IRC log of waf on 2007-04-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:10:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #waf
00:10:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-waf-irc
00:10:37 [artb]
Meeting: WAF WG F2F Meeting in Brisbane, AU
00:10:59 [artb]
Date: 19 April 2007
00:11:52 [artb]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2007Apr/0002.html
00:12:13 [artb]
Present: Art, Anne, Cameron, Guido, Lachlan, Marcos
00:12:16 [artb]
Chair: Art
00:12:56 [artb]
rrsagent, make log public
00:13:16 [artb]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
00:17:05 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #waf
00:17:58 [heycam]
heycam has joined #waf
00:30:04 [heycam]
Topic: access control
00:30:10 [heycam]
Scribe: Cameron
00:30:12 [heycam]
ScribeNick: heycam
00:30:24 [heycam]
AB: section 3, how do the headers and PIs interact?
00:30:28 [heycam]
AVK: the order doesn't matter
00:31:09 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AVK: it just says "runthe following sub algorithm"
00:31:33 [heycam]
s/sub //
00:31:41 [heycam]
AB: steps one and two below it?
00:31:43 [heycam]
AVK: yes
00:31:47 [heycam]
AB: ok that wasn't clear to me
00:32:40 [heycam]
AB: in 1.1, when you say "abort this sub algorithm", do that mean go to step 2?
00:32:50 [heycam]
AVK: no, go back to 1
00:32:58 [heycam]
AVK: like a "continue" statement
00:33:20 [heycam]
AB: anyone else find it unclear?
00:33:30 [heycam]
AVK: maybe "go back to step 1 in the overall set of step"
00:33:49 [heycam]
AVK: do you have any comments not editorial?
00:33:55 [heycam]
AB: that's confusing enough not to consider it editorial, imo
00:34:00 [heycam]
AB: it should be clarified
00:34:08 [heycam]
AB: in 1.2, you mean go back to 1. as well?
00:34:09 [heycam]
AVK: yes
00:35:01 [heycam]
AB: in 1.3, abort the overall algorithm, it means jump past 2.?
00:35:12 [heycam]
AVK: yeah, it means there's a positive match
00:35:36 [heycam]
AB: sometimes abort means go back 1., sometimes finish the whole thing
00:35:43 [heycam]
AVK: but in 1.3 it says the "overall algorithm"
00:36:05 [heycam]
AVK: by default you deny access
00:36:34 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: wrt this red block ["the request URL must be the ..."], how can we satisfy this issue? gut feeling?
00:37:20 [heycam]
AVK: no...
00:37:40 [heycam]
AVK: i have a feeling that the second paragraph indicates what should be done
00:37:47 [heycam]
AVK: but i'm not entirely sure
00:37:55 [heycam]
AB: is that the only clearly identified issue?
00:38:04 [heycam]
AVK: yes, the others are editorial, and not marked
00:38:10 [heycam]
AVK: in theory the PI processing is an issue
00:38:33 [marcos]
marcos has joined #waf
00:39:16 [heycam]
AB: when i go back to the mailing list, you sent an email ("Syntax of an access-item")
00:39:38 [artb]
AB: what about the open questions in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Mar/0035.html
00:39:59 [heycam]
AB: someone responded, maybe we can spend some time gathering input
00:40:28 [heycam]
AB: unless someone comes up with a compelling use case, i would go with the more simple
00:41:10 [heycam]
AVK: currently scheme is requred, port is optional (if omitted, determined by the scheme)
00:42:09 [heycam]
AVK: new proposal is to have scheme and port optional, when omitted, they default to every port or scheme
00:43:57 [heycam]
GG: have you considered having restrictions on path?
00:44:08 [heycam]
GG: e.g. geocities, where many independent sites are under the same domain
00:44:22 [heycam]
AVK: we cannot impose restrictions, we just lift restrictions, and path urls are already a problem
00:44:32 [heycam]
AVK: you can already load an iframe from other geocities sites in an iframe
00:44:37 [heycam]
s/ in an iframe//
00:44:45 [heycam]
GG: you can't make additional restrictions, you can only ease restrictions?
00:44:56 [heycam]
AVK: yes, otherwise if the UA implements it, it would be less useful
00:45:45 [heycam]
GG: the other question: domain pattern or subdomain, they can't be ip addresses?
