IRC log of webapps on 2008-06-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:03:32 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #webapps

11:03:33 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-irc

11:04:32 [ArtB]

Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

11:04:36 [ArtB]

Date: 19 June 2008

11:04:39 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

11:04:44 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

11:04:48 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

11:05:01 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008AprJun/0005.html

11:06:08 [ArtB]

Present: Arve, ArtB, Marcos

11:07:39 [ArtB]

Topic: Agenda Review

11:07:47 [ArtB]

AB: I'd like to add IRC logging

11:07:57 [ArtB]

AB: any other requests?

11:08:37 [ArtB]

AB: I'd also like to briefly touch on vaca plans for those of us in the Northern hemisphere

11:08:54 [ArtB]

Topic: Join the new WebApps WG

11:09:04 [ArtB]

AB: remind people to join the new WG

11:09:22 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos, your IE application is in progress, right?

11:09:34 [ArtB]

MC: yes; it will take some more time

11:10:04 [ArtB]

ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG

11:10:04 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-8 - Chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-06-26].

11:10:15 [ArtB]

Topic: IRC logging

11:10:45 [ArtB]

AB: Anne sent a proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0222.html

11:11:01 [ArtB]

AB: I am strong supporter of openness among the WGs

11:11:06 [ArtB]

MC: I think it is a great idea

11:11:32 [ArtB]

ABe: agree with Marcos but think it would be good to poll the group to see if there is consensus

11:11:48 [ArtB]

... think Doug raises a valid point re Member-confidentiall comments

11:12:20 [ArtB]

AB: I think the Member-confidentiality issue is something we can't take lightly

11:13:26 [ArtB]

... if a non-Member joins the group and someone enters something confidential, its too late, the info is disclosed to the Public

11:14:28 [ArtB]

ABe: if one needs to discuss a member confidential topic, it should be done in a different confidential channel

11:14:36 [ArtB]

AB: I agree

11:14:54 [shepazu]

it's worth noting that forcing "openness" often drives useful conversation further into the shadows

11:14:56 [MikeSmith]

MikeSmith has joined #webapps

11:15:45 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, code?

11:15:45 [Zakim]

sorry, MikeSmith, I don't know what conference this is

11:16:02 [ArtB]

AB: if we used a Member channel for all meetings we'd be OK and then make the minutes Public later

11:16:38 [ArtB]

ABe: if we need to discuss confidential topics, I would prefer them to be in separate meetings

11:17:04 [ArtB]

... and keep as little as possible private

11:17:09 [shepazu]

and the option for hiding comments isn't something I encourage, but it's good to provide the option

11:18:19 [ArtB]

AB: so then in practical terms for a meeting like this one, the agenda would only contain topics that could be discussed in Public

11:18:57 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, who's on the phone??

11:18:57 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, MikeSmith.

11:19:00 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

11:19:00 [Zakim]

has not yet started, MikeSmith

11:19:01 [Zakim]

On IRC I see MikeSmith, RRSAgent, marcos, Zakim, ArtB, tlr, Lachy, harryl, heycam, arve, deane, anne, trackbot, Dashiva, gDashiva, hober, krijnh, shepazu, inimino, Hixie

11:19:04 [ArtB]

... and if there were any Member-confidentiall topics, they would not be on this meeting's agenda but handled separately on the member-list

11:19:12 [ArtB]

Present+ Mike

11:20:51 [Lachy]

I'm here, but IRC only.

11:21:21 [ArtB]

Present+ Lachy(IRC)

11:21:35 [Lachy]

FWIW, I'm glad we now have IRC logs.

11:21:54 [ArtB]

AB: any other IRC logging comments?

11:21:56 [Lachy]

But I'm not so thrilled about people being able to hide certain comments

11:22:24 [ArtB]

Topic: Widgets Requirements Last Call

11:22:57 [MikeSmith]

q+ to talk about status of feedback from i18n WG

11:22:57 [ArtB]

AB: last week I told the group that on June 19 we wanted to make a decsion regarding advancing the Reqs doc to LC

11:23:20 [ArtB]

... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0076.html

11:23:38 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos, any followup?

11:23:58 [ArtB]

MC: I updated a couple of requirements based on feedback from the f2f meeting in May

11:24:16 [MikeSmith]

timeless is a dude

11:24:20 [ArtB]

... I got some comments from "timeless"

11:24:23 [marcos]

go timeless!

