IRC log of waf on 2008-03-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:07:45 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #waf

11:07:45 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-irc

11:08:11 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Mar/0006.html

11:08:25 [ArtB]

Meeting: WAF WG Widget's Voice Conf

11:08:30 [ArtB]

Date: 13 March 2008

11:08:33 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

11:08:39 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

11:08:39 [benW]

benW has joined #waf

11:08:44 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

11:09:11 [ArtB]

Present: Art, Marcos, Claudio, BenW

11:09:24 [claudio]

claudio has joined #waf

11:09:40 [Zakim]

+ +44.791.999.aabb

11:09:51 [ArtB]

zakim, aabb is BenW

11:09:51 [Zakim]

+BenW; got it

11:10:11 [ArtB]

Topic: Agenda Review

11:10:17 [luca]

luca has joined #waf

11:10:34 [ArtB]

AB: where do we start on the P&C spec?

11:10:59 [ArtB]

MC: we should talk about Icon element (6.8)

11:11:13 [ArtB]

... talk about all of sect 6

11:11:22 [ArtB]

AB: skip section 5?

11:11:29 [ArtB]

MC: yes, we've already done that

11:11:46 [ArtB]

s/done that/discussed that/

11:12:06 [ArtB]

Topic: Announcements

11:12:12 [ArtB]

AB: #1 Charter update

11:12:25 [ArtB]

AB: Mike Smith is not here again :-(

11:12:35 [ArtB]

AB: #2 f2f headcount

11:12:46 [ArtB]

... Dublin May 5-6 is now confirmend

11:13:36 [ArtB]

MC: yes, confirmed

11:13:44 [ArtB]

BenW: yes, confirmed

11:14:20 [ArtB]

CV: I cannot make the meeting because of other commitments; will try to get someone else from TI that can represent us

11:14:56 [ArtB]

AB: #3 No VC next week March 20; I'm traveling and won't be available

11:15:02 [ArtB]

... next VC will be March 27

11:15:47 [ArtB]

MC: Richard Rogers and Paul Watson will attend the f2f

11:16:14 [ArtB]

Topic: Icon Element

11:16:34 [ArtB]

AB: Benoit started a thread regarding the icon element and a role attribute

11:17:13 [ArtB]

MC: the spec today just has one icon element

11:17:22 [ArtB]

... some people want multiple icons

11:17:36 [ArtB]

... can go so far as to making it dynamic HTML

11:17:45 [ArtB]

... I prefer simplicity i.e. just one

11:17:59 [ArtB]

AB: what does Opera widget support?

11:18:06 [ArtB]

MC: I believe just one

11:18:18 [ArtB]

AB: what about Dashboard?

11:18:32 [ArtB]

MC: I think just one icon as well

11:19:17 [ArtB]

BenW: Yahoo has a separate XML doc to describe the icon

11:19:38 [ArtB]

... I'm torn between keeping it simple and adding some richness

11:20:14 [ArtB]

MC: not sure we can define a dynamic icon for this spec but something to consider for Level 2

11:20:21 [ArtB]

BenW: yes, tend to agree

11:20:54 [ArtB]

MC: the number of icon elements is a separate issue from dynamic icons as is the issue of adding a role attribute

11:21:21 [ArtB]

... things such as big and small don't say anything about usage

11:21:52 [ArtB]

AB: currently we don't define the role attribute, right?

11:21:55 [ArtB]

MC: yes

11:22:13 [ArtB]

... only Y! defines something like role for the icon

11:23:24 [ArtB]

CV: there is a tradeoff between Level1 and flexibility; nothing to say in particular; just one icon is OK for now and then consider dynamic icons for next level

11:23:46 [ArtB]

AB: I tend to agree with the concerns about complexity for Level 1

11:24:17 [ArtB]

... It would be good to know if Benoit thinks this is critical for level 1

11:25:00 [ArtB]

MC: Microsoft allows icons for different sizes and the engine then decides which to use e.g. based on screen resolution

11:25:53 [ArtB]

AB: I think then we should continue discussions to see if we can get some convergence for our 1st version

11:27:14 [ArtB]

Topic: Section 6

11:27:26 [ArtB]

MC: without Arve here, I think we should skip this section

11:27:51 [ArtB]

Topic: Section 6.1

11:27:59 [ArtB]

MC: any questions or issues?

11:28:05 [ArtB]

[none]

11:28:12 [ArtB]

Topic: Section 6.2

11:28:23 [ArtB]

MC: any issues or questions for 6.2?

11:29:14 [ArtB]

AB: are these definitions copied from HTML5?

11:29:19 [ArtB]

MC: yes

11:29:39 [ArtB]

AB: could we reference it then?

11:29:51 [ArtB]

MC: don't want to build a dependency on that spec

11:29:55 [ArtB]

AB: yes, agree

11:30:18 [ArtB]

AB: any other comments on 6.2?