00:45:47 [heycam]
AVK: yes
00:46:02 [heycam]
GG: because of the definition of domain/subdomain productions in the rfcs?
00:46:17 [heycam]
AVK: domain is defined by us, subdomain by the rfc1034.
00:46:32 [heycam]
AVK: at some point we could allow ip addresses if someone has a good use case
00:46:47 [heycam]
GG: i'm not pushing for it, but you have a use case for it in the widget spec already
00:46:52 [heycam]
AVK: not sure if that's a good use case
00:47:05 [heycam]
AVK: for the moment they're disallowed, unless lots of people request them
00:47:13 [heycam]
AVK: keep it simple
00:47:28 [heycam]
AB: the changes you propose here, they've not been reflected in cvs?
00:47:33 [heycam]
AVK: no
00:47:40 [heycam]
CM: what did thomas say?
00:47:42 [heycam]
AVK: nothing
00:48:02 [heycam]
AVK: that was the only issue.
00:48:16 [heycam]
AVK: i don't like the whole back story bit in the spec
00:48:25 [heycam]
AVK: or the security considerations section
00:48:29 [heycam]
AB: technically wrong? or just style?
00:48:44 [heycam]
AVK: i should have a closer look at it, to see what's missing
00:48:51 [heycam]
AVK: i think the intro needs more examples, a scenario or something
00:49:02 [heycam]
AVK: has some background on why it's needed, but not how it works
00:49:39 [heycam]
AVK: the technical part [of the spec] is sound, imo
00:50:10 [heycam]
AB: so what's the plan? what to do before publishing?
00:50:15 [heycam]
AVK: let's see what's currently published
00:50:28 [heycam]
AVK: something was published in feb, with an incorrect algorithm
00:50:38 [heycam]
AVK: ask for a new publication with the better algorithm, and some new example?
00:50:47 [heycam]
s/example/examples/
00:51:12 [heycam]
AB: my recommendation is to just reflect the changes you proposed (in the latest email) in the document
00:51:13 [marcsil]
marcsil has joined #waf
00:51:17 [heycam]
AB: and then request publication
00:51:24 [heycam]
AVK: ok
00:53:09 [ggrassel]
ggrassel has joined #waf
00:54:14 [heycam]
s/AVK:/AvK:/G
00:54:33 [GuidoGrassel]
GuidoGrassel has joined #waf
00:54:35 [marcsil]
* Yes, I'd be happy to chat about Read Access
00:55:13 [artb]
do you want us to call you or do you want to call us (here in Brisbane)?
00:56:23 [marcsil]
I can call there or into the bridge?
00:57:10 [artb]
OK, Marc, Marcos is looking into the instructions ...
00:57:11 [marcos]
marc, one sec....
00:58:35 [marcos]
marc, the number is +61 7 301 153 57
00:59:39 [marcos]
61 is the country code
01:02:27 [marcos]
Marc, if it fails, then we will call you... it's no problem.
01:02:35 [artb]
Marc's original e-mail re Access Control: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Mar/0011.html
01:06:12 [heycam]
AVK: marc have you followed the mailing list? i made several proposals there and replied to your mail.
01:06:21 [heycam]
AVK: i was hoping for replies on those
01:06:35 [heycam]
MS: i will definitely do that. i haven't been following all of the mailing lists.
01:06:41 [heycam]
MS: i will commit to responding
01:06:53 [anne5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Mar/0013.html
01:07:04 [heycam]
AVK: that one is a reply to the series of comments you sent
01:07:10 [anne5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Mar/0035.html
01:07:14 [heycam]
AVK: that one is a proposal
01:07:24 [heycam]
MS: i took a quick read, and most of it looks pretty good
01:07:33 [heycam]
MS: i'll formally reply back, and see if there's any specific comments i have
01:07:48 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AVK: probably addresses what you guys wanted. the scheme can't be a wildcard, but you omit it to do that.
01:08:07 [heycam]
MS: that makes sense
01:08:19 [heycam]
AVK: same for port. port no longer defaults to the scheme being used.
01:08:34 [heycam]
CM: could default the port if the scheme is specified
01:08:52 [heycam]
AVK: current plan to implement that syntax in the spec, then publish the spec as another WD
01:09:05 [heycam]
AVK: do you have any estimates on when you can get replies yet?