11:24:23 [MikeSmith]

he's a Mozilla developer

11:24:41 [ArtB]

MC: I responded to timeless and fixed the editorial issues he raised

11:25:04 [ArtB]

MS: we have a blocking issue

11:25:56 [ArtB]

... we are waiting on some information from the I18N WG

11:26:12 [ArtB]

MC: does this affect the publication of the reqs doc?

11:26:48 [ArtB]

MS: just to clarify, this is NOT a blocking issue for the Reqs doc but it is for the Packaging spec

11:27:40 [ArtB]

MC: what happens during LC?

11:27:47 [ArtB]

MS: must track every comment

11:28:00 [ArtB]

... must respond to every comment

11:28:15 [ArtB]

... must record how each comment is "handled"

11:28:25 [ArtB]

... we can give every comment an ID if we want

11:28:44 [ArtB]

... if necessary, we can split up the comments among the WG members

11:28:59 [ArtB]

... In the best case, we only get Editorial comments but that's not likely

11:29:23 [ArtB]

... If any substanative changes are made, we need to go back to YA LC or perhaps back to normal WD

11:29:57 [ArtB]

MC: how long is the review period?

11:30:06 [ArtB]

MS: the minimum is three weeks

11:30:15 [ArtB]

... typically it is longer

11:30:38 [ArtB]

... I suggest 4 weeks

11:31:09 [ArtB]

MC: I suggest August 1

11:32:07 [ArtB]

MS: the main thing is to make sure we get wide review from all of the right communities

11:32:46 [ArtB]

MC: I want to get thorough review

11:34:00 [ArtB]

AB: when I submit the LC request to the Chairs list, I need to identify any WGs we want to review

11:34:14 [ArtB]

AB: which W3C WGs?

11:34:21 [ArtB]

MC: UWA,

11:34:30 [ArtB]

AB: XML Security

11:34:43 [ArtB]

AB: what about WSC?

11:34:49 [ArtB]

MC: yes

11:34:58 [ArtB]

AB: what about HTML?

11:35:13 [ArtB]

MC: I think TAG may be appropriate

11:35:30 [ArtB]

MS: TAG isn't generally approrpriate

11:35:42 [ArtB]

... this probably wouldn't be a high priority for them

11:36:12 [ArtB]

AB: agree with Mike

11:36:19 [ArtB]

MC: what about the MWI?

11:36:46 [ArtB]

MS: yes, that's probably a good idea

11:36:59 [ArtB]

... there is fairly good overlap in membership

11:37:05 [ArtB]

... so MWBP is OK

11:37:25 [ArtB]

AB: summarize: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP

11:38:06 [marcos]

MC: I would also like review from Accessibility, Internationalization

11:38:12 [ArtB]

AB: what about I18N WG?

11:38:14 [ArtB]

MS: yes

11:39:06 [ArtB]

AB: which A11Y WG would be appropriate?

11:39:11 [ArtB]

... the P&F WG?

11:39:23 [ArtB]

MS: yes, they are the most approriate WG

11:39:50 [ArtB]

AB: so new list is: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP, I18N, P&F

11:40:16 [ArtB]

AB: any other comments?

11:40:27 [ArtB]

AB: I propose we publish the Reqs LC as is

11:40:31 [ArtB]

AB: any objections?

11:40:46 [ArtB]

MC: support as is

11:40:50 [ArtB]

MS: support as is

11:41:00 [ArtB]

ABe: support as is

11:41:05 [marcos]

lachy?

11:41:16 [Lachy]

support as is

11:41:27 [marcos]

:D

11:41:38 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: we will request a LC publication of the Requirements document as it is today

11:42:05 [ArtB]

Topic: Icon Text

11:42:30 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0216

11:43:00 [Lachy]

what's the use case you're trying to address with the icon text?

11:43:10 [ArtB]

ABe: this is mostly about A11Y, right?

11:43:17 [ArtB]

MC: not necessarily

11:43:28 [Lachy]

But a widget icon is analogous to an application icon on the desktop, isn't it?

11:43:32 [ArtB]

... want to be able to use the widgets in non-graphical contexts

11:43:34 [Lachy]

isn't the widget name sufficient?

11:44:30 [ArtB]

ABe: agree it's also about displaying alterntive content when the widget cannot be displayed

11:44:42 [ArtB]

... could also be used to dispaly additional info about a widget

11:45:09 [Lachy]

It would be similar to <link rel=icon ...> for web pages, is it not? We don't have alt text for that.

11:45:15 [ArtB]

... For example, sometimes it may not be possible to display a Widget's icon

11:45:21 [Lachy]

Or am I just totally misunderstanding something?

