10:59:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #waf
10:59:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-waf-irc
10:59:06 <trackbot-ng> RRSAgent, make logs member
10:59:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #waf
10:59:08 <trackbot-ng> Zakim, this will be WAF
10:59:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot-ng; I see IA_WAF(widgets)7:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
10:59:09 <trackbot-ng> Meeting: Web Application Formats Working Group Teleconference
10:59:09 <trackbot-ng> Date: 27 March 2008
10:59:41 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make logs public
10:59:44 <MikeSmith> Zakim, code?
10:59:44 <Zakim> the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MikeSmith
11:00:16 <Zakim> IA_WAF(widgets)7:00AM has now started
11:00:23 <Zakim> +??P8
11:00:27 <Zakim> + +47.23.69.aaaa
11:00:29 <MikeSmith> Zakim, ??P8 is me
11:00:29 <Zakim> +MikeSmith; got it
11:00:41 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
11:00:49 <arve> Zakim, +47.23.69.aaaa is me
11:00:49 <Zakim> +arve; got it
11:00:53 <ArtB> Chair: Art
11:00:57 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
11:01:08 <ArtB> Regrets: Benoit
11:01:26 <ArtB> Present: Arve, Arve, Mike
11:01:39 <marcos> marcos has joined #waf
11:02:08 <benW> benW has joined #waf
11:02:34 <Zakim> + +39.011.228.aabb
11:03:03 <ArtB> zakim, aabb is Claudio
11:03:03 <Zakim> +Claudio; got it
11:03:11 <claudio> claudio has joined #waf
11:03:35 <Zakim> +??P13
11:03:48 <marcos> zakim, ??P13 is me
11:03:49 <Zakim> + +44.791.999.aacc
11:03:49 <Zakim> +marcos; got it
11:04:21 <ArtB> Present: Art, Arve, Claudio, Luca, Mike, Marcos, Ben
11:04:36 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Mar/0012.html
11:04:43 <ArtB> Topic: Agenda Review
11:04:59 <ArtB> AB: change requests?
11:05:01 <ArtB> [None]
11:05:08 <ArtB> Topic: Charter Update
11:05:24 <ArtB> AB: Mike, charter update please?
11:05:48 <ArtB> MS: some progress being made but I can't give an estimate about how much more time it will take
11:06:19 <ArtB> ... I will try to talk to Doug offline and maybe give some details at the end of this call
11:07:03 <ArtB> Topic: Issue #13
11:07:15 <ArtB> AB: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/13
11:07:48 <ArtB> MC: there are two parts
11:07:57 <ArtB> ... 1. extension via a namespace
11:08:16 <ArtB> ... 2. there was a request for an extensions folder
11:08:42 <ArtB> ... I responded already: #1 - of course that can be done
11:09:08 <ArtB> ... regarding #2: the spec doesn't preclude it but I don't think we should standardize it
11:09:41 <ArtB> AB: any questions/concerns about Marcos' answers and responses?
11:09:46 <ArtB> MC: I think it should be closed
11:09:51 <ArtB> ABe: agree
11:10:03 <ArtB> AB: propose we close it; any objections?
11:10:05 <ArtB> [None]
11:10:24 <ArtB> Topic: Issue #14
11:10:34 <ArtB> AB: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/14
11:11:02 <ArtB> MC: we agreed to use a URI
11:11:24 <ArtB> AB: yes via the widget element's id attribute
11:11:47 <ArtB> MC: we have not verified what happens if the URI is not valid (in the ProcMod)
11:11:54 <ArtB> ABe: would you elaborate?
11:12:04 <ArtB> MC: what if its an arbitrary string?
11:12:10 <ArtB> .... what does the widget engine do?
11:12:26 <ArtB> ABe: in our engine we just auto-generate one
11:13:14 <ArtB> MC: there are two ids in practice: an internal one used by the engine; a public id
11:13:56 <ArtB> AB: propose we close the issue; any objections?