01:09:13 [heycam]
MS: by early next week
01:09:27 [heycam]
AVK: anything else?
01:09:36 [heycam]
MS: none from this side
01:09:40 [anne5]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/access-control/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
01:09:49 [heycam]
AVK: that's a pointer to the latest draft
01:09:55 [heycam]
MS: have you guys discusssed charter yet?
01:10:14 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: all we have left is charter and misc stuff
01:10:40 [heycam]
AB: included in that is future f2f meeting, telcons
01:10:46 [heycam]
AB: i'll be making a presentation at www2007 about WAF WG
01:11:00 [heycam]
AB: i want to gather input from you guys for key points for that presentation
01:11:08 [heycam]
Topic: charter
01:11:27 [artb]
Charter: http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/admin/charter
01:11:53 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: and the date that he approved it, the WG had already missed some of the milestones
01:12:21 [heycam]
AB: it was discussed for several months before being approved, because webapi and waf were in a single charter
01:12:30 [heycam]
AB: during the comment period, the w3c decided to split it into two WGs
01:12:56 [heycam]
AB: the charter as it exists today, has only dfaui and xbl2 in it
01:13:01 [anne5]
(I just got an e-mail that someone will update the differences between sXBL and XBL2 document.)
01:13:06 [heycam]
AB: unfortunately coach didn't join us until after we were done with dfaui yesterday
01:13:17 [anne5]
s/e-mail/e-mail saying/
01:13:28 [heycam]
AB: the feeling in this room was that the dfaui work is, in practical terms, just two companies pushing it forward
01:13:40 [heycam]
AB: originally some other members were interested in it, but for whatever reasons dropped out of that
01:13:47 [heycam]
AB: nexaweb/telefonica haven't been very active either
01:14:14 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: the new version of html isn't just about documents, it's about web applications as well
01:14:46 [heycam]
AB: if you expand html5 into a relatively short description, you come up with a declarative format for UIs
01:14:58 [heycam]
AB: in general, the UCs and reqs are going to be satified by that piece of work
01:15:18 [heycam]
AB: jose acknowledged that dfaui work hasn't moved as quickly as they'd hoped
01:15:40 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: i talked to all of those companies, and none of them are interested in bringing their work into w3c
01:16:58 [heycam]
AB: i think it's clear that none of the major players are going to contribute their work
01:17:08 [heycam]
AB: it's pretty futile to continue the work within this WG
01:17:24 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: i'd like to use the rechartering as an opportunity to remove dfaui
01:17:54 [heycam]
MS: i had a conversation with chris wilson about that today, i brough up the whole conversation of dfaui
01:18:19 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
MS: my concern is that if we don't take on that work, we won't have those components
01:18:43 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AVK quotes from the html charter including the phrase "and other controls", which he asserts covers all of these things
01:20:15 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
MS: might mean having to define what controls we wanted to cover
01:20:50 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [anne5]
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 [heycam]
MC: i imagine xaml wasn't just made by 2 people, you'd have had a large team
01:22:57 [heycam]
MC: if more people committed to dfaui, at this point it's just 2 people
01:23:13 [heycam]
MC: even if it is a fantastic idea, the work can't really move forward with just 2 people
01:23:32 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
MC: i understand that frustration, it's right that 2 people can't define the whole thing
01:24:06 [heycam]
MC: maybe part of the success metrics for this group, we just need to do some brainstorming around this
01:24:15 [heycam]
MC: such as, here's what we've come up with by the end of the day
01:24:31 [heycam]
[last 3 MCs should be MSs]
01:25:05 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
MC: i dunno how much time would spend on this
01:25:26 [heycam]
MC: unless you guys want to put in some input into this
01:25:33 [heycam]
MC: how relevant is this work to you?
01:25:51 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AVK: or what problems aren't addressed by the whatwg html5 proposal or the html wg charter
01:27:13 [heycam]
AVK: be good to have some use cases that aren't covered by those documents
01:27:23 [heycam]
AVK: if there are good use cases, we could adopt it and go in that direction
01:27:37 [heycam]
AVK: Microsoft wants this group to do extensions to html, not a whole new language, yes?
01:28:00 [heycam]
AB: when you say "this group", you mean WAF?