11:45:35 [ArtB]

ABe: I don't think #3 is worth doing

11:45:55 [ArtB]

... re #2, I don't think label will make sense all of the time

11:46:56 [ArtB]

... we use Window.status in Opera

11:47:36 [ArtB]

AB: only diff between #1 and #2 is the name of the attribute

11:47:49 [ArtB]

... Benoit likes #1

11:47:53 [Lachy]

#1, using alt="", is an acceptable solution. I'm just not convinced of its utility

11:47:56 [ArtB]

ABe: I prefer #1 as well

11:47:59 [ArtB]

MC: me too

11:48:22 [ArtB]

AB: I want to re-use existing and best practices

11:48:35 [ArtB]

... would that favor #1 or #2

11:48:42 [ArtB]

MC: it would favor #1

11:48:57 [ArtB]

AB: so is #1 the consenus?

11:49:01 [ArtB]

ABe: yes

11:49:03 [ArtB]

MC: yes

11:49:30 [ArtB]

RESOULTION: proposal #1 for Icon Text will be used (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0216)

11:49:33 [marcos]

Lachy, maybe you should have alt for rel=icon :)

11:49:43 [ArtB]

Topic: Widget Updates

11:49:45 [Lachy]

I don't think so. The page <title> is enough

11:50:01 [ArtB]

AB: I still have not completed my related actions; sorry about it

11:51:07 [ArtB]

AB: any status to report?

11:51:39 [ArtB]

MC: I would like to publish something by the first week of July

11:52:03 [ArtB]

AB: you want a FPWD by July 1

11:52:12 [ArtB]

MC: yes, that's right

11:52:19 [ArtB]

AB: what will you need from us?

11:52:55 [ArtB]

MC: need people to respond to the issues I raised at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jun/0028

11:53:06 [ArtB]

... in particular input re HTTP caching

11:53:18 [ArtB]

ABe: I'm not sure that's the right model we want to use

11:53:45 [ArtB]

... could use something like WAP Push

11:53:49 [ArtB]

... or XMPP

11:53:53 [ArtB]

... or feeds

11:54:41 [ArtB]

AB: another potentially relevant technology is the Device Management stuff being done at OMA (replaces SynchML)

11:55:06 [ArtB]

MC: agree we need to look at the other technologies and balance our needs

11:55:40 [ArtB]

... our requirements for auto updates are pretty general

11:55:52 [ArtB]

... We may need to tighten the requirements

11:56:18 [ArtB]

ABe: are there any requirements regarding Widget revocation?

11:56:24 [ArtB]

MC: not currently

11:56:39 [ArtB]

ABe: we (=Opera) has this as a requirement

11:56:57 [ArtB]

... perhaps we need a related requirement

11:58:07 [ArtB]

AB: perhaps we should stop this discussion now and plan to make this the main topic next week. WDYT?

11:58:11 [ArtB]

MC: OK with me

11:58:46 [ArtB]

Topic: Vacation Plans for July and August

11:59:05 [ArtB]

ABe: I will be out week #26

11:59:21 [ArtB]

AB: I will be out week #27

11:59:46 [ArtB]

... There will not be a meeting on July 3

12:00:55 [ArtB]

MC: If Arve can't be here next week then we could focus on Signatures

12:01:20 [ArtB]

... In particular I'd like to know if multiple signatures can be handeled on mobile phones

12:01:34 [arve]

I am off until July 14th

12:01:35 [ArtB]

... that is one of the last big issues for the DigSig spec

12:02:02 [ArtB]

MC: I think we need to revisit Vodafone's input from the May f2f meeting

12:02:50 [ArtB]

ABe: I will be out June 23 until July 14; back on July 15

12:03:23 [smaug]

smaug has joined #webapps

12:04:13 [ArtB]

MS: I will be out (or mostly out) July 28-August 7

12:04:18 [MikeSmith]

MikeSmith: I'll be in Denver with family from July 28 to Aug 07, but working from there

12:04:34 [marcos]

MC: gone from the 12-28 July (at Oxford, but should still be able to join)

12:05:35 [ArtB]

AB: meeting adjourned

12:06:40 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

12:07:01 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

12:07:01 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-minutes.html ArtB

12:21:39 [ArtB]

zakim, bye

12:21:39 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #webapps

12:21:55 [ArtB]

rrsagent, bye

12:21:55 [RRSAgent]

I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-actions.rdf :

12:21:55 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG [1]

12:21:55 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-irc#T11-10-04