See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
Date: 18 September 2008
AB: Agenda is:
... any changes?
DR: how to we proceed with OMTP's Dependency input?
AB: we can discuss that on the mail list since it is directed to the P&C spec
DR: I'm OK with using the mail list to discuss
RT: OK with me too
MC: do you think the reqs are OK in this regard?
RT: can I start a discussion about Dependencies now on the mail list?
MC: yes; comments at any time on any spec are always welcome
RT: he was OMTP's author for the
... he works at Orange
AB: can we get a short update of the BONDI highlights from last week's meeting?
DR: I can try to send something
out by the end of the week
... We need to update the BONDI doc to reflect the latest Widgets work that has been done
... We will continue to work on the DigSig spec; mostly via Mark Priestly
... If Marcos needs some help, please ask us
<drogersuk> OMTP are happy to offer assistance to webapps during the XML digital signature discussions
AB: what remains to be done to get the LC #1 DoC doc up-to-date
MC: I just need to align the
document with the latest emails on the list
... Still need to get some feedback from the MWBP
... They haven't replied to my deadline with any objections
... They can of course submit comments for LC #2
... The DoC doc is 90% complete.
AB: I want to complete the DoC #1 doc before we start the LC #2 review period
AB: during Turin we agreed to
publish this doc in September
... What's the status?
Arve: what remains to be
... the update event
and one of the features
AB: the latest ED is http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
MC: what do you need to define the states?
Arve: I'll need to check the
... I think I have the info I need (from P&C)
AB: what about the Icons issue?
Arve: I'm not comfortable with our current level of support but we can live with this as an open issue for FPWD
AB: what about the WindowWidget Interface issue?
Arve: I talked to Cameron about this
<timeless> zakim +??P14 is marcos
Arve: we may need to add some related text to the P&C spec
AB: do we need to make the link before FPWD?
MC: no, I don't think so
Arve: I agree with Marcos
AB: I think it would be good to provide a bit more detail about the Issues identified in the spec
Arve: what is the process for agreeing on FPWD?
AB: we need to record an
agreement to publish
... I propose we publish the API and Event Editor's Draft as a FPWD
... any objections?
CV: I'd like a clarification
about message exchange between widgets
... Is this related to the widget context?
... Also is this related to HTML5 postMessage?
Arve: cross-widget communication
is something that belongs in an Extended API
... there are some security implications as well
... UA should have some configuration mechanism about its usage (or not)
RESOLUTION: we will publish the API and Events Editor's Draft as a FPWD
<scribe> ACTION: Arve notify Art when the API and Events API is ready for Publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - Notify Art when the API and Events API is ready for Publication [on Arve Bersvendsen - due 2008-09-25].
AB: would like a brief status
MC: I've had some other higher
priority stuff come up
... hope to have it ready by early next week
AB: are you blocked on anyone?
... Mark Baker's etag concerns could affect it
AB: what is the motivation and rationale for a change?
MC: there is confusion about
WebApps' widgets and "web widgets"
... the new proposal will force the reader to seek clarity by reading the Abstract and/or Intro
<marcos> Widget Packages and User Agents 1.0:
MC: it makes "Package" primary
AB: what do people think?
BS: some of the specs are not generic to the UA
CV: I share Benoit's concern
<Benoit> the user Agent defined elements are only related to the packaging
Arve: I'm not too fond of either of these proposals
<claudio> "Widget Packages 1.0 and User Agents conformance criteria: xxxx"
Arve: I'm afraid there could be
confusion with those too
... how about dropping Widgets altogether
BS: we need to keep Widgts
Arve: use Web Apps rather than
... I understand the Marketing usefulness of Widgets
... We are specifiying stuff for Web Apps that we call "widgets"
<Benoit> proposition: "User Agent Widget Pakaging format"
AB: any other opinions?
<marcos> Packages for Client-side Web Applications and User Agent Conforming Criteria
DR: we've had similar discussions in OMTP
<arve> (word bloat)
DR: the point of agreement is that we are talking about Web Applications
AB: without some compelling
reasons I think we should stay with the names we already
... If we make a change, it would be the third name
... We already have at least one doc in LC and it seems too late to make a change
Arve: I tend to agree with
... We need to make our definition the mainstream name that is used
MC: OK, let's keep it as is
... We need to keep educating people about our definition
... I agree we can have the most authoritative definition in the industry
Arve: FWIW, Google already agrees
with our definition
... take a look at wikipedia
AB: I propose we keep the names
of our documents as is
... any objections?
RESOLUTION: we will not change the names of our Widgets specs
AB: want to get consensus on how we move forward
CV: there is some prelim work
that needs to be done first
... for example, need to get some type of scope around V2
<timeless> the cell network here is giving me network busy and kicking me off
CV: We may get lots of additional
... Regarding a doc or wiki, I think we need to know what we plan to add
... Regarding V1.0 reqs, we didn't do a lot of Use Case work
... We should probably do some UC work for v2.0
MC: I agree with Claudio re UCs for v2.0
AB: so you support doing some UC work for v2.0?
AB: any other comments?
... I support doing UC work for v2.0
... My only concern is that it not take away time/resources from our 1.0 work
MC: agree on the resource issue
AB: seems like we should document
the general ideas we have now for v2.0
... but not do any detailed work until next year
... Don't want to disrupt v1.0 spec work
... Claudio, Marcos - can we start using a wiki now?
... And defer the question about using a document for a few months?
CV: that's OK with me
MC: yes, that's OK
... and if Claudio wants to take the initial lead that's OK
MS: Claudio should be able to gain access without me getting involved
AB: we don't have time to discuss
... if you have any comments, send them to public-webapps
AB: any topics?
... regarding TAG joint meeting, Roy Fielding isn't a member of the TAG any more; Stuart Williams will not be in Mandelieu
... that means it may be difficult to get some f2f time with at TAG member but I will try
... anything else?
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/Topic: Annoucements/Topic: OMTP Dependency/ Succeeded: s/WindowWindow/WindowWidget/ FAILED: s/conforming/conformance/ Found Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Default Present: +44.797.352.aaaa, Art_Barstow, +47.23.69.aabb, arve, +39.011.228.aacc, Josh_Soref, +44.777.183.aadd, David_Rogers, Caroline, marcos, Mike, +44.208.849.aaee Present: Art Arve Claudio Richard_Tibbett(Orange) Josh David_Rogers Benoit Marcos Mike Regrets: Thomas Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0670.html Found Date: 18 Sep 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-wam-minutes.html People with action items: arve[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]