See also: IRC log
<shepazu> yes, I think that's possible
<shepazu> question is, what to also do with the WAF tracker?
<shepazu> do we want to move them over with exactly the same issue/action numbers, or is the content alone enough?
<Hixie> no idea
hmmm; Marcos, where art thou?
<arve> having trouble calling in
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 12 June 2008
AB: any change requests?
AB: transition to WebApps WG is complete
MC: I'm glad this finally happened!
AB: any concerns or issues?
MC: I'm a bit concerned about the
volume of email
... perhaps we should split up the specs into different mail lists
ABe: if you were subscribed to both waf and webapi the change should be zero
MC: agree but I wasn't subscribed to webapi
AB: agree with Marcos
... but would prefer to wait and see
MS: I also have the same
... agree we should take a wait and see for now
... an extreme is a list per spec
... but that creates a different set of probs
CV: I also agree with the mail
... we are especially interested in Widgets and we do not want to see that disrupted
MS: I can take an action to monitor the lists for one month and then make a recommendation
<scribe> ACTION: Smith monitor the webapps mail list for one month and then make a recommendation about the number of lists to use [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Monitor the webapps mail list for one month and then make a recommendation about the number of lists to use [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2008-06-19].
<MikeSmith> ACTION-3 due July 12
<trackbot> ACTION-3 Monitor the webapps mail list for one month and then make a recommendation about the number of lists to use due date now July 12
AB: make sure everyone joins the
... what is your status?
MC: I am working with Mike to become an Invited Expert
AB: I'd be happy to provide input to support this; just let me know
MS: I don't anticipate any probs
AB: Marcos would like to discuss the Requirements Last Call
MC: the document has mostly
... few changes recently
... we've had plenty of internal review
... want to get more Public review
AB: any comments?
ABe: I think that would be the right move
CV: I agree the doc is ready for LC
MS: I support requesting LC
AB: I have a few editorial
requests but I support moving to LC
... first, I want to say I think this document has been an excellent way for us to communicate the scope and what we are trying to do.
... the Status of the Doc needs to reflect the change to WebApps WG
MC: yes, I'll make those changes
<marcos_> ACTION: Marcos to update the Requirements document to reflect WebApps WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Marcos
<marcos_> ACTION: Caceres to update the Requirements document to reflect WebApps WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Caceres
AB: there is a related change that needs to be made in Section 2
<marcos_> Ah, not a member yet
AB: one question about paragraph
#2 in Section 2
... can you clarify what is being said
MC: this is about an input from
... for example an input on security model should be based on one or more of the requirements
AB: I would prefer to delete the
... any other opinions?
... based on Marcos' description, I can live with this
CV: I think this sentence says Widgets can be re-specified but if they are, they should reflect these requirements
AB: the doc used to say something like "not all of these reqs will necessarily be specified by the W3C". Is this disclaimer still in there?
MC: yes, by the use of
... I will add a comment
CV: regarding the Abstract, we
are a bit weak regarding device capabilities
... req #29 is the only related requirement
MC: good point
AB: what do you think we should
... or was this more of an observation?
CV: we could add a pointer to the UWA WG's work
MC: but we don't want create any device API specs
AB: does the Rational of req 29 address your concern?
CV: yes, now that I read the Rational I think that addresses the issue
MC: and I can remove some of the
device-specific use cases/examples from the Abstract
... I prefer to leave the text as is
ABe: the reality is widgets will
have to deal with vendor-specific and device-specifc APIs
... but I don't think doing such is in our scope
... it could be some abstract bindings would be helpful
MC: need a generic means to tie into device and vendor specific APIs
ABe: we could then refer to them as "3rd-party" APIs
AB: are you going to do a major rework of #29?
AB: I would like to give the WG a
1-week review period
... if we want to target June 19 as the Decision Day, we would need a revised version within the next day or so
... Marcos, is that doable?
AB: working assumption: Marcos
will make his changes and then notify the WG that we want to
make a decsion on June 19 regarding LC so WG members should
submit any comments by June 18 at the latest
... any objections?
AB: comments from FT's Fabrice
MC: I've answered that
CV: I will miss the next couple
... all of the arrangements are made
... in mid to late July I will send out some hotel info
AB: the hotel info would be good to get earlier
ABe: yes, I also would like to get the hotel info earlier
CV: Turin usually is not that
busy in August
... I will try to send something by the end of today
AB: you have some comments on the format?
MC: want to be in a position to
... so we can be in a position to get to LC in October
ABe: could be helpful to spit into groups for the editorial type stuff
MC: in small groups we could also
do some implementations
... I've found that useful
AB: agree, but not sure that some of the people that attend the meeting have the right skill set for implementations
ABe: we could set up an implemenation area on the W3C's CVS repository
CV: we are trying to implement
... perhaps we can get those people involved
MC: we could have some people
doing Editorial work and some doing Impl work
... I can do some research on how to most effectively make use of people's time
... I thought Hixie's un-conf approach for HTML went well
... (at the TPAC in November 2007)
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow work with Marcos et al. on the Turin agenda that maximizes the use of people's time [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Work with Marcos et al. on the Turin agenda that maximizes the use of people's time [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-06-19].
AB: Meeting adjourned
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/MC: what/AB: what/ Succeeded: s/the people/that some of the people/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Inferring Scribes: ArtB Default Present: +39.011.228.aaaa, Art_Barstow, Marcos, Arve, Claudio, MikeSmith Present: Art Arve Claudio Marcos Mike Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008AprJun/0003.html Found Date: 12 Jun 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html People with action items: barstow caceres marcos smith[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]