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