01:28:01 [heycam]
AVK: yes
01:28:19 [heycam]
MS: i think the short answer is yes, we don't need a whole new language
01:28:36 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
MS: maybe the gap analysis could be done in an incubator, or within our group, to see what's missing
01:29:13 [heycam]
AB: the good thing about moving the work into an incubtor group would be the increased visibility
01:29:21 [heycam]
AB: they could select their own chair and move the work forward
01:29:33 [heycam]
AVK: coach and jose want to do different things from what microsoft and opera want to do
01:29:49 [heycam]
AVK: marc's been saying what we've been saying since the inception of the group, ...
01:29:53 [heycam]
AB: and nokia as well
01:30:08 [heycam]
AB: there's a bit of a risk that to form an incubator group, you need three members
01:30:13 [heycam]
AB: they might be able to find a third, but duno
01:30:15 [heycam]
s/duno/dunno/
01:30:29 [heycam]
MS: i wonder if there would be interest in trying to focus in on what's missing? the gap analysis
01:30:35 [heycam]
AVK: certainly
01:30:46 [heycam]
MS: focus on what's critical to build a webapp
01:30:52 [heycam]
MC: we've been asking for that for a whole year from those guys
01:31:11 [heycam]
AB: we agree with you, as chair every time we have a meeting i say the same thing to them
01:31:43 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: the gap analysis could result in conclusions to write new specs, or requirements for existing specs
01:32:03 [heycam]
MS: i think that's all fine
01:32:21 [heycam]
AB: let's come back to the charter.
01:32:36 [heycam]
AB: presumably we'd leave xbl2 as an explicit deliverable, we'd add read access and widgets work?
01:32:38 [heycam]
AVK: xbl primer
01:32:41 [heycam]
AB: yes
01:32:54 [heycam]
AVK: maybe some note on xbl schemas?
01:32:58 [heycam]
AVK: non-normative note
01:33:03 [heycam]
LH: why do you want to produce a schema?
01:33:15 [heycam]
AVK: helps in editors, e.g. in Oxygen, you get auto completion
01:33:21 [heycam]
AVK: people have said it'd be useful, and i've created one already!
01:33:34 [heycam]
AVK: it's not completely done yet...
01:34:00 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
MC: who's going to do it?
01:34:16 [heycam]
AB: assuming we could get those two to agree that that'd be the deliverable
01:34:28 [heycam]
MC: you can assume the whatwg has already done it, they developed web forms for a reason
01:34:36 [heycam]
AB: you believe the gap analysis will result in a null set?
01:34:43 [heycam]
MC: yes, i'd be surprised if it didn't
01:35:04 [heycam]
CM: layouts/containers is something that isn't addressed
01:35:15 [heycam]
MC: the xul layout stuff..
01:35:27 [heycam]
MC: that poses a problem for html itself, for layout in html
01:35:36 [heycam]
MC: but sure if people want to do the analysis, there's no harm in it
01:35:50 [heycam]
MC: i'm ok for it to move to an incubator
01:36:27 [heycam]
CM: if people are willing to do it here, it could stay
01:36:39 [heycam]
AB: the charter today, there's a difference between gap analysis and the dfaui spec
01:36:52 [heycam]
AB: the only other comment about deliverables is the "Other items as required" item
01:37:04 [heycam]
AB: as an AC rep, i don't really like these catch-alls
01:37:14 [heycam]
AB: i'm sure this'd never get through the AC again as is
01:37:28 [heycam]
MC: i think we've got enough work to keep us going for a while
01:37:41 [heycam]
AVK: i'd have to see the rest of the proposal first, but i guess we can take it out
01:37:59 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AVK: it's nice to have something like that open
01:38:26 [heycam]
AB: any thoughts or ideas on any new work we might want to take on?
