10:57:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
10:57:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-irc
10:57:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
10:57:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wam
10:57:39 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAPP
10:57:39 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
10:57:40 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
10:57:40 <trackbot> Date: 14 August 2008
10:57:41 <MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike
10:57:41 <Zakim> sorry, MikeSmith, I don't know what conference this is
10:57:55 <MikeSmith> Zakim, this is WAPP
10:57:55 <Zakim> sorry, MikeSmith, I do not see a conference named 'WAPP' in progress or scheduled at this time
10:59:10 <MikeSmith> Zakim, this is WAF1
10:59:10 <Zakim> ok, MikeSmith; that matches IA_WebApps(Widgets)7:00AM
10:59:21 <MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike
10:59:21 <Zakim> ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
10:59:23 <Zakim> +Mike
11:00:22 <MikeSmith> Zakim, who's on the phone?
11:00:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see +44.771.414.aaaa, Mike
11:00:47 <marcos> marcos has joined #wam
11:00:48 <Zakim> +arve
11:01:07 <marcos> marcos has left #wam
11:01:18 <MikeSmith> Zakim, +44 is nallott 
11:01:18 <Zakim> +nallott; got it
11:01:30 <marcos> marcos has joined #wam
11:01:38 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
11:01:58 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
11:02:04 <Zakim> +??P6
11:02:08 <ArtB> Date: 14 August 2008
11:02:14 <arve> arve has changed the topic to: Widgets Conference Call Aug 14 07:00 Boston time
11:02:15 <marcos> zakim, ??p6 is I
11:02:15 <Zakim> +marcos; got it
11:02:28 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0399.html
11:02:45 <ArtB> Present: Art, Arve, Marcos, Mike, Nick
11:03:07 <ArtB> Regrets: Thomas, Claudio, Luca, Benoit, DavidR, Mark
11:03:16 <ArtB> Chair: Art
11:03:19 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
11:03:26 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
11:03:43 <ArtB> Topic: Agenda Review
11:03:51 <ArtB> AB: any change requests?
11:03:53 <ArtB> [None]
11:04:01 <ArtB> Topic: OMTP Input
11:04:35 <ArtB> AB: we need to get clarity on the contributors for OMTP's inputs before we can act on them
11:04:44 <ArtB> AB: any questions or concerns?
11:05:11 <ArtB> Nick: by contributors do you mean companies?
11:05:20 <ArtB> AB: yes I mean companies
11:05:31 <ArtB> Topic: Turin f2f Agenda
11:05:42 <ArtB> AB: posted an update of the Turin f2f agenda
11:05:52 <ArtB> ... http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/TurinF2F
11:05:58 <ArtB> AB: any comments?
11:06:34 <ArtB> [None]
11:06:55 <ArtB> Topic: Comments from MWBP WG on Requirements LC doc
11:07:13 <ArtB> AB: comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/att-0298/MWBP_comments_to_Widget_Requirements_Last_Call_WD.htm
11:07:30 <ArtB> AB: 5 new reqs proposed
11:07:39 <ArtB> ... and changes for R16 and R36
11:07:59 <ArtB> AB: unfortunately Bryan isn't here
11:08:25 <ArtB> AB: there are three thread now Marcos?
11:08:28 <ArtB> MC: yes
11:09:24 <ArtB> Topic: "General Comments"
11:09:34 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute me
11:09:34 <Zakim> sorry, MikeSmith, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
11:09:45 <MikeSmith> Zakim, Mike has MikeSmith
11:09:45 <Zakim> +MikeSmith; got it
11:09:47 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute me
11:09:47 <Zakim> sorry, MikeSmith, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
11:09:56 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute Mike
11:09:56 <Zakim> Mike should now be muted
11:10:14 <ArtB> MC: we've talked about the ontologies before in the context of device capabilities
11:10:38 <ArtB> ... our general consensus in the past is this type of tech is too complicated and not baked enough for v1.0
11:11:01 <ArtB> Arve: yes I agree with Marcos
11:11:01 <MikeSmith> q+ to saymight be good to hear Nick's opinion on this
11:11:06 <MikeSmith> Zakim, unmute Mike
11:11:06 <Zakim> Mike should no longer be muted
11:11:14 <arve> q+
11:11:16 <ArtB> AB: Mike and Nick?
11:11:37 <ArtB> Mike: I would like to hear from Nick about use cases and market realities
11:12:12 <ArtB> Nick: we do have device cap type stuff in progress in BONDI
11:12:22 <ArtB> ... it is an important topic
11:12:39 <marcos> +q
11:12:47 <MikeSmith> ack MikeSmith 
11:12:47 <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to saymight be good to hear Nick's opinion on this
11:12:52 <ArtB> ... we are split on DCCI and simpler API based solutions
11:13:08 <ArtB> AB: I agree with Marcos' statements
11:14:03 <MikeSmith> q?
