See also: IRC log
Date: 19 June 2008
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
AB: I'd like to add IRC
logging
... any other requests?
... I'd also like to briefly touch on vaca plans for those of
us in the Northern hemisphere
AB: remind people to join the new
WG
... Marcos, your IE application is in progress, right?
MC: yes; it will take some more time
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-06-26].
AB: Anne sent a proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0222.html
... I am strong supporter of openness among the WGs
MC: I think it is a great idea
ABe: agree with Marcos but think
it would be good to poll the group to see if there is
consensus
... think Doug raises a valid point re Member-confidentiall
comments
AB: I think the
Member-confidentiality issue is something we can't take
lightly
... if a non-Member joins the group and someone enters
something confidential, its too late, the info is disclosed to
the Public
ABe: if one needs to discuss a member confidential topic, it should be done in a different confidential channel
AB: I agree
<shepazu> it's worth noting that forcing "openness" often drives useful conversation further into the shadows
AB: if we used a Member channel for all meetings we'd be OK and then make the minutes Public later
ABe: if we need to discuss
confidential topics, I would prefer them to be in separate
meetings
... and keep as little as possible private
<shepazu> and the option for hiding comments isn't something I encourage, but it's good to provide the option
AB: so then in practical terms
for a meeting like this one, the agenda would only contain
topics that could be discussed in Public
... and if there were any Member-confidentiall topics, they
would not be on this meeting's agenda but handled separately on
the member-list
<Lachy> I'm here, but IRC only.
<Lachy> FWIW, I'm glad we now have IRC logs.
AB: any other IRC logging comments?
<Lachy> But I'm not so thrilled about people being able to hide certain comments
AB: last week I told the group
that on June 19 we wanted to make a decsion regarding advancing
the Reqs doc to LC
...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0076.html
... Marcos, any followup?
MC: I updated a couple of requirements based on feedback from the f2f meeting in May
<MikeSmith> timeless is a dude
MC: I got some comments from "timeless"
<marcos> go timeless!
<MikeSmith> he's a Mozilla developer
MC: I responded to timeless and fixed the editorial issues he raised
MS: we have a blocking
issue
... we are waiting on some information from the I18N WG
MC: does this affect the publication of the reqs doc?
MS: just to clarify, this is NOT a blocking issue for the Reqs doc but it is for the Packaging spec
MC: what happens during LC?
MS: must track every
comment
... must respond to every comment
... must record how each comment is "handled"
... we can give every comment an ID if we want
... if necessary, we can split up the comments among the WG
members
... In the best case, we only get Editorial comments but that's
not likely
... If any substanative changes are made, we need to go back to
YA LC or perhaps back to normal WD
MC: how long is the review period?
MS: the minimum is three
weeks
... typically it is longer
... I suggest 4 weeks
MC: I suggest August 1
MS: the main thing is to make sure we get wide review from all of the right communities
MC: I want to get thorough review
AB: when I submit the LC request
to the Chairs list, I need to identify any WGs we want to
review
... which W3C WGs?
MC: UWA,
AB: XML Security
... what about WSC?
MC: yes
AB: what about HTML?
MC: I think TAG may be appropriate
MS: TAG isn't generally
approrpriate
... this probably wouldn't be a high priority for them
AB: agree with Mike
MC: what about the MWI?
MS: yes, that's probably a good
idea
... there is fairly good overlap in membership
... so MWBP is OK
AB: summarize: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP
<marcos> MC: I would also like review from Accessibility, Internationalization
AB: what about I18N WG?
MS: yes
AB: which A11Y WG would be
appropriate?
... the P&F WG?
MS: yes, they are the most approriate WG
AB: so new list is: UWA, XML
Security, WSC, MWBP, I18N, P&F
... any other comments?
... I propose we publish the Reqs LC as is
... any objections?
MC: support as is
MS: support as is
ABe: support as is
<marcos> lachy?
<Lachy> support as is
<marcos> :D
RESOLUTION: we will request a LC publication of the Requirements document as it is today
AB: Marcos proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0216
<Lachy> what's the use case you're trying to address with the icon text?
ABe: this is mostly about A11Y, right?
MC: not necessarily
<Lachy> But a widget icon is analogous to an application icon on the desktop, isn't it?
MC: want to be able to use the widgets in non-graphical contexts
<Lachy> isn't the widget name sufficient?
ABe: agree it's also about
displaying alterntive content when the widget cannot be
displayed
... could also be used to dispaly additional info about a
widget
<Lachy> It would be similar to <link rel=icon ...> for web pages, is it not? We don't have alt text for that.
ABe: For example, sometimes it may not be possible to display a Widget's icon
<Lachy> Or am I just totally misunderstanding something?
ABe: I don't think #3 is worth
doing
... re #2, I don't think label will make sense all of the
time
... we use Window.status in Opera
AB: only diff between #1 and #2
is the name of the attribute
... Benoit likes #1
<Lachy> #1, using alt="", is an acceptable solution. I'm just not convinced of its utility
ABe: I prefer #1 as well
MC: me too
AB: I want to re-use existing and
best practices
... would that favor #1 or #2
MC: it would favor #1
AB: so is #1 the consenus?
ABe: yes
MC: yes
RESOULTION: proposal #1 for Icon Text will be used (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0216)
<marcos> Lachy, maybe you should have alt for rel=icon :)
<Lachy> I don't think so. The page <title> is enough
AB: I still have not completed my
related actions; sorry about it
... any status to report?
MC: I would like to publish something by the first week of July
AB: you want a FPWD by July 1
MC: yes, that's right
AB: what will you need from us?
MC: need people to respond to the
issues I raised at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jun/0028
... in particular input re HTTP caching
ABe: I'm not sure that's the
right model we want to use
... could use something like WAP Push
... or XMPP
... or feeds
AB: another potentially relevant technology is the Device Management stuff being done at OMA (replaces SynchML)
MC: agree we need to look at the
other technologies and balance our needs
... our requirements for auto updates are pretty general
... We may need to tighten the requirements
ABe: are there any requirements regarding Widget revocation?
MC: not currently
ABe: we (=Opera) has this as a
requirement
... perhaps we need a related requirement
AB: perhaps we should stop this discussion now and plan to make this the main topic next week. WDYT?
MC: OK with me
ABe: I will be out week #26
AB: I will be out week #27
... There will not be a meeting on July 3
MC: If Arve can't be here next
week then we could focus on Signatures
... In particular I'd like to know if multiple signatures can
be handeled on mobile phones
<arve> I am off until July 14th
MC: that is one of the last big
issues for the DigSig spec
... I think we need to revisit Vodafone's input from the May
f2f meeting
ABe: I will be out June 23 until July 14; back on July 15
MS: I will be out (or mostly out) July 28-August 7
<MikeSmith> MikeSmith: I'll be in Denver with family from July 28 to Aug 07, but working from there
<marcos> MC: gone from the 12-28 July (at Oxford, but should still be able to join)
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) Found Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Present: Arve ArtB Marcos Mike Lachy(IRC) Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008AprJun/0005.html Found Date: 19 Jun 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-minutes.html People with action items: barstow[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]