00:10:17 RRSAgent has joined #waf 00:10:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-waf-irc 00:10:37 Meeting: WAF WG F2F Meeting in Brisbane, AU 00:10:59 Date: 19 April 2007 00:11:52 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2007Apr/0002.html 00:12:13 Present: Art, Anne, Cameron, Guido, Lachlan, Marcos 00:12:16 Chair: Art 00:12:56 rrsagent, make log public 00:13:16 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 00:17:05 Lachy has joined #waf 00:17:58 heycam has joined #waf 00:30:04 Topic: access control 00:30:10 Scribe: Cameron 00:30:12 ScribeNick: heycam 00:30:24 AB: section 3, how do the headers and PIs interact? 00:30:28 AVK: the order doesn't matter 00:31:09 AB: one thing that was confusing to me is what parts of the algorithm/subalgorithm, what does it mean to abort the algorithm, etc. 00:31:23 AVK: it just says "runthe following sub algorithm" 00:31:33 s/sub // 00:31:41 AB: steps one and two below it? 00:31:43 AVK: yes 00:31:47 AB: ok that wasn't clear to me 00:32:40 AB: in 1.1, when you say "abort this sub algorithm", do that mean go to step 2? 00:32:50 AVK: no, go back to 1 00:32:58 AVK: like a "continue" statement 00:33:20 AB: anyone else find it unclear? 00:33:30 AVK: maybe "go back to step 1 in the overall set of step" 00:33:49 AVK: do you have any comments not editorial? 00:33:55 AB: that's confusing enough not to consider it editorial, imo 00:34:00 AB: it should be clarified 00:34:08 AB: in 1.2, you mean go back to 1. as well? 00:34:09 AVK: yes 00:35:01 AB: in 1.3, abort the overall algorithm, it means jump past 2.? 00:35:12 AVK: yeah, it means there's a positive match 00:35:36 AB: sometimes abort means go back 1., sometimes finish the whole thing 00:35:43 AVK: but in 1.3 it says the "overall algorithm" 00:36:05 AVK: by default you deny access 00:36:34 AVK: when there is a cross site request, it will run this algorithm. by default, access is denied. here this algorithm pokes a small hole in that. 00:37:17 AB: wrt this red block ["the request URL must be the ..."], how can we satisfy this issue? gut feeling? 00:37:20 AVK: no... 00:37:40 AVK: i have a feeling that the second paragraph indicates what should be done 00:37:47 AVK: but i'm not entirely sure 00:37:55 AB: is that the only clearly identified issue? 00:38:04 AVK: yes, the others are editorial, and not marked 00:38:10 AVK: in theory the PI processing is an issue 00:38:33 marcos has joined #waf 00:39:16 AB: when i go back to the mailing list, you sent an email ("Syntax of an access-item") 00:39:38 AB: what about the open questions in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Mar/0035.html 00:39:59 AB: someone responded, maybe we can spend some time gathering input 00:40:28 AB: unless someone comes up with a compelling use case, i would go with the more simple 00:41:10 AVK: currently scheme is requred, port is optional (if omitted, determined by the scheme) 00:42:09 AVK: new proposal is to have scheme and port optional, when omitted, they default to every port or scheme 00:43:57 GG: have you considered having restrictions on path? 00:44:08 GG: e.g. geocities, where many independent sites are under the same domain 00:44:22 AVK: we cannot impose restrictions, we just lift restrictions, and path urls are already a problem 00:44:32 AVK: you can already load an iframe from other geocities sites in an iframe 00:44:37 s/ in an iframe// 00:44:45 GG: you can't make additional restrictions, you can only ease restrictions? 00:44:56 AVK: yes, otherwise if the UA implements it, it would be less useful 00:45:45 GG: the other question: domain pattern or subdomain, they can't be ip addresses? 00:45:47 AVK: yes 00:46:02 GG: because of the definition of domain/subdomain productions in the rfcs? 00:46:17 AVK: domain is defined by us, subdomain by the rfc1034. 00:46:32 AVK: at some point we could allow ip addresses if someone has a good use case 00:46:47 GG: i'm not pushing for it, but you have a use case for it in the widget spec already 00:46:52 AVK: not sure if that's a good use case 00:47:05 AVK: for the moment they're disallowed, unless lots of people request them 00:47:13 AVK: keep it simple 00:47:28 AB: the changes you propose here, they've not been reflected in cvs? 00:47:33 AVK: no 00:47:40 CM: what did thomas say? 00:47:42 AVK: nothing 00:48:02 AVK: that was the only issue. 00:48:16 AVK: i don't like the whole back story bit in the spec 00:48:25 AVK: or the security considerations section 00:48:29 AB: technically wrong? or just style? 