01:38:41 [heycam]
AVK: apart from what marc suggested, no
01:38:43 [heycam]
AB: ok
01:38:53 [heycam]
AB: skipping to the next section, confidentiality
01:39:31 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
GG: i think we're definitely looking at widgets across different environments, desktops and mobiles
01:40:47 [heycam]
GG: we should definitely address the whole space, not just mobiles
01:40:58 [heycam]
GG: with a goal that at least, a basic set of widgets works across these environments
01:41:13 [heycam]
MS: that's what i was hoping for
01:41:34 [heycam]
AVK: we actually discussed a mechanism to have different content for mobile widgets than desktop widgets, some negotiation going on
01:41:47 [heycam]
GG: you have a negotiation already there, in the resource file
01:41:51 [heycam]
AVK: it's not in the spec yet though
01:41:57 [heycam]
MS: that makes sense
01:42:06 [heycam]
AVK: definitely a goal to make them as device independent as possible
01:42:27 [heycam]
MS: i'd like to see it addresses browser type extensions, too, not just markup/script, but even binary ones
01:42:53 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: e.g. some people in the mobile web initiative
01:43:37 [heycam]
AB: i'll come up with some text to mention widgets in the new charter
01:43:44 [heycam]
AB: we really need a team contact to help us through these process issues
01:43:53 [heycam]
AB: it'll take longer than it should, but that's just the way it goes
01:44:10 [heycam]
AB: deps/collaboration section, might need to be updated, but no specific comments on it
01:44:15 [heycam]
AB: the confidentiality is something i want to touch on
01:44:40 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: hoping the WG members would support that change
01:44:54 [heycam]
AB: i would recommend that we continue to have a member only list
01:45:05 [heycam]
AB: e.g. for admin, f2f organisation, etc.
01:45:41 [heycam]
AVK: we should be as open as the html wg
01:45:46 [heycam]
GG: what are the drawbacks of not being public?
01:46:02 [heycam]
s/not //
01:46:11 [heycam]
AVK: more mail
01:46:17 [heycam]
AVK: not sure about any other drawbacks
01:46:28 [heycam]
AVK: maybe that it's harder to make confidential remarks to other people
01:47:02 [heycam]
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 [anne5]
s/confidential/"confidential"/
01:47:14 [heycam]
AB: the position from nokia is that open is better
01:47:31 [heycam]
AB: some of my dealings with collegaues and collaborators, it's problematic not having public uris for these discussions
01:47:48 [heycam]
MC: my only concern is that if we have 50 invited experts, doing meetings is going to become very difficult
01:47:57 [heycam]
MC: might still work ok, that's my only concern
01:48:04 [heycam]
MC: does everyone have equal weight?
01:48:07 [heycam]
AVK: of course..
01:48:12 [heycam]
MC: they might, it'd need to be discussed
01:48:27 [heycam]
CM: i'm happy with public
01:48:29 [heycam]
LH: me too
01:48:33 [heycam]
MS: looks good
01:48:48 [heycam]
AB: my next step will be to talk to chris, figure out how to go about doing this
01:49:08 [heycam]
AVK: did you already shut down the access control taskforce?
01:49:16 [heycam]
AB: no
01:49:38 [anne5]
(and that tellme is part of microsoft iirc)
01:49:41 [heycam]
AB: since BP no longer works for tellme, i'm going to propose that we close the taskforce
01:49:42 [anne5]
(now)
01:49:51 [heycam]
AB: find out with chirs if there are any process gotchas
01:49:55 [heycam]
s/chirs/chris/
01:49:57 [heycam]
AB: objections?
01:50:19 [heycam]
ACTION: art to close the access control taskforce
01:50:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-88 - Close the access control taskforce [on Arthur Barstow - due 2007-04-26].
01:50:32 [heycam]
AB: three additional topics
01:50:42 [heycam]
AB: f2f meetings, we'll have an opportunity to meet during the tech plenary
01:51:26 [artb]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html
01:51:35 [heycam]
AB: meeting will be 5-10 november
01:51:48 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: the question is do we want to try to have a f2f meeting between now and november? July?
01:52:32 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: do we want to take advantage of that?
