See also: IRC log
AB:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Feb/0016.html
... any changes, additions?
[None]
[Mike Smith is missing thus no update.]
AB: so far neither Charles, Mike
nor I have been able to find a host in Dublin for May f2f
meeting
... If we can't find a Dublin host by March 3, then Dublin will
not be an option
... Thus, it's likely Turin June 3-5 is our mostly likely
scenario
... is that OK with you?
MC: yes
BW: yes
BS: should be OK
AB: critical person then is Arve and I'll chase him down
AB: what's up Marcos?
MC: not much progress since last
meeting
... I'd like to get some help from Benoit
BS: the people that can help me help you have higher priorities right now but I will continue to pursue this
MC: particularly interested in Microsoft info
BS: I should be able to help there
AB: so the timeframe for a FPWD is still 3-4 weeks away?
MC: yes
AB: latest ED http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
AB: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#introduction
MC: since our last f2f most if
not all sections have been re-shuffled and mostly
rewritten
... looking for validation of the current text
BS: I have a question about the
first paragraph
... missing "Web Widgets" - is that intentional?
MC: yes; trying to reduce
scope
... it would affect the security model for example if the
Widgets are embeddable
BS: noticed leaving out other devices like TVs
MC: I can add something else
AB: is the Web Widgets out of scope an issue for you?
BS: not really but should state
it isn't in scope
... it could be considered as optional functionality
MC: regarding Web Widgets, agree
as a group we need a clear agreement about them
... I see them as a server-side technology
... I see them as out of scope for our work
... Basically they are just iframes
... I don't see a need for standardization of them
BS: I understand what your saying but the way they are packaged could be standardized
MC: the <content> element
helps address this issue
... but its processing model could be complicated; we need to
discuss this
BS: perhaps we should wait until the Landscape doc is completed so we have some data to help us forumualte and bound this discussion.
MC: that's OK with me
BW: +1
AB: +1
... this does seem to raise the priority of the Landscape
document
<marcos> MC: we could google gadgets and live.com gadgets
MC: would need to add Microsoft gadgets i.e. MS Live.Com
AB: any comments about this
section?
... I don't have any
MC: I think this section is mostly self-explanatory
AB: this section is OK with me
MC: I've been wresting with the
defin of Widget UA
... could be a Web browser that supports this packaging
format
AB: I think we want to continue to make the UI out of scope otherwise the testing problem could be as broad as e.g. HTML and we don't want to go there
BS: could the package include an Air app of Java program?
MC: I think so
BS: then I don't think the definition of Widget UA should explicitly say anything about the Browser
MC: I tend to agree
... Prefer to leave the defintion as is and if we need to
revisit this, we can
BW: I tend to think of Widget engines as something like Y!'s Widget engine which is of course browser-less
MC: David suggested we Ajax/XHR
be a normative mandatory requirement
... but that's for the Requriements document
BS: I think it makes sense for
that to be a must
... we should revisit this after the Landscape doc is
completed
MC: I'm OK with that
BS: seems like the widget resource MUST contain a config doc
MC: not if we define a default and that's what we plan to do
BS: I would consider it as a must because it will contain important contextual information
MC: the intent is to keep the
widget as simple as possible
... all of the elements but one are optional
AB: in practice I think ~95% of
the widgets will have a config file
... the question then is what should the UA do if there is no
config file
... should it "do its best" or abort
... I think it would be more consistent with "The Web" for the
UA to try to do its best and not abort
BS: I understand that but think the config file should be required
AB: perhaps we could base our decision on what's being done now
MC: I know for sure that the
config file is mandatory for Opera
... for Dashboard I think it is not mandatory
BS: we could change it and see
what type of feedback we get
... if it isn't a must then there must be a well-defined
fallback
AB: I think we should talk to
Arve before we change it
... we could also explicitly add a red block that asks for
feedback on this issue
AB: I'm OK with every week or every-other-week; what do people think?
MC: I prefer more often
meetings
... i.e. weekly conference calls
BS: weekly is too much but I understand Marcos' concern
MC: I need people making some
commitments
... we need it to be done by the end of the year
... I'm willing to go and meet with people
BS: perhaps we should have an open meeting and invite MS, Apple, Google, etc.
MC: I'm OK with that too
... I'd like to continue my Java impl but it's hard for me to
do that and to do the Editor work too
BW: a weekly voice conf is OK with me
MC: are there any sections in particular that VF is interested in?
BW: the format is most important
MC: if you would review the ZIP
part and the processing model it would be very helpful
... i.e. 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3
... can Olli provide an XML Sig profile?
... i.e. doesn't require XPath or XML Canon
AB: I can check with him
MC: Arve agreed to provide a security model input but hasn't done so yet
RESOLUTION: have weekly Voice Conferences for Widgets
BW: I work for David Pollington;
been looking at various Widget engines; creating demos on
Opera's engines and S60 engine
... been concentrating on developement work
AB: welcome Ben!
... Meeting Adjourned