See also: IRC log
<MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 09 October 2008
<trackbot> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
<trackbot> Date: 09 October 2008
<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<marcos> zakin, ??P5 is I
<arve> [I'll never get Zakim's syntax right]
AB: any change requests for the agenda?
AB: any annoucements?
AB: Arve, what's the status?
Arve: I think we are ready to
... I haven't done much since last week except to remove prefs API
... I need some help getting it "pub ready"
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow talk to Mike about helping Arve getting the API and Events spec "pub ready" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-254 - Talk to Mike about helping Arve getting the API and Events spec \"pub ready\" [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-16].
<MikeSmith> I can deal with that of course
Arve: HTML5 defines a similar
... but the semantics and UCs are a bit diff
... e.g. showNotification
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow submit FPWD request for API and Events spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-255 - Submit FPWD request for API and Events spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-16].
AB: what's the status Mark and Marcos?
MC: we haven't done any work in the last week
AB: where is this in your priorities Mark and Marcos?
MC: my priority is the P&C
... but I can help Mark
MP: from the VF and BONDI point
of view, we want to use the DigSig spec
... it is important to progress it
... I hope to do some work on it next week
... it is a priority for us
MC: the P&C spec is being
update to include multiple signatures
... If Mark could start a dialog with XMLSec WG that could help
AB: it would be good to get more specific on the agenda for our joint meeting
MC: I have some questions for them re our model
<tlr> +1 to having specific issues. However, note that I won't have much bandwidth available between now and TPAC.
AB: I would like MC and MP to be
prepared to drive the discussion with XML Sec WG
... we want specific questions, in advance if possible
... what is the status of the latest ED http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ - says May 27
... do you have a copy that reflects discussions in Turin
MC: we have done some brainstorming but haven't put those ideas into CVS
AB: will there be an update before the f2f meeting?
MC: yes; at a min we will add
some UC data
... I will need Mark's help
AB: have you Marcos and Felix converged on a solution?
MC: Felix provided some good
feedback re ITS
... I added optional support for ITS to the ED
... Felix says my latest changes are OK
... he recommended some minor changes in the Relax NG schema and I've added those
AB: can we now close this issue
i.e. ISSUE #46?
MC: no I don't think we can close
... want to make sure I18N WG is OK with our solution
AB: we will meet with some TAG members on Monday Oct 20 14:00-15:00 to discuss this issue
MC: I have been responding to Mark Baker's comments
<marcos> widget-uri = "http://" widget-engine [":" instance-id] "/"package-name path-absolute ["#" fragment]
Arve: this seems like a breakage
... I think using this is a locator issue
... I think file: has lots of problems
... e.g. not interoperable in current browsers
... as well as no formal definition
... it is also overloaded in Windows (e.g. file share)
<marcos> MC: your arguments are reflected here http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hoffman-file-uri-03.txt
TR: http URI as posted by Marcos
... uses a domain-based authority
... but it isn't domain-based
<arve> marcos: yes
TR: if the HTTP URI scheme could
be used would facilitate Widgets and Gadgets
... think we need to consider this more
MC: want to know if my example is broken or not
Arve: there are lots of servers that respond to localhost
MC: the arch question - is what is the origin
TR: does a widget have a
... are the pieces addressable on the web
... Could be useful to compare the various design options
... is the widget addressable through http or not
Arve: some widgets may never be
served over http
... e.g. are installed on a device
TR: but that wouldn't preclude
use of http uri
... could still mint something
... the configuration file could address the issue
... It isn't so much about whether the widget is download-able from the Web
... but more about identification via URIs
<tlr> I don't think I have an answer, and I suspect it will be useful for Arve, MArcos and myself to sit down with a piece of paper or a whiteboard
<tlr> +1 to Art
AB: want to get a plan for using
the time with the TAG wisely
... seems like we need to start with a high level discussion of our UC and our Reqs
... and then talk about different ways to address those reqs
... do we have a clear UC and Reqs?
MC: I think the reqs doc provides sufficient information
MC: I can present the various
... and explain why they don't work for us
AB: OK, that's the plan then
AB: we have at least Carmelo and others from MWTS WG to join us
MC: do we need to create some reqs?
AB: what do people think?
... I don't think that is a high priority
... but that may be one of Carmelo's first questions to us
MC: thinking about things like
automated harness, etc.
... what methodology do we want to use?
... CSS has a model we could use
... Naming conventions, ...
... I think we need some guidance
<marcos> MC: will it be a web based thing? or just a bunch of files that can be downloaded?
AB: Marcos proposed this new req: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0053.html
MC: the basic idea is to rationalize the <feature> element we've added to the P&C spec
TR: please present this in the December secuity WS
AB: are you planning a PP for that WS Marcos?
MP: last call there was
discussion about access element and feature element
... we have had discussion about that in BONDI and VF and can share that during the upcoming f2f meeting
AB: send comments to the mail list; Marcos has already added this to the ED
AB: deadline for comments is
... what is the rate of comments?
MC: only Krzy has responded
... we could ping David Orchard
... TR said it looks OK
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow ask David Orchard (again) to review Requirement LC #2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-256 - Ask David Orchard (again) to review Requirement LC #2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-16].
AB: what changes have you made?
MC: not too many
... the only new req is #21
<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to ask that Marcos present this at the December workshop
AB: any : any topics?
TR: please drum up support from
... not just from you and your company but otherss outside of W3C are welcome
AB: what is the deadlien for PP?
TR: October 30
... the level of interest has been rising
... now have MS and Google on the Program Committee
AB: meeting adjourned
RRSAgent: make log public
rrsagent: make minutes
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/nope// Succeeded: s/Meeting: Web Applications Working Group Teleconference/Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference/ Found Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Default Present: Caroline, Art_Barstow, Thomas, marcos, +39.011.228.aaaa, +44.771.751.aabb, Mark, arve Present: Art Arve Benoit Mark Marcos Thomas Claudio Regrets: DavidR Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0051.html Found Date: 09 Oct 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html People with action items: again ask barstow david orchard talk[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]