11:03:32 RRSAgent has joined #webapps 11:03:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-irc 11:04:32 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 11:04:36 Date: 19 June 2008 11:04:39 Chair: Art 11:04:44 Scribe: Art 11:04:48 ScribeNick: ArtB 11:05:01 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008AprJun/0005.html 11:06:08 Present: Arve, ArtB, Marcos 11:07:39 Topic: Agenda Review 11:07:47 AB: I'd like to add IRC logging 11:07:57 AB: any other requests? 11:08:37 AB: I'd also like to briefly touch on vaca plans for those of us in the Northern hemisphere 11:08:54 Topic: Join the new WebApps WG 11:09:04 AB: remind people to join the new WG 11:09:22 AB: Marcos, your IE application is in progress, right? 11:09:34 MC: yes; it will take some more time 11:10:04 ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG 11:10:04 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 Topic: IRC logging 11:10:45 AB: Anne sent a proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0222.html 11:11:01 AB: I am strong supporter of openness among the WGs 11:11:06 MC: I think it is a great idea 11:11:32 ABe: agree with Marcos but think it would be good to poll the group to see if there is consensus 11:11:48 ... think Doug raises a valid point re Member-confidentiall comments 11:12:20 AB: I think the Member-confidentiality issue is something we can't take lightly 11:13:26 ... 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 ABe: if one needs to discuss a member confidential topic, it should be done in a different confidential channel 11:14:36 AB: I agree 11:14:54 it's worth noting that forcing "openness" often drives useful conversation further into the shadows 11:14:56 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 11:15:45 Zakim, code? 11:15:45 sorry, MikeSmith, I don't know what conference this is 11:16:02 AB: if we used a Member channel for all meetings we'd be OK and then make the minutes Public later 11:16:38 ABe: if we need to discuss confidential topics, I would prefer them to be in separate meetings 11:17:04 ... and keep as little as possible private 11:17:09 and the option for hiding comments isn't something I encourage, but it's good to provide the option 11:18:19 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 Zakim, who's on the phone?? 11:18:57 I don't understand your question, MikeSmith. 11:19:00 Zakim, who's on the phone? 11:19:00 has not yet started, MikeSmith 11:19:01 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 ... 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 Present+ Mike 11:20:51 I'm here, but IRC only. 11:21:21 Present+ Lachy(IRC) 11:21:35 FWIW, I'm glad we now have IRC logs. 11:21:54 AB: any other IRC logging comments? 11:21:56 But I'm not so thrilled about people being able to hide certain comments 11:22:24 Topic: Widgets Requirements Last Call 11:22:57 q+ to talk about status of feedback from i18n WG 11:22:57 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 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0076.html 11:23:38 AB: Marcos, any followup? 11:23:58 MC: I updated a couple of requirements based on feedback from the f2f meeting in May 11:24:16 timeless is a dude 11:24:20 ... I got some comments from "timeless" 11:24:23 go timeless! 11:24:23 he's a Mozilla developer 11:24:41 MC: I responded to timeless and fixed the editorial issues he raised 11:25:04 MS: we have a blocking issue 11:25:56 ... we are waiting on some information from the I18N WG 11:26:12 MC: does this affect the publication of the reqs doc? 11:26:48 MS: just to clarify, this is NOT a blocking issue for the Reqs doc but it is for the Packaging spec 11:27:40 MC: what happens during LC? 11:27:47 MS: must track every comment 11:28:00 ... must respond to every comment 11:28:15 ... must record how each comment is "handled" 11:28:25 ... we can give every comment an ID if we want 11:28:44 ... if necessary, we can split up the comments among the WG members 11:28:59 ... In the best case, we only get Editorial comments but that's not likely 11:29:23 ... If any substanative changes are made, we need to go back to YA LC or perhaps back to normal WD 11:29:57 MC: how long is the review period? 11:30:06 MS: the minimum is three weeks 11:30:15 ... typically it is longer 11:30:38 ... I suggest 4 weeks 11:31:09 MC: I suggest August 1 11:32:07 MS: the main thing is to make sure we get wide review from all of the right communities 11:32:46 MC: I want to get thorough review 11:34:00 AB: when I submit the LC request to the Chairs list, I need to identify any WGs we want to review 11:34:14 AB: which W3C WGs? 11:34:21 MC: UWA, 11:34:30 AB: XML Security 11:34:43 AB: what about WSC? 11:34:49 MC: yes 11:34:58 AB: what about HTML? 11:35:13 MC: I think TAG may be appropriate 11:35:30 MS: TAG isn't generally approrpriate 11:35:42 ... this probably wouldn't be a high priority for them 11:36:12 AB: agree with Mike 11:36:19 MC: what about the MWI? 11:36:46 MS: yes, that's probably a good idea 11:36:59 ... there is fairly good overlap in membership 11:37:05 ... so MWBP is OK 11:37:25 AB: summarize: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP 11:38:06 MC: I would also like review from Accessibility, Internationalization 11:38:12 AB: what about I18N WG? 11:38:14 MS: yes 11:39:06 AB: which A11Y WG would be appropriate? 11:39:11 ... the P&F WG? 11:39:23 MS: yes, they are the most approriate WG 11:39:50 AB: so new list is: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP, I18N, P&F 11:40:16 AB: any other comments? 11:40:27 AB: I propose we publish the Reqs LC as is 11:40:31 AB: any objections? 11:40:46 MC: support as is 11:40:50 MS: support as is 11:41:00 ABe: support as is 11:41:05 lachy? 11:41:16 support as is 11:41:27 :D 11:41:38 RESOLUTION: we will request a LC publication of the Requirements document as it is today 11:42:05 Topic: Icon Text 11:42:30 AB: Marcos proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0216 11:43:00 what's the use case you're trying to address with the icon text? 11:43:10 ABe: this is mostly about A11Y, right? 11:43:17 MC: not necessarily 11:43:28 But a widget icon is analogous to an application icon on the desktop, isn't it? 11:43:32 ... want to be able to use the widgets in non-graphical contexts 11:43:34 isn't the widget name sufficient? 11:44:30 ABe: agree it's also about displaying alterntive content when the widget cannot be displayed 11:44:42 ... could also be used to dispaly additional info about a widget 11:45:09 It would be similar to for web pages, is it not? We don't have alt text for that. 11:45:15 ... For example, sometimes it may not be possible to display a Widget's icon 11:45:21 Or am I just totally misunderstanding something? 11:45:35 ABe: I don't think #3 is worth doing 11:45:55 ... re #2, I don't think label will make sense all of the time 11:46:56 ... we use Window.status in Opera 11:47:36 AB: only diff between #1 and #2 is the name of the attribute 11:47:49 ... Benoit likes #1 11:47:53 #1, using alt="", is an acceptable solution. I'm just not convinced of its utility 11:47:56 ABe: I prefer #1 as well 11:47:59 MC: me too 11:48:22 AB: I want to re-use existing and best practices 11:48:35 ... would that favor #1 or #2 11:48:42 MC: it would favor #1 11:48:57 AB: so is #1 the consenus? 11:49:01 ABe: yes 11:49:03 MC: yes 11:49:30 RESOULTION: proposal #1 for Icon Text will be used (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0216) 11:49:33 Lachy, maybe you should have alt for rel=icon :) 11:49:43 Topic: Widget Updates 11:49:45 I don't think so. The page 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