00:48:44 AVK: i should have a closer look at it, to see what's missing 00:48:51 AVK: i think the intro needs more examples, a scenario or something 00:49:02 AVK: has some background on why it's needed, but not how it works 00:49:39 AVK: the technical part [of the spec] is sound, imo 00:50:10 AB: so what's the plan? what to do before publishing? 00:50:15 AVK: let's see what's currently published 00:50:28 AVK: something was published in feb, with an incorrect algorithm 00:50:38 AVK: ask for a new publication with the better algorithm, and some new example? 00:50:47 s/example/examples/ 00:51:12 AB: my recommendation is to just reflect the changes you proposed (in the latest email) in the document 00:51:13 marcsil has joined #waf 00:51:17 AB: and then request publication 00:51:24 AVK: ok 00:53:09 ggrassel has joined #waf 00:54:14 s/AVK:/AvK:/G 00:54:33 GuidoGrassel has joined #waf 00:54:35 * Yes, I'd be happy to chat about Read Access 00:55:13 do you want us to call you or do you want to call us (here in Brisbane)? 00:56:23 I can call there or into the bridge? 00:57:10 OK, Marc, Marcos is looking into the instructions ... 00:57:11 marc, one sec.... 00:58:35 marc, the number is +61 7 301 153 57 00:59:39 61 is the country code 01:02:27 Marc, if it fails, then we will call you... it's no problem. 01:02:35 Marc's original e-mail re Access Control: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Mar/0011.html 01:06:12 AVK: marc have you followed the mailing list? i made several proposals there and replied to your mail. 01:06:21 AVK: i was hoping for replies on those 01:06:35 MS: i will definitely do that. i haven't been following all of the mailing lists. 01:06:41 MS: i will commit to responding 01:06:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Mar/0013.html 01:07:04 AVK: that one is a reply to the series of comments you sent 01:07:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Mar/0035.html 01:07:14 AVK: that one is a proposal 01:07:24 MS: i took a quick read, and most of it looks pretty good 01:07:33 MS: i'll formally reply back, and see if there's any specific comments i have 01:07:48 AVK: the second link, at the end, there is my proposal for a new simpler pattern, where the scheme/port can be omitted 01:08:04 AVK: probably addresses what you guys wanted. the scheme can't be a wildcard, but you omit it to do that. 01:08:07 MS: that makes sense 01:08:19 AVK: same for port. port no longer defaults to the scheme being used. 01:08:34 CM: could default the port if the scheme is specified 01:08:52 AVK: current plan to implement that syntax in the spec, then publish the spec as another WD 01:09:05 AVK: do you have any estimates on when you can get replies yet? 01:09:13 MS: by early next week 01:09:27 AVK: anything else? 01:09:36 MS: none from this side 01:09:40 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/access-control/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 01:09:49 AVK: that's a pointer to the latest draft 01:09:55 MS: have you guys discusssed charter yet? 01:10:14 AB: that's our next item. we cut the dfaui discussion down to 1 hour yesterday, so we completed the widgets discussion yesterday 01:10:21 AB: all we have left is charter and misc stuff 01:10:40 AB: included in that is future f2f meeting, telcons 01:10:46 AB: i'll be making a presentation at www2007 about WAF WG 01:11:00 AB: i want to gather input from you guys for key points for that presentation 01:11:08 Topic: charter 01:11:27 Charter: http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/admin/charter 01:11:53 AB: one of the interesting things about the charater, which came up in the context of DFAUI discussions, in the end the director ended up approving it in nov 2005 01:12:06 AB: and the date that he approved it, the WG had already missed some of the milestones 01:12:21 AB: it was discussed for several months before being approved, because webapi and waf were in a single charter 01:12:30 AB: during the comment period, the w3c decided to split it into two WGs 01:12:56 AB: the charter as it exists today, has only dfaui and xbl2 in it 01:13:01 (I just got an e-mail that someone will update the differences between sXBL and XBL2 document.) 