11:30:25 [ArtB]

BenW: none from me

11:31:39 [ArtB]

MC: I'll move the minimum config stuff to section 6.0

11:31:47 [ArtB]

Topic: Section 6.3

11:33:19 [ArtB]

AB: regarding the id attribute, we have a related Issue: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/14

11:34:11 [ArtB]

... perhaps we can close this

11:34:40 [ArtB]

MC: I think Arve is OK with this

11:35:31 [ArtB]

AB: I will follow-up with Arve to see if we can close issue #14

11:35:51 [ArtB]

MC: some widget systems use UUID

11:36:03 [ArtB]

... Joost uses URIs

11:36:31 [ArtB]

AB: what does Dashboard use?

11:37:08 [ArtB]

MC: they use an arbitrary string; pref to use reverse domain (com.apple.*.*)

11:37:27 [ArtB]

AB: I'm OK with a URI

11:37:48 [ArtB]

BenW: makes sense to me

11:39:05 [ArtB]

CV: I would like to understand what Dashboard does

11:39:18 [ArtB]

MC: they use a reverse domain name

11:39:39 [ArtB]

BenW: yes that's true and it is also what the S60 Widgets use

11:39:53 [ArtB]

CV: URI is OK with us

11:40:39 [ArtB]

AB: think we should leave as is unless someone provides new Use Case to have us revisit the decison

11:42:05 [ArtB]

AB: any other questions / issues on 6.3?

11:42:08 [ArtB]

[none]

11:42:13 [ArtB]

Topic: Section 6.4

11:43:13 [ArtB]

AB: any questions?

11:43:50 [ArtB]

[none]

11:44:00 [ArtB]

Topic: Section 6.5

11:44:10 [ArtB]

AB: any questions or issues?

11:44:59 [ArtB]

[none]

11:45:09 [ArtB]

Topic: Section 6.6 (author element)

11:45:32 [ArtB]

MC: Benoit just submitted some comments: <http://www.w3.org/mid/C3FC202B.BCC6%25benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>

11:47:08 [ArtB]

AB: the metadata to be included in the author element could indeed be quite large

11:47:19 [ArtB]

... now we just have two attributes e-mail and url

11:47:24 [marcos]

MC: we could maybe merge url and email ( url= "mailto:s@somewhere.com")

11:47:28 [ArtB]

MC: I'm OK with the current spec

11:47:37 [ArtB]

... could even merge those two attributes

11:49:09 [ArtB]

AB: I think the URL provides a reasonable compromise between simplicity and richness in that it provides more details if needed

11:49:24 [ArtB]

... thus I tend to favor the current model

11:50:53 [ArtB]

BenW: I think the current model is fine as is

11:51:02 [ArtB]

CV: agree the current model is fine as is

11:51:56 [ArtB]

Topic: Section 6.7 (license element)

11:52:04 [ArtB]

AB: any questions or issues?

11:52:26 [ArtB]

MC: some raised an issue in my blog about this

11:52:44 [ArtB]

... they wanted an attribute for the license type e.g. GPLv2, GPLv3

11:53:17 [ArtB]

... I think it's better to include the full license

11:54:26 [ArtB]

... It did have an href attribute once but I removed it for simplicity

11:55:23 [ArtB]

... Don't really want the terms at the URI to change.

11:55:40 [ArtB]

AB: I think the current model is good enough

11:56:44 [ArtB]

Topic: Section 6.8 (icon element)

11:57:08 [ArtB]

MC: if anyone has any comments on the current model, send them to the list by the end of next week i.e. March 21

11:57:25 [marcos]

MC: issue is to only allow 1 icon or more.

11:57:50 [ArtB]

Topic: AOB

11:58:10 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos, what are your thoughts on schedule?

11:58:23 [marcos]

http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/

11:58:44 [ArtB]

MC: I'm hoping Thomas will review it

11:59:04 [ArtB]

AB: I can certainly ask the XML Security Maintentace WG to do a review

11:59:23 [ArtB]

MC: would appreciate a pre-publication review

11:59:32 [ArtB]

AB: I'm OK with that

12:01:06 [ArtB]

... but have some concerns about people reviewing stuff that isn't yet ready for /TR/ publication

12:02:06 [ArtB]

AB: I can ask the XMLSec Chair to do the review but we need a deadline for comments

12:02:16 [ArtB]

BenW: I've passed it on to our security guys

12:02:33 [ArtB]

AB: try to get comments by March 27

12:02:57 [ArtB]

... thus at that meeting we should be ready to decide on FPWD

12:03:01 [ArtB]

MC: sounds good

12:03:24 [ArtB]

ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a Signature review by March 27

12:03:25 [trackbot-ng]

Created ACTION-174 - Ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a Signature review by March 27 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-03-20].

12:06:29 [ArtB]

MC: still want to be ready for publishing by the first week of April

12:06:48 [ArtB]

... don't think we'll be ready to publish the API doc by then

12:07:04 [ArtB]

AB: because of the events stuff being undefined?