11:15:08 <ArtB> Arve: device capability is too complicated for v1.0; also think this issue will be less important as platforms more powerful
11:15:22 <ArtB> ... Widgets are NOT just for mobile
11:16:02 <ArtB> ... For example, we ship Widgets for the desktop
11:16:12 <marcos> q-
11:16:27 <ArtB> ... Thus I don't think DCCI, MWBP, etc. are relevant for a Core Widgets spec
11:16:55 <ArtB> ... If any mobile specific work needs to be done, it should be in a separate spec
11:17:05 <ArtB> ... or as extensions
11:17:07 <marcos> MC: I agree with Arve 
11:17:13 <arve> q-
11:17:23 <ArtB> AB: I agree with Arve's comments, pretty much 100%
11:17:42 <ArtB> Topic: R16 Vistual Rendering Dimensions
11:17:53 <ArtB> AB: what are your thoughts on this Marcos?
11:18:20 <ArtB> MC: I don't think they understand what the req says
11:18:33 <ArtB> ... We don't expect "straight up" pixels
11:19:05 <ArtB> Topic: MWBP References
11:19:39 <ArtB> AB: the comments suggest two refs from the MWBP WG should be added 
11:19:59 <ArtB> MC: I added the references in the Informative Ref section
11:20:03 <ArtB> AB: OK to me
11:20:26 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute Mike
11:20:26 <Zakim> Mike should now be muted
11:20:35 <ArtB> AB: any other comments?
11:20:37 <ArtB> [None]
11:21:03 <ArtB> Topic: Proposed requirement for "Resource Declarations"
11:21:40 <ArtB> MC: I submitted some comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0340.html
11:22:19 <ArtB> ... I would reject this requirement
11:22:39 <ArtB> Arve: I pretty much agree with Marcos
11:23:06 <ArtB> ... in that it is not possible to know if a widget will be a good or bad match for things like CPU or memory
11:23:23 <marcos> MC: the widget engine might not be good... but the widget might be ok
11:23:59 <ArtB> ... for example can't say apriori anything about battery life
11:25:00 <ArtB> ... This requirement could be satisified via a security model
11:25:37 <ArtB> AB: has Bryan responded to your feedback Marcos?
11:25:45 <ArtB> MC: not yet and it's been almost one week
11:26:39 <MikeSmith> Zakim, unmute Mike
11:26:39 <Zakim> Mike should no longer be muted
11:26:48 <ArtB> ACTION: Barstow make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses
11:26:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-08-21].
11:27:19 <ArtB> Mike: when responding formally to a comment it is always a good idea to include a deadline for responses
11:27:26 <ArtB> AB: that's an excellent point!
11:27:49 <ArtB> Mike: regarding the timeline, a week is typically the best; 2 weeks if really needed
11:28:10 <ArtB> ... want to eliminate chasing-up commentors if possible
11:28:20 <ArtB> ... this will save time for everyone
11:28:35 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute Mike
11:28:35 <Zakim> Mike should now be muted
11:29:14 <ArtB> AB: so in the abscence of pushback from Bryan and/or BP WG, that proposed Resource Declaration req will not be added
11:29:35 <ArtB> Topic: R36 Open Default System Web Browser
11:30:52 <ArtB> MC: I proposed some alternate text
11:31:03 <ArtB> AB: any feedback on Marcos' proposed text?
11:31:09 <ArtB> AB: it's OK with me
11:31:16 <ArtB> AB: any other feedback?
11:31:18 <ArtB> [None]
11:31:38 <ArtB> Topic: New Req: User-Agent Header
11:32:52 <ArtB> MC: I'm OK with including this
11:33:08 <ArtB> AB: how would this req be manifested in a spec?
11:33:19 <ArtB> MC: good question; I think it would just be a recommendation
11:33:27 <ArtB> ... that is a recommendation for the UA
11:33:50 <ArtB> Arve: setting this depends on the request itself
11:34:00 <ArtB> ... what about loading external resources
11:34:22 <ArtB> MC: what happens now or what is proposed in HTML5?
11:34:41 <ArtB> Arve: HTML5 may not say anything about the UA header
11:35:48 <ArtB> Arve: I also don't quite understand how this req would be specified
11:35:59 <MikeSmith> q+ to say that including spec language to address this type of UA behavior might be a slippery slope
11:36:07 <MikeSmith> Zakim, unmute Mike
11:36:07 <Zakim> Mike should no longer be muted
11:36:38 <ArtB> Mike: seems like this falls into recommendations for UA behavior
11:36:47 <ArtB> ... not sure we want to set a precedence for this
11:36:58 <ArtB> ... it's a slippery slope for other UA behavior
11:37:17 <ArtB> ... may want to say we don't want to define UA behavior at all
11:37:25 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute Mike
11:37:25 <Zakim> Mike should now be muted
11:37:28 <ArtB> AB: I agree with Mike concerns
11:37:42 <ArtB> ... OTOH, I think that type of doc is useful
11:38:13 <arve> q+
11:38:17 <ArtB> ... Is this something that would be more appropriate for the MWBP's Web Apps recommendation?