01:13:06 AB: unfortunately coach didn't join us until after we were done with dfaui yesterday 01:13:17 s/e-mail/e-mail saying/ 01:13:28 AB: the feeling in this room was that the dfaui work is, in practical terms, just two companies pushing it forward 01:13:40 AB: originally some other members were interested in it, but for whatever reasons dropped out of that 01:13:47 AB: nexaweb/telefonica haven't been very active either 01:14:14 AB: i think there's this recognition that the reqs and use cases that they're trying to address, will be satisfied by the new version of html that w3c's working on 01:14:23 AB: the new version of html isn't just about documents, it's about web applications as well 01:14:46 AB: if you expand html5 into a relatively short description, you come up with a declarative format for UIs 01:14:58 AB: in general, the UCs and reqs are going to be satified by that piece of work 01:15:18 AB: jose acknowledged that dfaui work hasn't moved as quickly as they'd hoped 01:15:40 AB: he was receptive to the proposal that i made (not a strong proposal, but an alternative way of handling their work) that it move to an incubator group in w3c 01:16:08 AB: we left the discussion yesterday with an action for me to talk to chris lilley about the lack of progress, and what we might do about it 01:16:30 AB: it's interesting looking at the charter, the description of dfaui there are 3 or 4 companies identified as having languages that can bootstrap the dfaui work 01:16:47 AB: i talked to all of those companies, and none of them are interested in bringing their work into w3c 01:16:58 AB: i think it's clear that none of the major players are going to contribute their work 01:17:08 AB: it's pretty futile to continue the work within this WG 01:17:24 AB: we need to recharter, because it doesn't include some of the work we do have in progress, such as widgets and access control 01:17:33 AB: i'd like to use the rechartering as an opportunity to remove dfaui 01:17:54 MS: i had a conversation with chris wilson about that today, i brough up the whole conversation of dfaui 01:18:19 MS: form controls are going to be part of the html charter, there are certain ui layout elements (e.g. splitter control) that aren't covered by the charter 01:18:27 MS: my concern is that if we don't take on that work, we won't have those components 01:18:43 MS: i'm wondering if all of the ui layout elements will be covered by html wg, or if there will be some that won't be covered at all 01:19:08 GG: i'm thinking aloud: this work could do a couple more high level controls, would they then be inserted into html5? 01:19:39 AVK quotes from the html charter including the phrase "and other controls", which he asserts covers all of these things 01:20:15 MS: i'm not suggesting we have to do something, i think we should be clear and talk with the html folks to make sure we're not dropping anything on the floor here 01:20:25 MS: might mean having to define what controls we wanted to cover 01:20:50 AB: if the work was going to continue within w3c, the dfaui stuff, the interesting exercise is mapping the reqs to the existing specs, or work in progress, so we can understand what the real gaps are 01:21:10 AB: and where we are able to identify some specification gaps, for UI components, i think it makes sense for the w3c to consider writing specs for those 01:21:29 AB: and that kind of gap analysis could still be done with the WAF wg, or an incubator group, if it was pushed there 01:21:58 AB: that kind of gap analysis is something that dfaui "antagonists" have been trying to persuade coach and jose to do for over a year, and they keep ignoring that and saying no, we need a whole new language 01:22:25 MC: the other issue for me is that there are only 2 companies working on dfaui, and that means there are only 2 people working on it, and realistically it's beyond the scope of 2 people to define this 01:22:40 MC: the html wg has 300 group already, and what wg has 700 members, it takes a lot of people to create this thing 01:22:45 Specifically: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#deliverables says "Forms and common UI widgets such as progress bars, datagrids, menus, and other controls." among lots of other things 01:22:49 MC: i imagine xaml wasn't just made by 2 people, you'd have had a large team 01:22:57 MC: if more people committed to dfaui, at this point it's just 2 people 01:23:13 MC: even if it is a fantastic idea, the work can't really move forward with just 2 people 01:23:32 AB: as chair, i'm a bit frustrated, i have to report to htcg, and the status on dfaui has been the same for 12 months now 01:23:51 MC: i understand that frustration, it's right that 2 people can't define the whole thing 01:24:06 MC: maybe part of the success metrics for this