11:14:00 <ArtB> [None]
11:14:12 <MikeSmith> q+ to talk about WebApps charter progress
11:14:17 <ArtB> Topic: Issue #15
11:14:25 <MikeSmith> ack MikeSmith 
11:14:25 <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to talk about WebApps charter progress
11:14:45 <ArtB> Topic: Charter Redux
11:15:11 <ArtB> MS: the Team review is completed; we expect the proposal to go to the AC review soonish, hopefully next week
11:15:23 <ArtB> MC: any details Mike?
11:15:30 <ArtB> MS: no, I can't do that
11:15:46 <ArtB> AB: how many WGs?
11:16:00 <ArtB> MS: plan is to be just one WG
11:16:49 <ArtB> ... hope to have the charter approved by the Director by the end of April
11:16:58 <ArtB> Topic: Issue #15
11:17:08 <ArtB> AB: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/15
11:17:47 <ArtB> AB: P&C doc cover this: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#embedding
11:18:25 <ArtB> MC: can use the link element and the rel attribute
11:18:49 <ArtB> ... the question is whether or not the rel attr value can/should be standardized
11:19:33 <ArtB> AB: does HTML5 have a registration system for rel attr values?
11:19:43 <ArtB> MS: yes there is one "of sorts"
11:19:48 <marcos> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#linkTypes
11:19:50 <ArtB> ... it's a bit of a hack
11:20:15 <ArtB> ... if you want a new rel attr, you go to a WHAT WG wiki and add it
11:20:22 <ArtB> ... not very robust
11:20:38 <ArtB> ... e.g. validation is problematic
11:20:53 <ArtB> ... I think something more formal is needed.
11:21:12 <ArtB> ABe: that process is just too ad-hoc
11:21:33 <ArtB> ... kinda' like the microformats community's way of handling registration
11:22:01 <ArtB> MS: agree; that mechanism is unlikely to survive as the HTML5 spec progresses
11:22:27 <ArtB> ABe: there is no authoritative registry; standardization is done by implementation
11:22:35 <ArtB> ... perhaps we should drop it
11:23:00 <ArtB> MC: the current text is Informative
11:23:14 <ArtB> AB: that's not clear i.e. Normative versus non-Normative
11:23:59 <marcos> The text: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#embedding
11:24:00 <ArtB> MC: we need a decision
11:24:21 <ArtB> AB: I don't think we should build a dependency on HTML5
11:24:36 <ArtB> ... I'm OK with current text but it should be clearly marked as non-Normative
11:25:17 <ArtB> ABe: if we have nothing Normative to point to then just marking it non-Normative is OK
11:25:24 <ArtB> ... we could also remove it
11:26:05 <ArtB> MC: we can mark it non-Norm now and then remove it later if data/feedback suggest so
11:26:24 <ArtB> CV: if we remove it then we wouldn't provide any info on how to discover, right?
11:26:42 <ArtB> MC: right
11:27:09 <ArtB> ABe: this is about some UA provide an interface with data to tell the user about a Widget
11:27:37 <ArtB> MC: there can also be some security issues with this
11:28:54 <ArtB> AB: propose we leave text in but clearly mark it as non-Normative
11:29:11 <arve> arve has joined #waf
11:29:15 <ArtB> MS: we could also mark this section as "needs to be visited"
11:29:39 <ArtB> AB: any objections to my proposal?
11:29:41 <ArtB> [None]
11:30:45 <ArtB> Topic: P&C section 6.9
11:31:10 <ArtB> AB: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
11:31:30 <ArtB> MC: I change title element to name to match existing engines
11:31:43 <marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview.src.html
11:32:55 <ArtB> Topic: Icon element
11:33:14 <ArtB> ABe: we support more than one icon element
11:33:21 <ArtB> ... and have requirements to do so
11:33:38 <ArtB> MC: how do you differentiate between them
11:33:55 <ArtB> ABe: we have a width and height attr for them
11:34:16 <ArtB> MC: that's what I proposed on the mail list; think its a practical soln
11:34:36 <ArtB> ABe: those attrs should be optional
11:35:32 <ArtB> AB: any concerns about adding these two attrs to the icon element?
