.
Keith: What's the advantage of being in public?
Steph: Important is that public has a view of our issues, but not participate in trackbot's management of this.
Rotan: Would actually be happy if public got involved.
Rhys: Agree.
... Supposed to do as much work in public as possible.
... Useful to be able to link public comments.
... For groups working in public, linking comments would be very useful.
... That's what we are doing in DDWG.
... Admin issue of opening and closing should be member only.
Steph: Need access to Web interface to Open/Close.
Rhys: Public role for commenting is OK.
<scribe> ACTION: Steph to check what is possible with Trackbot re member/public interaction. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-uwawg-minutes.html#action04]
Steph: Should not let public open/close issues
in Trackbot.
... Should review at next call issues on the old DI. Any to move to new
system.
... Will also look at comment tracking tool in DISelect.
... Should probably just keep the current instance, as it is working. Link
from member page.
<scribe> ACTION: Steph to look at the comment tracking instance of DISelect and linking from page. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-uwawg-minutes.html#action05]
Steph: OK, so we can move on.
... Kevin, want to report DIAL status.
<Krcsmith> http://www.w3.org/2001/di/Group/di-profile/DIALspec.html#editors-notes-open-issues
Kevin: As per charter, will complete DIAL v1
spec.
... Some issues to resolve.
... Need to keep track of XHTML 2 evolution.
... Dave suggested new version of DIAL. App binding etc.
... SVG and SMIl support.
... Test implementation in Vodafone. Will report on it.
Steph: What is your view of the schedule?
Kevin: After next week's F2F can start working
through issues. Schedule for LC is September.
... After F2F will start breaking things down for the list.
Steph: Any comments?
Steph: Deadline is April 24.
... Have 6 submissions. A few in the pipe according to comments.
... Anyone else planning to submit, you have a week.
Kevin: Can submissions be made available for early review.
Steph: I can make them available to the group.
<scribe> ACTION: Steph to make ws submissions available to the group. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-uwawg-minutes.html#action06]
Rhys: Believe DISelect ready to go to CR.
... Couple of things to do. Pubrules. Boilerplate. etc.
... May want to write to commenters, from whom we didn't get responses last
time.
... When we did 2LC we mailed people to say we assume if we didn't get
responses we assume they were OK with our changes.
... Group might decide to have one more go, to be sure.
... All latest LCC have been dealt with. All in tracker.
... Like to make sure that the changes get into the XMLSpec source for the
doc.
... Other than that, doc is ready to go.
... Waited until UWA was up and running.
Steph: Moratorium starts in 10 days or so,.
... Any questions on DISelect?
Rhys: will postpone ontology until after DD meeting next week.
Steph: OK, propose we adjurn.
<Rhys> http://www.w3.org/2001/di/Group/di-selection/
Steph: Next week is the DD F2F.
<cedric> [Regrets for next week]
[Regrets for next week for me, travelling back from DD]
Steph: OK, thank you. Talk to you next week, or week after.
Bye bye bye bye bye etc...