group, we just need to do some brainstorming around this 01:24:15 MC: such as, here's what we've come up with by the end of the day 01:24:31 [last 3 MCs should be MSs] 01:25:05 MC: we could spend a bit of time saying how the current UCs and Reqs are covered by html5 and web forms 2 01:25:15 MC: i dunno how much time would spend on this 01:25:26 MC: unless you guys want to put in some input into this 01:25:33 MC: how relevant is this work to you? 01:25:51 MS: i don't think i can take an action on it just yet, maybe we want to have a conversation with chris wilson and the html folks around what they're going to do 01:26:37 AB: ok. so i di have the proposal that the work have its visibility raised. if you think it's an important exercise to have the UCs and Reqs, that's the type of brainstorming stuff that the incubator activity was designed for 01:26:49 AVK: i'd be fine doing application controls in this group, but i'm not sure what controls aren't covered by the html charter 01:27:06 AVK: or what problems aren't addressed by the whatwg html5 proposal or the html wg charter 01:27:13 AVK: be good to have some use cases that aren't covered by those documents 01:27:23 AVK: if there are good use cases, we could adopt it and go in that direction 01:27:37 AVK: Microsoft wants this group to do extensions to html, not a whole new language, yes? 01:28:00 AB: when you say "this group", you mean WAF? 01:28:01 AVK: yes 01:28:19 MS: i think the short answer is yes, we don't need a whole new language 01:28:36 MS: we joined WAF to define what a web application is, i like the idea of finding out what the html5 specs are going to cover there 01:28:48 MS: maybe the gap analysis could be done in an incubator, or within our group, to see what's missing 01:29:13 AB: the good thing about moving the work into an incubtor group would be the increased visibility 01:29:21 AB: they could select their own chair and move the work forward 01:29:33 AVK: coach and jose want to do different things from what microsoft and opera want to do 01:29:49 AVK: marc's been saying what we've been saying since the inception of the group, ... 01:29:53 AB: and nokia as well 01:30:08 AB: there's a bit of a risk that to form an incubator group, you need three members 01:30:13 AB: they might be able to find a third, but duno 01:30:15 s/duno/dunno/ 01:30:29 MS: i wonder if there would be interest in trying to focus in on what's missing? the gap analysis 01:30:35 AVK: certainly 01:30:46 MS: focus on what's critical to build a webapp 01:30:52 MC: we've been asking for that for a whole year from those guys 01:31:11 AB: we agree with you, as chair every time we have a meeting i say the same thing to them 01:31:43 GG: the gaps may actually lead to additional css, not necessarily just markup, it may even be more likely that we find some css stuff that we would like to have that would be useful for application UIs 01:32:01 AB: the gap analysis could result in conclusions to write new specs, or requirements for existing specs 01:32:03 MS: i think that's all fine 01:32:21 AB: let's come back to the charter. 01:32:36 AB: presumably we'd leave xbl2 as an explicit deliverable, we'd add read access and widgets work? 01:32:38 AVK: xbl primer 01:32:41 AB: yes 01:32:54 AVK: maybe some note on xbl schemas? 01:32:58 AVK: non-normative note 01:33:03 LH: why do you want to produce a schema? 01:33:15 AVK: helps in editors, e.g. in Oxygen, you get auto completion 01:33:21 AVK: people have said it'd be useful, and i've created one already! 01:33:34 AVK: it's not completely done yet... 01:34:00 AB: maybe what i'm hearing then is that we need to have more discussion about dfaui, and that the deliverable here should be not a spec, but the gap analysis 01:34:07 MC: who's going to do it? 01:34:16 AB: assuming we could get those two to agree that that'd be the deliverable 01:34:28 MC: you can assume the whatwg has already done it, they developed web forms for a reason 01:34:36 AB: you believe the gap analysis will result in a null set? 01:34:43 MC: yes, i'd be surprised if it didn't 01:35:04 CM: layouts/containers is something that isn't addressed 01:35:15 MC: the xul layout stuff.. 