01:53:09 [heycam]
CM: seems that the f2fs are useful for spurring work, but i can't attend then
01:53:26 [heycam]
GG: yes, progress is being made during meetings, and just before the meeting too
01:53:35 [heycam]
GG: i'm in favour of it, i can help mikko with the arrangements
01:53:57 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
GG: daylight until 11 or midnight there too, for extra working :)
01:54:17 [heycam]
AVK: i concur [on the meeting]
01:54:30 [heycam]
MC: as for my attendance, probably can't, but we'll see
01:54:53 [heycam]
MS: i think it makes sense, dunno if i can make it yet though
01:54:57 [heycam]
AB: ok, we'll proceed with that plan
01:55:17 [heycam]
Topic: voice confs
01:55:22 [heycam]
AB: frequency, and time of day
01:55:35 [heycam]
AB: charter says weekly telcons
01:55:49 [heycam]
AB: we're now in our second timezone change
01:56:54 [heycam]
CM: i guess i'd be happy with dropping to every two weeks, since telcons lately haven't been too productive
01:57:02 [heycam]
GG: i haven't been attending many lately, so don't take my input into account :)
01:57:11 [heycam]
MC: i'd say have no telcons unless there's an agenda
01:57:14 [heycam]
AVK: i agree
01:57:47 [heycam]
MC: i prefer them to catch up on rumours and so on
01:58:09 [heycam]
CM: maybe fewer telcons would mean less work getting done
01:58:16 [heycam]
AB: i'd have to be more proactive in getting status information, and prodding people
01:58:27 [heycam]
AVK; telcons so far haven't really helped with people slacking off
01:58:30 [heycam]
s/;/:/
01:58:55 [heycam]
MS: i'm fine with having them as we need to
01:59:18 [heycam]
AB: we'll start dropping them back to every other week, see how that goes
01:59:37 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
Topic: www2007
02:00:12 [heycam]
AB: i'll find my 2006 presentation
02:01:01 [heycam]
AB displays his presentation he gave about WAF to www2006
02:01:11 [heycam]
AB: interesting to compare it with where we are today
02:01:28 [heycam]
AB: input from you guys on any key messages to deliver?
02:02:04 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AB: and it's in CR now
02:02:21 [heycam]
AB: access control last year was just the PI, and anne has added significant new functionality to that document
02:02:50 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
GG: perhaps until banff we agree to shelve that work, and give reasoning on that in the presentation
02:03:30 [heycam]
AVK: maybe you could also mention that we agreed to look at the gap analysis
02:04:21 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
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]
schepers has joined #waf
02:05:24 [heycam]
AB: i think we've come to the end of the topics we had
02:05:40 [heycam]
AB: summary of key actions over the next few months
02:06:09 [heycam]
AB: marcos to prepare widget reqs doc for publication by end of april
02:06:15 [heycam]
MC: i'm away next week but i'll give it a go
02:06:21 [heycam]
AB: how about April/May
02:06:23 [heycam]
MC: ok
02:06:46 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
GG: should have something on the list by the end of the coming week
02:07:03 [heycam]
GG: only thing is that then i'll be on holiday for a while
02:07:10 [heycam]
GG: outsiders can't post to the list, right?
02:07:21 [heycam]
AB: if we move the discussion to the public, he can join the public list and discuss it there
02:07:56 [heycam]
GG: we'll sort it out
02:08:08 [heycam]
AVK: or just send to www-archive
02:08:47 [heycam]
AB: anne agreed to write a processing model for the widgets spec
02:08:51 [heycam]
AB: timeframe?
02:09:00 [heycam]
AVK: i want to the metadata format in the coming two weeks
02:09:05 [heycam]
AVK: don't know about the entire UA processing model
02:09:54 [heycam]
AB: cameron you'd do some work on the xbl2 test case structure?
02:10:06 [heycam]
CM: i might just write a few test cases and check them in, so people can give some ideas on it
02:10:18 [heycam]
AB: dfaui, i'll talk to chris about it
02:10:29 [heycam]
AB: access control, ready in a week or two for a new publication?
02:10:39 [heycam]
AVK: yeah, depending if there's much impact from the new comments
02:10:53 [heycam]
AVK: hopefully publication by the end of april?
02:11:27 [heycam]
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 [heycam]
AVK: even for XHR, i posted to the public webapi list asking if there are any objections to publishing LC WD
02:12:20 [heycam]
AB: i don't think we're the only group to get work done mainly around f2f meetings
02:12:24 [heycam]
AB: aob?
02:12:35 [heycam]
AB: thanks for joining marc
02:12:41 [heycam]
MS: enjoy your stay!
02:14:21 [heycam]
MC: team contact?
02:14:32 [heycam]
AB: i haven't got a reply from chris
02:17:30 [marcos]
MC: I want Dino back!