11:38:20 <MikeSmith> ack MikeSmith 
11:38:20 <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that including spec language to address this type of UA behavior might be a slippery slope
11:38:32 <MikeSmith> Zakim, unmute Mike
11:38:32 <Zakim> Mike should no longer be muted
11:39:07 <ArtB> MC: I read the Web Apps doc from the MWBP WG and it is for developers not implemtors
11:39:15 <MikeSmith> q+ to say the MBWG is not chartered to produce specs that give normative conformance criteria for UAs
11:39:48 <ArtB> AB: I don't see a match between these 3 reqs and the set of specs we are working on
11:40:15 <ArtB> ... I'm not opposed to adding these to an informative set of recommendations
11:40:23 <ArtB> ... for UA implementors
11:40:49 <ArtB> Arve: I'd like to see some Use Cases for these headers
11:41:42 <ArtB> MC: to me setting the UA header is typically self-evident
11:41:56 <ArtB> Arve: the problem with the UA header is that it isn't authoritative
11:42:12 <arve> q-
11:42:15 <ArtB> ... in that anyone can set it to anything thus I question its usefulneess
11:42:21 <ArtB> MC: so is it in or out
11:43:24 <ArtB> AB: I think it is more in scope for a WG focusing on mobile specific requirements
11:43:38 <ArtB> AB: Nick, Mike?
11:43:42 <MikeSmith> ack MikeSmith 
11:43:42 <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say the MBWG is not chartered to produce specs that give normative conformance criteria for UAs
11:43:50 <ArtB> Nick: no input now
11:44:02 <ArtB> Mike: I think we're better off not including it
11:44:20 <ArtB> ... the MWBP is not chartered for creating Normative specs for UAs
11:45:06 <ArtB> ... Perhaps it could be a recommendation in BP v2.0 or something like that
11:45:18 <ArtB> ... Agree it shouldn't be addressed in the Widgets spec
11:45:51 <ArtB> AB: Propose we not add a requirement for User-Agent header
11:45:56 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
11:46:01 <ArtB> Arve: no
11:46:05 <ArtB> Marcos: no
11:46:10 <ArtB> Mike: no
11:46:12 <ArtB> Nick: no
11:46:28 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: User Agent header will not be added to the Requirements document
11:46:51 <ArtB> Topic: New Requirement for User-Agent-Profile Header
11:47:14 <ArtB> AB: where is this header specified, Normatively?
11:47:21 <ArtB> MC: the CC/PP spec
11:47:43 <marcos> http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPPexchange
11:47:50 <arve> q+
11:48:18 <ArtB> AB: the NOTE reference is Informative
11:48:37 <ArtB> ... The W3C has produced a Recommendation for CC/PP and if we use anything, we should use it
11:48:44 <arve> http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPP/
11:49:09 <arve> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab2-20070430/
11:49:42 <marcos> http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/
11:50:00 <ArtB> AB: yes, that's it Marcos
11:50:35 <ArtB> AB: does this S&V spec define this header?
11:50:43 <ArtB> Arve: no, I don't think so
11:51:10 <ArtB> ... My main concern is that it adds bloat for each request without providing much value
11:51:18 <ArtB> ... I don't think this is in widespread use
11:51:24 <MikeSmith> amen to what arve just said
11:51:28 <ArtB> MC: I agree
11:51:32 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute Mike
11:51:32 <Zakim> Mike should now be muted
11:52:41 <ArtB> Arve: some of the properties simply are not useful 
11:52:56 <MikeSmith> Zakim, unmute Mike
11:52:56 <Zakim> Mike should no longer be muted
11:53:04 <ArtB> AB: Mike, Nick, any comments on this?