01:35:27 MC: that poses a problem for html itself, for layout in html 01:35:36 MC: but sure if people want to do the analysis, there's no harm in it 01:35:50 MC: i'm ok for it to move to an incubator 01:36:27 CM: if people are willing to do it here, it could stay 01:36:39 AB: the charter today, there's a difference between gap analysis and the dfaui spec 01:36:52 AB: the only other comment about deliverables is the "Other items as required" item 01:37:04 AB: as an AC rep, i don't really like these catch-alls 01:37:14 AB: i'm sure this'd never get through the AC again as is 01:37:28 MC: i think we've got enough work to keep us going for a while 01:37:41 AVK: i'd have to see the rest of the proposal first, but i guess we can take it out 01:37:59 AVK: other items might be nice, but it should be more scoped to be related to the other items we're doing 01:38:05 AVK: it's nice to have something like that open 01:38:26 AB: any thoughts or ideas on any new work we might want to take on? 01:38:41 AVK: apart from what marc suggested, no 01:38:43 AB: ok 01:38:53 AB: skipping to the next section, confidentiality 01:39:31 MS: for widgets, i missed the conversation on scope. as part of the charter, it looked like we were looking to widgets being within mobile space. did i misread that? 01:40:40 GG: i think we're definitely looking at widgets across different environments, desktops and mobiles 01:40:47 GG: we should definitely address the whole space, not just mobiles 01:40:58 GG: with a goal that at least, a basic set of widgets works across these environments 01:41:13 MS: that's what i was hoping for 01:41:34 AVK: we actually discussed a mechanism to have different content for mobile widgets than desktop widgets, some negotiation going on 01:41:47 GG: you have a negotiation already there, in the resource file 01:41:51 AVK: it's not in the spec yet though 01:41:57 MS: that makes sense 01:42:06 AVK: definitely a goal to make them as device independent as possible 01:42:27 MS: i'd like to see it addresses browser type extensions, too, not just markup/script, but even binary ones 01:42:53 AB: i think that some people jumped to the conclusion that nokia is looking at it purely from a mobile perspective, but that's not the case at all 01:43:07 AB: e.g. some people in the mobile web initiative 01:43:37 AB: i'll come up with some text to mention widgets in the new charter 01:43:44 AB: we really need a team contact to help us through these process issues 01:43:53 AB: it'll take longer than it should, but that's just the way it goes 01:44:10 AB: deps/collaboration section, might need to be updated, but no specific comments on it 01:44:15 AB: the confidentiality is something i want to touch on 01:44:40 AB: we're already outside the model "prescribed" here, that we have an agreement to have discsusions on the public list, and the new charter should reflect that 01:44:44 AB: hoping the WG members would support that change 01:44:54 AB: i would recommend that we continue to have a member only list 01:45:05 AB: e.g. for admin, f2f organisation, etc. 01:45:41 AVK: we should be as open as the html wg 01:45:46 GG: what are the drawbacks of not being public? 01:46:02 s/not // 01:46:11 AVK: more mail 01:46:17 AVK: not sure about any other drawbacks 01:46:28 AVK: maybe that it's harder to make confidential remarks to other people 01:47:02 AB: this level of transparency, member-only vs all-public, is an issue that the AC is going to discuss in calgary 01:47:03 s/confidential/"confidential"/ 01:47:14 AB: the position from nokia is that open is better 01:47:31 AB: some of my dealings with collegaues and collaborators, it's problematic not having public uris for these discussions 01:47:48 MC: my only concern is that if we have 50 invited experts, doing meetings is going to become very difficult 01:47:57 MC: might still work ok, that's my only concern 01:48:04 MC: does everyone have equal weight? 01:48:07 AVK: of course.. 01:48:12 MC: they might, it'd need to be discussed 01:48:27 CM: i'm happy with public 01:48:29 LH: me too 01:48:33 MS: looks good 01:48:48 AB: my next step will be to talk to chris, figure out how to go about doing this 01:49:08 AVK: did you already shut down the access control taskforce? 01:49:16 AB: no 01:49:38 (and that tellme is part of microsoft iirc) 01:49:41 AB: since BP no longer works for tellme, i'm going to propose that we close the taskforce 01:49:42 (now) 01:49:51 AB: find out with chirs if there are any process gotchas 01:49:55 s/chirs/chris/ 01:49:57 AB: objections? 01:50:19 ACTION: art to close the access control taskforce 01:50:19 Created ACTION-88 - Close the access control taskforce [on Arthur Barstow - due 2007-04-26]. 