02:17:41 [artb]
+1
02:22:42 [artb]
rrsagent, make minutes
02:22:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-waf-minutes.html artb
02:24:30 [artb]
Present: Art, Anne, Cameron, Guido, Lachlan, Marcos, Marc
02:24:50 [artb]
rrsagent, make minutes
02:24:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/04/19-waf-minutes.html artb
02:57:12 [anne5]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231321&cid=18784983
03:02:27 [marcos]
lunch anyone?
03:13:03 [GuidoGrassel]
GuidoGrassel has left #waf
04:29:21 [artb]
Greetings from Brisbane, Chaals!
04:32:09 [anne5]
x /msg chaals message here
04:34:15 [chaals]
chaals has joined #waf
04:35:11 [artb]
Greetings from Brisbane, Chaals!
04:35:47 [chaals]
greetings from Spain, WAF
04:37:20 [artb]
chaals, does WebAPI WG have a Team Contact?
04:37:42 [chaals]
Temporarily - Chris Lilley is acting as one.
04:38:02 [artb]
the W3C's position is still open?
04:38:03 [chaals]
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 [chaals]
Believe so.
04:50:09 [marcos_]
marcos_ has joined #waf
04:50:18 [anne5]
nobody :)
04:50:28 [chaals]
:(
04:50:42 [chaals]
so hassle Chris if you need staff contact stuff done.
04:51:24 [anne5]
i think artb is doing that
04:51:26 [heycam]
of those two jobs advertised, neither seems to cover WAF's team contact though
04:51:54 [chaals]
true
04:58:05 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #waf
05:07:26 [anne5]
http://wcagsamurai.org/
05:13:11 [anne5]
http://www.w3.org/2006/webapi/
05:20:26 [anne5]
http://simon.html5.org/temp/valid-html5.png
05:30:02 [anne5]
http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20070418#l-284
05:53:36 [anne5]
dino?!
05:53:41 [marcos]
Dino!?!??!?!?!?!??!
05:53:43 [anne5]
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 [anne5]
dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino dino
05:54:00 [marcos]
We saved you a cookie dino!
05:54:34 [marcos]
a cheap Arnotts biscuit
05:54:46 [marcos]
We ate all the melting moments and chocolate chip cookies
05:59:23 [marcos]
>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231321&cid=18784983
06:05:16 [anne5]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/access-control/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
06:09:57 [chaals]
chaals has joined #waf
06:10:12 [chaals]
any tim tams or mint slices?
06:15:25 [marcos]
"This document provides a mechanism for a web resource to do cross-site access by relaxing the typical browser sandbox restrictions"
06:17:05 [anne5]
chaals, is it legal?
06:17:06 [marcos]
Chaals, what kinda of tim tams you want?
06:17:23 [Lachy]
I'll send Anne back with a back a pack of tim tams and a jar or vegemite
06:18:09 [Lachy]
Tim Tams come in a variety of flavours...
06:18:19 [chaals]
Lachy, thanks.
06:18:22 [chaals]
Anne, perfectly.
06:18:26 [marcos]
Mmm.... double choc tim tams....
06:18:31 [chaals]
Yep.
06:18:31 [Lachy]
Chocolate, Strawberry, Double Chocolate, Fudge...
06:18:48 [marcos]
mmm... dipped in coffee...
06:18:55 [chaals]
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 [Lachy]
or hot chocolate
06:21:35 [anne5]
hmm
06:21:42 [anne5]
i better safe some money for that then
06:36:06 [marcos]
The access-control mechanism enables web resources to permit access to their content from external sites.
06:36:18 [marcos]
Anne, above makes sense, written by lachy
06:58:17 [heycam]
Cameron McCormack
07:02:32 [heycam]
actually i tried chili chocolate for the first time about a year ago, quite nice :)
07:02:49 [chaals]
yeah.
07:08:50 [heycam]
chris is waf's team contact according to http://www.w3.org/2006/rwc/Activity
07:11:55 [heycam]
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=38482
07:34:31 [anne5]
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/205/464608584_a54ab77a38_m.jpg
07:46:00 [schepers]
schepers has joined #waf
08:18:30 [marcos_]
marcos_ has joined #waf
09:07:29 [marcos_]
marcos_ has joined #waf
10:18:27 [chaals]
chaals has left #waf
10:56:32 [marcos_]
marcos_ has joined #waf
12:54:07 [mikko]
... käsittänyt
13:13:58 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #waf