11:35:38 <ArtB> [None]
11:35:59 <ArtB> MC: I don't like the role attr and think width and height are better
11:36:51 <ArtB> ... for example "big", "small" for the icons
11:37:01 <ArtB> ... think it is confusion
11:37:46 <ArtB> ABe: in the ideal world, role would probably work; but not clear it's useful e.g. in the mobile world 
11:38:36 <ArtB> MC: I would like a resolution on this; want optional width and height and unbound number of icon elements
11:38:48 <ArtB> AB: any comments on MC's proposal?
11:39:00 <ArtB> AB: any objections to MC's proposal?
11:39:55 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the icon element will have width and height attributes and can have >= 0 icon elements
11:41:26 <marcos> MC: I've added "Content Type Signatures"
11:41:32 <marcos> MC: from HTML5
11:41:41 <ArtB> TOpic:  Content Type Signatures
11:41:58 <ArtB> MC: I've added Content Type Signatures; text from HTML5
11:42:41 <ArtB> AB: have these algorithms been implemented by the major UAs?
11:42:44 <ArtB> MC: yes
11:44:21 <ArtB> AB: any other changes?
11:44:31 <ArtB> MC: I updated the Relax NG schema
11:44:44 <ArtB> Topic: Access Element
11:45:27 <ArtB> MC: basically says whether the widget needs to access the network or not
11:46:08 <ArtB> ... this is consistent with existing engines e.g. Dashboard, Opera Widgets (IIRC)
11:46:32 <ArtB> ABe: we will be making some small changes to our implementation
11:46:40 <ArtB> ... e.g. can limit it to one domain
11:46:53 <tlr> marcos, about "content type signatures" -- I can only guess what this means, but "text from HTML5" sounds like a recipe for spec duplication.
11:47:14 <ArtB> ... our new model is to opt-in
11:47:29 <arve> <widget network="private public">
11:47:34 <marcos> tlr, true... I only added zip signature... 
11:47:49 <tlr> pointer to the access element?
11:48:28 <ArtB> ABe: our new model will be to opt-in
11:48:30 <marcos> tlr, http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview.src.html search for access element
11:48:34 <tlr> thx, found it
11:49:10 <ArtB> ABe: we need to add flexibility on which networks are supported
11:49:35 <tlr> I don't think there's a useful "public / private" distinction here...
11:49:39 <ArtB> MC: I'd like to see the latest proposal
11:49:55 <ArtB> ABe: yes, I'll need to get you a sanitized version
11:50:18 <ArtB> ... we need more than just "yes" or "no"
11:51:12 <ArtB> ABe: currently it is not possible for a widget to lock down its domain
11:51:27 <marcos> MC: need some kind of <origin> ?
11:51:57 <ArtB> AB: the security model section was removed, right?
11:52:01 <ArtB> MC: correct
11:52:54 <ArtB> MC: there needs to be some text about the Sec Model; it could be in the P&C spec or a separate spec
11:53:28 <ArtB> AB: what is the status on the Security Model input, Arve?
11:53:48 <ArtB> ABe: I need to remove some internal impl details before I can release it to the WG
11:54:21 <ArtB> ... hopefully I can get it published soon; perhaps within one week
11:54:27 <ArtB> MC: excellent!
11:54:30 <ArtB> AB: +
11:55:29 <ArtB> AB: any comments about the plugins attribute?
11:55:58 <ArtB> MC: I'm uncomfortable with this as specified because I don't know what the UA will actually do with it?
11:56:26 <ArtB> ... e.g. need to formally define a plugin
11:56:42 <tlr> (As a side note, access sounds like it would better have child elements, not attributes for the individual things.)
11:56:53 <ArtB> ... not clear what "no" would mean as well as "yes"
11:57:03 <ArtB> ... is Flash a plugin in this context?
11:57:09 <ArtB> ... or an SVG viewer?
11:57:34 <ArtB> AB: whose is implementing this now?
