See also: IRC log
<claudio> I'm in Lyon and I'm having troubles in connecting via phone to the bridge...
<claudio> roamin pains, I'm trying...
ok. with Marcos not present we will not have a formal meeting :-(
<arve> should we reschedule for another day, then?
<claudio> Would be nice for me...
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 14 February 2008
AB: without Marcos we won't do a deep dive on technical discussions
AB: I was hoping MikeSmith or
Shepazu could provide an update on the WebApps WG Charter
... but neither is present :-(
AB: see http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/
ABe: regarding Action #112, we
have a proposal
... http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/actions/112
... hope to submit it to the WG after I return from vacation at
the end of the month
DP: is the model for Widgets connecting to the Web or does it also include accessing device APIs?
ABe: I can't talk about device
related things
... but this model is about provisioning widgets i.e. uploading
and downloading
... it describes a detailed URI-based model
AB: we have about 12 Actions
open
... and we have about 5 Issues open
<marcos> Argh!
<marcos> coming!
<marcos> got stuck in traffic
<marcos> yep
<arve> bbiam
<arve> (needed more coffee)
MC: I am working on some of the
Actions
... input at anytime from people is welcome
AB: what's the status Marcos?
MC: it fullfills a need to
understand the current landscape
... seems logical to move it out of the Requirements
document
... also makes the Reqs doc easier to maintain
AB: I like this organization
<marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-land/Overview.src.html
BS: I think the split makes
sense
... not sure about the title regarding the precedence in the
W3C
MC: any help with filling in the empty boxes would be appreciated
AB: it may be more appropriate to be WG Note rather than a Rec type doc
MC: that's OK with me
ABe: WG Note is a good way to go
BS: OK with me
... are any of the WG members providing information for this
doc?
... e.g. I noticed something regarding Windows signature may
not be accurate
MC: we've had some Members review but not all
AB: what's the next step toward publication?
MC: I think we'll need about one month to fill in the tables and to get a good format
AB: I think WG Notes are mainly
considered 1-time publication
... not revised generally
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow talk to Mike Smith about WG Note vs Rec type doc for the Landscape doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-waf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-170 - Talk to Mike Smith about WG Note vs Rec type doc for the Landscape doc [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-02-21].
BS: could wait for final pub to the end
<marcos> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/
<marcos> ooops
AB: latest ED is: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/
... Dave, please send your Feb 10 comments to the public mail
list
DP: OK, will do
AB: remind everyone we need to respond to all comments whether the comments are from WG members or non-members
MC: I will respond to Dave's
comments
... regarding Dave's first comment, it's good to hear Arve is
working on a related input
... On Feb 4 I sent some comments re security
... Regarding device security, I'm waiting to see what the UWA
WG is going to do
... I agree device API has security-related implications but
it's not clear if we need to do anything here (in a normative
way)
DP: yes, that seems OK with me for v1.0 and focus now on the packaging format as the #1 priority
<claudio> TI thinks We hould move a little further saying that Widgets support DCCI specification
BS: I agree about the priority of the packaging format but device API are important
DP: what about timeframes?
MC: I'd like to get to LC by
November
... and Candidate in 1Q09
... but it all depends on WG participation and I'm concerned
about the lack of inputs
... we've lost some steam and we need to get it back
AB: I agree with MC that we have
to get some more momentum; the AC work has domintate my time
and I'm sorry about that
... We can work in either mode -> VCs once per week or more
distributed using e-mail like the AC work
BS: can we get more Members
participating?
... e.g. Microsoft or Apple
... I also talked with Netvibes people
MC: everyone is in the WG but they aren't all participating
ABe: we've made most progress in the f2f meeting
<claudio> I can report a potential interest also from Alcatel Lucent
ABe: maybe we can explicity invite Apple, MS, NetVibes, to our f2f meeting
DP: I think if we complete the Reqs doc it can be used to entice people to participate
BS: some people don't understand
if this work is for Web widgets only, Desktop widgets only,
etc.
... this needs to be more clear
... Perhaps we need an inclusive f2f meeting or some type of
web cast
DP: I think some of the reqs are
a bit "woolly"
... agree we need the definition of Widgets must be very
clear
AB: VC next week?
ABe: I would prefer two weeks from now
BS: that's OK with me
AB: next meeting Feb 28
MC: please send comments to the public mail list
BS: please include [widgets] in
the Subject: header
... agree focusing the agenda on specific text or reqs would be
good
ABe: agree
<claudio> Are We booking a date for next F2F?
AB: meeting adjourned
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow start a thread about a Widgets f2f meeting via the member mail list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-waf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-171 - Start a thread about a Widgets f2f meeting via the member mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-02-21].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ma not/may not/ Found Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Present: Art Arve Benoit Dave Claudio_(IRC) Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Feb/0006.html Found Date: 14 Feb 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-waf-minutes.html People with action items: barstow talk[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]