W3C

- DRAFT -

WAF WG Widget's Voice Conf

13 Mar 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Art, Marcos, Claudio, BenW
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art

Contents


 

Date: 13 March 2008

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

Agenda Review

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

MC: we should talk about Icon element (6.8)
... talk about all of sect 6

AB: skip section 5?

MC: yes, we've already discussed that

Announcements

AB: #1 Charter update
... Mike Smith is not here again :-(
... #2 f2f headcount
... Dublin May 5-6 is now confirmend

MC: yes, confirmed

BenW: yes, confirmed

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

AB: #3 No VC next week March 20; I'm traveling and won't be available
... next VC will be March 27

MC: Richard Rogers and Paul Watson will attend the f2f

Icon Element

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

MC: the spec today just has one icon element
... some people want multiple icons
... can go so far as to making it dynamic HTML
... I prefer simplicity i.e. just one

AB: what does Opera widget support?

MC: I believe just one

AB: what about Dashboard?

MC: I think just one icon as well

BenW: Yahoo has a separate XML doc to describe the icon
... I'm torn between keeping it simple and adding some richness

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

BenW: yes, tend to agree

MC: the number of icon elements is a separate issue from dynamic icons as is the issue of adding a role attribute
... things such as big and small don't say anything about usage

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

MC: yes
... only Y! defines something like role for the icon

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

AB: I tend to agree with the concerns about complexity for Level 1
... It would be good to know if Benoit thinks this is critical for level 1

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

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

Section 6

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

Section 6.1

MC: any questions or issues?

[none]

Section 6.2

MC: any issues or questions for 6.2?

AB: are these definitions copied from HTML5?

MC: yes

AB: could we reference it then?

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

AB: yes, agree
... any other comments on 6.2?

BenW: none from me

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

Section 6.3

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

MC: I think Arve is OK with this

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

MC: some widget systems use UUID
... Joost uses URIs

AB: what does Dashboard use?

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

AB: I'm OK with a URI

BenW: makes sense to me

CV: I would like to understand what Dashboard does

MC: they use a reverse domain name

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

CV: URI is OK with us

AB: think we should leave as is unless someone provides new Use Case to have us revisit the decison
... any other questions / issues on 6.3?

[none]

Section 6.4

AB: any questions?

[none]

Section 6.5

AB: any questions or issues?

[none]

Section 6.6 (author element)

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

AB: the metadata to be included in the author element could indeed be quite large
... now we just have two attributes e-mail and url

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

MC: I'm OK with the current spec
... could even merge those two attributes

AB: I think the URL provides a reasonable compromise between simplicity and richness in that it provides more details if needed
... thus I tend to favor the current model

BenW: I think the current model is fine as is

CV: agree the current model is fine as is

Section 6.7 (license element)

AB: any questions or issues?

MC: some raised an issue in my blog about this
... they wanted an attribute for the license type e.g. GPLv2, GPLv3
... I think it's better to include the full license
... It did have an href attribute once but I removed it for simplicity
... Don't really want the terms at the URI to change.

AB: I think the current model is good enough

Section 6.8 (icon element)

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

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

AOB

AB: Marcos, what are your thoughts on schedule?

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

MC: I'm hoping Thomas will review it

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

MC: would appreciate a pre-publication review

AB: I'm OK with that
... but have some concerns about people reviewing stuff that isn't yet ready for /TR/ publication
... I can ask the XMLSec Chair to do the review but we need a deadline for comments

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

AB: try to get comments by March 27
... thus at that meeting we should be ready to decide on FPWD

MC: sounds good

<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a Signature review by March 27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html#action01]

<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].

MC: still want to be ready for publishing by the first week of April
... don't think we'll be ready to publish the API doc by then

AB: because of the events stuff being undefined?

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

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

MC: yes, that's my plan

AB: Awesome Marcos!
... Meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a Signature review by March 27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/03/13 12:09:12 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/done that/discussed that/
Found Scribe: Art
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Default Present: Art_Barstow, +39.011.228.aaaa, Claudio, marcos, +44.791.999.aabb, BenW
Present: Art Marcos Claudio BenW
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Mar/0006.html
Found Date: 13 Mar 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]