11:57:54 <ArtB> MC: Opera; Dashboard has something like it
11:58:28 <ArtB> AB: do they address the proc model issues you are raising?
11:58:36 <ArtB> MC: no, not really
11:59:27 <ArtB> AB: could identify it as a feature at risk of removal without clear UCs to support it
12:00:06 <marcos> MC: dashboard says <key>Allow Java</key>
12:00:18 <ArtB> ... that is a True/False
12:00:20 <marcos> MC :Optional. Boolean value. Allow the inclusion and execution of <applet> elements.
12:00:45 <marcos> MC: complimented by <key>AllowFullAccess</key>
12:00:46 <marcos> Optional. Boolean value. Gives full access to file system, Web Kit and standard browser plugins, java, network, and command-line utils.
12:01:23 <marcos> MC: opera uses content><plugins>yes|no</plugins>  <java>yes|no</java></content>
12:02:21 <ArtB> AB: do we need the plugins attr for v1 of the P&C spec?
12:02:36 <ArtB> ABe: agree there are some issue e.g. formall definition of a plugin
12:02:51 <ArtB> ... also some potential security issues with the plugins' security model
12:03:34 <ArtB> ... not sure it is relevant
12:03:48 <ArtB> MC: this really muddies the water WRT interop
12:07:06 <ArtB> AB: perhaps we should add some text that it will removed if there are no compelling UCs
12:07:11 <ArtB> MC: I'm ok with that
12:07:27 <ArtB> AB: we could also just delete it
12:07:38 <ArtB> MC: I'm OK with that too but need to hear from Arve
12:08:05 <ArtB> ABe: the UCs for keeping it are a bit weak
12:08:49 <ArtB> ... my proposal is that we think of "extended security component" or some such stuff 
12:09:05 <ArtB> MC: maybe this is beyond the scope of this work
12:09:24 <ArtB> ... HTML 5 guys are going to have similar probs e.g. <applet> element
12:09:48 <ArtB> ABe: I support the proposal of marking it as risk
12:10:26 <ArtB> CV: we don't have a resolution for the network attr; we think it should be "richer"
12:11:35 <ArtB> ... we have some UCs for that
12:12:25 <ArtB> AB: propose that the plugins text clearly state that attribute is at risk of removal without clear and compelling UCs
12:12:34 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
12:12:39 <ArtB> [None]
12:12:52 <ArtB> RESOLUTION:  Content Type Signatures
12:13:22 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: plugins text clearly state that attribute is at risk of removal without clear and compelling UCs
12:13:57 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
12:14:02 <ArtB> AB: any hot topics?
12:14:18 <ArtB> MC: lots of updates to the Landscape and Signatures doc
12:14:21 <ArtB> AB: excellent
12:14:34 <ArtB> AB: Meeting Adjourned
12:14:57 <Zakim> - +44.791.999.aacc
12:14:58 <Zakim> -arve
12:14:58 <Zakim> -Claudio
12:15:03 <Zakim> -MikeSmith
12:15:12 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
12:15:31 <ArtB> rrsagent, make minutes
12:15:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-waf-minutes.html ArtB
12:16:12 <ArtB> rrsagent, make logs public
12:19:13 <Zakim> -marcos
12:19:14 <Zakim> IA_WAF(widgets)7:00AM has ended
12:19:15 <Zakim> Attendees were MikeSmith, Art_Barstow, arve, +39.011.228.aabb, Claudio, +44.791.999.aacc, marcos
12:34:16 <billyjack> billyjack has joined #waf
13:16:36 <Lachy> Lachy has joined #waf
13:19:39 <ArtB> TLR, hey no prob; good suggestion I intend to follow!
13:31:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #waf
14:00:32 <Lachy> Lachy has joined #waf
14:47:01 <Lachy> Lachy has joined #waf
15:22:26 <Lachy> Lachy has joined #waf
15:26:26 <Lachy_> Lachy_ has joined #waf
15:50:22 <ArtB> RRSAgent, bye
15:50:22 <RRSAgent> I see no action items