01:50:32 AB: three additional topics 01:50:42 AB: f2f meetings, we'll have an opportunity to meet during the tech plenary 01:51:26 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html 01:51:35 AB: meeting will be 5-10 november 01:51:48 AB: we can participate if we want to, i would recommend that we meet that week, even if it's only for 2 days max 01:52:02 AB: the question is do we want to try to have a f2f meeting between now and november? July? 01:52:32 AB: in anticipation that people would be agreeable to such a meeting, mikko from HUT agreed to host it the week of july 23 01:52:37 AB: do we want to take advantage of that? 01:53:09 CM: seems that the f2fs are useful for spurring work, but i can't attend then 01:53:26 GG: yes, progress is being made during meetings, and just before the meeting too 01:53:35 GG: i'm in favour of it, i can help mikko with the arrangements 01:53:57 AB: we've had 3 meetings already in the US, one is aus, only one in europe, so i think we should have a europe host 01:54:08 GG: daylight until 11 or midnight there too, for extra working :) 01:54:17 AVK: i concur [on the meeting] 01:54:30 MC: as for my attendance, probably can't, but we'll see 01:54:53 MS: i think it makes sense, dunno if i can make it yet though 01:54:57 AB: ok, we'll proceed with that plan 01:55:17 Topic: voice confs 01:55:22 AB: frequency, and time of day 01:55:35 AB: charter says weekly telcons 01:55:49 AB: we're now in our second timezone change 01:56:54 CM: i guess i'd be happy with dropping to every two weeks, since telcons lately haven't been too productive 01:57:02 GG: i haven't been attending many lately, so don't take my input into account :) 01:57:11 MC: i'd say have no telcons unless there's an agenda 01:57:14 AVK: i agree 01:57:47 MC: i prefer them to catch up on rumours and so on 01:58:09 CM: maybe fewer telcons would mean less work getting done 01:58:16 AB: i'd have to be more proactive in getting status information, and prodding people 01:58:27 AVK; telcons so far haven't really helped with people slacking off 01:58:30 s/;/:/ 01:58:55 MS: i'm fine with having them as we need to 01:59:18 AB: we'll start dropping them back to every other week, see how that goes 01:59:37 AB: i'll be more dilligent in logging in to irc between meetings, see if we can have more community going to help work get done 01:59:45 Topic: www2007 02:00:12 AB: i'll find my 2006 presentation 02:01:01 AB displays his presentation he gave about WAF to www2006 02:01:11 AB: interesting to compare it with where we are today 02:01:28 AB: input from you guys on any key messages to deliver? 02:02:04 AB: looking at xbl2 from last year, we didn't know if mozilla was going to come on board, but that was a big new piece of news 02:02:07 AB: and it's in CR now 02:02:21 AB: access control last year was just the PI, and anne has added significant new functionality to that document 02:02:50 AB: what i said about dfaui 12 months ago was "2 members submitted a proposal, just taking a look at it", and that's still the same now, unfortunately 02:03:09 GG: perhaps until banff we agree to shelve that work, and give reasoning on that in the presentation 02:03:30 AVK: maybe you could also mention that we agreed to look at the gap analysis 02:04:21 AB: i think the idea that we were going to do something related to widgets was only a week old by the time of the www2006 presentation 02:05:09 AB: the last thing i mentioned last year was about web forms, the only thing to say about that this year would be that that work i s being moved into the html wg 02:05:16 schepers has joined #waf 02:05:24 AB: i think we've come to the end of the topics we had 02:05:40 AB: summary of key actions over the next few months 02:06:09 AB: marcos to prepare widget reqs doc for publication by end of april 02:06:15 MC: i'm away next week but i'll give it a go 02:06:21 AB: how about April/May 02:06:23 MC: ok 02:06:46 AB: for widget spec, GG agreed to work with one of his colleagues to modify the widget signing proposal and submit that 02:06:53 GG: should have something on the list by the end of the coming week 02:07:03 GG: only thing is that then i'll be on holiday for a while 02:07:10 GG: outsiders can't post to the list, right? 02:07:21 AB: if we move the discussion to the public, he can join the public list and discuss it there 02:07:56 GG: we'll sort it out 02:08:08 AVK: or just send to www-archive 02:08:47 AB: anne agreed to write a processing model for the widgets spec 02:08:51 AB: timeframe? 02:09:00 AVK: i want to the metadata format in the coming two weeks 02:09:05 AVK: don't know about the entire UA processing model 02:09:54 AB: cameron you'd do some work on the xbl2 test case structure? 