11:53:04 <arve> q-
11:53:13 <ArtB> Mike: I agree with Arve
11:53:18 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute Mike
11:53:18 <Zakim> Mike should now be muted
11:53:21 <ArtB> Nick: nothing to add
11:53:35 <ArtB> AB: I tend to agree with Arve as wll
11:53:55 <ArtB> AB: Propose we do not add the U-A-Profile header to the Requirements document
11:54:03 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
11:54:08 <ArtB> Marcos: no
11:54:12 <ArtB> Arve: no
11:54:14 <MikeSmith> Zakim, unmute Mike
11:54:14 <Zakim> Mike should no longer be muted
11:54:16 <ArtB> Mike: no
11:54:19 <ArtB> Nick: no
11:54:40 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: We will not add the User-Agent-Profile header requirement
11:54:54 <ArtB> Topic: New Requirement Accept Header
11:55:45 <ArtB> MC: when a UA makes a request, it should use the Accept header
11:56:14 <ArtB> ... Again, I think it should be a recommendation (like the UA header)
11:56:24 <ArtB> Arve: UAs already do this
11:56:57 <ArtB> ... Every widget engine will build on a browser engine and support for this header will just be done
11:57:08 <ArtB> ... Don't think we need to explicitly add it
11:57:36 <ArtB> AB: what would we add to our specs to satisfy this req?
11:57:45 <ArtB> Marcos: we wouldn't do anything
11:57:55 <ArtB> Arve: agree
11:58:29 <ArtB> ... leave this to HTML5 for example
11:58:43 <ArtB> AB: Mike, Nick, any comments?
11:58:46 <MikeSmith> Zakim, unmute Mike
11:58:46 <Zakim> Mike was not muted, MikeSmith
11:59:05 <ArtB> Mike: I agree with Arve and Marcos; this should be left to HTML5
11:59:15 <ArtB> ... IF it needs to be addressed at all
11:59:32 <ArtB> Nick: agree with Mike
11:59:51 <ArtB> AB: propose we not add the Accept header as an explicit requirement
11:59:55 <ArtB> AB: Any objections?
12:00:03 <ArtB> [None]
12:00:17 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: we will not add the Accept header as an explicit requirement
12:00:52 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute Mike
12:00:52 <Zakim> Mike should now be muted
12:01:08 <ArtB> Topic: New Requirement: Default Use of Runtime Environemnet Configured Proxy
12:01:35 <ArtB> MC: we already have a proxy support requirement
12:02:05 <ArtB> ... Bryan read an older version that was updated based on feedback from Josh
12:02:17 <ArtB> Arve: what is the impact on our specs?
12:02:34 <ArtB> Marcos: I think it could be related to our security model but I'm not sure
12:02:47 <ArtB> ... I did add the rationale
12:03:02 <ArtB> Arve: not sure where we actually address this requirement
12:03:49 <ArtB> AB: which req is relate?
12:03:53 <ArtB> MC: #39 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r39.-
12:04:46 <ArtB> AB: Arve, do you have problems with #39 as currently specified in the LC doc?
12:05:01 <marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r41.-
12:05:05 <marcos> sorry
12:05:07 <ArtB> s/req is relate/requirement is related/
12:06:12 <ArtB> Arve: in practice all implementations must support this req
12:06:46 <ArtB> ... Proxy support will be required 
12:07:04 <ArtB> ... But it's not going to affect interop
12:07:29 <ArtB> ... It doesn't affect how the widget will be written
12:07:59 <ArtB> Marcos: I agree; this is an implemenation detail
12:08:35 <ArtB> ... would like to hear about the security aspects
12:09:01 <ArtB> Nick: I agree need to separate security concerns
12:09:11 <MikeSmith> Zakim, unmute Mike
12:09:11 <Zakim> Mike should no longer be muted
12:09:34 <ArtB> Mike: I agree with Marcos re this is an implemenation detail that we don't need to specifiy
12:09:43 <ArtB> AB: propse we not add this requirement
12:09:49 <ArtB> AB: Any objections?
12:09:52 <ArtB> [None]
12:10:13 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the new requirement for proxies will not be added
12:10:43 <ArtB> AB: Meeting Ended
12:10:51 <Zakim> -nallott
12:10:53 <Zakim> -arve
12:10:54 <MikeSmith> Zakim, drop MikeSmith 
12:10:55 <Zakim> sorry, MikeSmith, I do not see a party named 'MikeSmith'
12:10:57 <MikeSmith> Zakim, drop Mike
12:10:57 <Zakim> Mike is being disconnected
12:10:59 <Zakim> -Mike
12:17:32 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
12:17:33 <Zakim> -marcos
12:17:33 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)7:00AM has ended
12:17:35 <Zakim> Attendees were +44.771.414.aaaa, arve, nallott, Art_Barstow, marcos, MikeSmith
12:18:04 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:18:18 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:18:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-minutes.html ArtB
12:18:51 <MikeSmith> ArtB: +44.771.414.aaaa was Nick
12:19:07 <MikeSmith> I told Zakim but it didn't seem to take
12:20:41 <ArtB> RRSAgent, bye
12:20:41 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-actions.rdf :
12:20:41 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Barstow make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses [1]
12:20:41 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-irc#T11-26-48