12:07:13 [ArtB]

MC: no, Arve can't work on it until mid-April

12:08:03 [Zakim]

-Art_Barstow

12:08:05 [Zakim]

-BenW

12:08:08 [Zakim]

-Claudio

12:08:09 [Zakim]

-marcos

12:08:09 [Zakim]

IA_WAF(widgets)7:00AM has ended

12:08:10 [Zakim]

Attendees were Art_Barstow, +39.011.228.aaaa, Claudio, marcos, +44.791.999.aabb, BenW

12:08:20 [ArtB]

AB: and the Requirements and Landscape doc will be ready to publish then?

12:08:24 [ArtB]

MC: yes, that's my plan

12:08:31 [ArtB]

AB: Awesome Marcos!

12:08:39 [ArtB]

AB: Meeting adjourned

12:08:41 [benoit]

benoit has joined #waf

12:09:00 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

12:09:07 [ArtB]

RRSagent, make minutes

12:09:07 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html ArtB

12:11:29 [benoit]

I cannot get in the conf call... is there a probleme?

12:12:46 [ArtB]

benoit, the meeting just ended :-(

12:13:00 [benoit]

oh has the time changed?

12:14:21 [ArtB]

well, it depends on the time zone

12:14:33 [ArtB]

the US moved to daylight savings time on March 9

12:14:52 [ArtB]

I tried to emphasise this in the agenda but I guess it wasn't clear enought

12:14:57 [ArtB]

Sorry about that!

12:15:02 [benoit]

ah... ok eed to make sure about next week's time then...

12:15:20 [ArtB]

I'm traveling next week so the March 20 call is Canceled

12:15:29 [ArtB]

The next one will be March 27

12:15:49 [ArtB]

Benoit, can I put you down as Confirmed for our May 5-6 f2f meeting?

12:16:13 [benoit]

I'm trying to get travel confirmation on my side

12:16:16 [benoit]

so not yet

12:16:34 [ArtB]

will you know by the end of the day March 14?

12:19:00 [marcos]

Benoit, I don't understand your proposal using "&" in any context will cause a well-formness error

12:21:38 [benoit]

about the confirmation, I've just asked and I should get an answer by tomorrow

12:22:10 [marcos]

Hope you can make it. Lots of people coming so it should be good

12:22:28 [benoit]

About the mail, sorry it got stuck in the W3C servers for validation, and just discovered that today... I meant to have it send before the one about the icons

12:23:56 [marcos]

I'm hoping a few more people will chime in about the icon. I'll email Arve so he can give Opera's position.

12:24:09 [benoit]

I also hope I'll be able to go

12:25:11 [benoit]

the initial thourghts where about vista (one icon for the author, and one for the gadget) + web widgets that can easily use favicons in the designs

12:25:41 [benoit]

sorry... the initial thourghts, about the icons, where...

12:26:07 [marcos]

What's the context of the fav icon, compared to an icon as currently specified?

12:26:55 [benoit]

again thinking of web widgets, we often see an icone on the top left of the widget frame that uses a favicon

12:27:08 [marcos]

I prefer the idea of having lots of icons of different sizes and letting the engine choose

12:27:32 [benoit]

about the "&" I'm thinking of a company named "Father & Son"

12:27:48 [benoit]

or something like that

12:28:12 [marcos]

See my tom & jerry example in the email I just sent ya

12:28:28 [marcos]

You always have to escape the &

12:28:36 [marcos]

with an &amp;

12:28:52 [marcos]

inside the tag or in an attribute, it makes no difference

12:29:21 [benoit]

it does in the parsing of the url for example

12:29:42 [benoit]

you would need to transform the url with the &amp;

12:30:19 [marcos]

yep, you need to treat it as URL encoded. Need to see if current processing model covers that... it should as it's ripped from HTML5

12:31:59 [marcos]

I don't think it's a big deal

12:32:25 [marcos]

The spec just needs to be clear about how to process the URL attributes

12:32:27 [benoit]

need log off irc.. let me know if you want me to call you (well probably not at this time...)

12:32:38 [marcos]

no, it's ok

12:32:45 [marcos]

please send all comments to the list though

12:33:01 [marcos]

or chat to me on msn when you see me around

12:33:04 [benoit]

can do the trick, but it might be easier if the url deos not have to be reformated

12:33:19 [benoit]

I will

12:33:31 [benoit]

bb

12:33:35 [marcos]

cya

12:34:00 [benoit]

benoit has left #waf

12:51:21 [tlr]

tlr has joined #waf

13:37:30 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #waf

13:39:39 [ArtB]

bye, rrsageng

13:39:44 [ArtB]

bye, rrsagent

13:40:00 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, bye

13:40:00 [RRSAgent]

I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-actions.rdf :

13:40:00 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a Signature review by March 27 [1]

13:40:00 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-irc#T12-03-24