02:10:06 CM: i might just write a few test cases and check them in, so people can give some ideas on it 02:10:18 AB: dfaui, i'll talk to chris about it 02:10:29 AB: access control, ready in a week or two for a new publication? 02:10:39 AVK: yeah, depending if there's much impact from the new comments 02:10:53 AVK: hopefully publication by the end of april? 02:11:27 AB: for FPWD we need an official decision, but for subsequent we can just send mail to the public list asking for opinions 02:11:49 AVK: even for XHR, i posted to the public webapi list asking if there are any objections to publishing LC WD 02:12:20 AB: i don't think we're the only group to get work done mainly around f2f meetings 02:12:24 AB: aob? 02:12:35 AB: thanks for joining marc 02:12:41 MS: enjoy your stay! 02:14:21 MC: team contact? 02:14:32 AB: i haven't got a reply from chris 02:17:30 MC: I want Dino back! 02:17:41 +1 02:22:42 rrsagent, make minutes 02:22:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-waf-minutes.html artb 02:24:30 Present: Art, Anne, Cameron, Guido, Lachlan, Marcos, Marc 02:24:50 rrsagent, make minutes 02:24:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-waf-minutes.html artb 02:57:12 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231321&cid=18784983 03:02:27 lunch anyone? 03:13:03 GuidoGrassel has left #waf 04:29:21 Greetings from Brisbane, Chaals! 04:32:09 x /msg chaals message here 04:34:15 chaals has joined #waf 04:35:11 Greetings from Brisbane, Chaals! 04:35:47 greetings from Spain, WAF 04:37:20 chaals, does WebAPI WG have a Team Contact? 04:37:42 Temporarily - Chris Lilley is acting as one. 04:38:02 the W3C's position is still open? 04:38:03 We have managed to get most of the way through publishing a first public working draft (until I fell offline for a few days) 04:38:07 Believe so. 04:50:09 marcos_ has joined #waf 04:50:18 nobody :) 04:50:28 :( 04:50:42 so hassle Chris if you need staff contact stuff done. 04:51:24 i think artb is doing that 04:51:26 of those two jobs advertised, neither seems to cover WAF's team contact though 04:51:54 true 04:58:05 Lachy has joined #waf 05:07:26 http://wcagsamurai.org/ 05:13:11 http://www.w3.org/2006/webapi/ 05:20:26 http://simon.html5.org/temp/valid-html5.png 05:30:02 http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20070418#l-284 05:53:36 dino?! 05:53:41 Dino!?!??!?!?!?!??! 05:53:43 dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino 05:53:44 dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino 05:54:00 We saved you a cookie dino! 05:54:34 a cheap Arnotts biscuit 05:54:46 We ate all the melting moments and chocolate chip cookies 05:59:23 > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231321&cid=18784983 06:05:16 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/access-control/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 06:09:57 chaals has joined #waf 06:10:12 any tim tams or mint slices? 06:15:25 "This document provides a mechanism for a web resource to do cross-site access by relaxing the typical browser sandbox restrictions" 06:17:05 chaals, is it legal? 06:17:06 Chaals, what kinda of tim tams you want? 06:17:23 I'll send Anne back with a back a pack of tim tams and a jar or vegemite 06:18:09 Tim Tams come in a variety of flavours... 06:18:19 Lachy, thanks. 06:18:22 Anne, perfectly. 06:18:26 Mmm.... double choc tim tams.... 06:18:31 Yep. 06:18:31 Chocolate, Strawberry, Double Chocolate, Fudge... 06:18:48 mmm... dipped in coffee... 06:18:55 Double choc, dark, or the chili ones that they seem to have taken of the market waaaay too soon are all good. 06:18:57 or hot chocolate 06:21:35 hmm 06:21:42 i better safe some money for that then 06:36:06 The access-control mechanism enables web resources to permit access to their content from external sites. 06:36:18 Anne, above makes sense, written by lachy 06:58:17 Cameron McCormack 07:02:32 actually i tried chili chocolate for the first time about a year ago, quite nice :) 07:02:49 yeah. 07:08:50 chris is waf's team contact according to http://www.w3.org/2006/rwc/Activity 07:11:55 http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=38482 07:34:31 http://farm1.static.flickr.com/205/464608584_a54ab77a38_m.jpg 07:46:00 schepers has joined #waf 08:18:30 marcos_ has joined #waf 09:07:29 marcos_ has joined #waf 10:18:27 chaals has left #waf 10:56:32 marcos_ has joined #waf 12:54:07 ... käsittänyt 13:13:58 Lachy has joined #waf