14:00:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
14:00:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-irc
14:00:12 <Zakim> +??P1
14:00:19 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
14:00:21 <fjh> zakim, ??P1 is fjh
14:00:21 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
14:00:46 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
14:00:49 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
14:00:52 <ArtB> Chair: Art
14:00:57 <ArtB> Date: 5 March 2009
14:01:05 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
14:01:15 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0622.html
14:01:25 <ArtB> Regrets: Claudio, Bryan
14:01:33 <fjh> widgets signature editors draft update
14:01:35 <fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
14:01:54 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
14:02:13 <Zakim> +Jere
14:02:14 <Marcos> Marcos has joined #wam
14:02:21 <Zakim> + +47.23.69.aaaa
14:02:30 <timeless> timeless has joined #wam
14:02:33 <ArtB> Present: Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Marcos, Arve
14:02:42 <fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
14:02:43 <Zakim> +??P7
14:02:56 <ArtB> zakim, ??P7 is David
14:02:57 <Zakim> +David; got it
14:03:01 <ArtB> Present +David
14:03:07 <arve_> arve_ has joined #wam
14:03:17 <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda
14:03:17 <arve_> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see Art_Barstow, fjh, Josh_Soref, Jere, +47.23.69.aaaa, David
14:03:17 <timeless> zakim, who is on?
14:03:20 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, timeless.
14:03:25 <ArtB> AB: agenda posted March 4 - is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0622.html
14:03:36 <arve_> zakim, aaaa is Arve/Marcos
14:03:36 <Zakim> +Arve/Marcos; got it
14:03:36 <drogersuk> drogersuk has joined #wam
14:03:53 <ArtB> AB: the main agenda items are Open Issues. I only want to spend a few minutes on each of them to get a sense of where we are e.g. still Open, pending inputs, can be Closed. Any detailed technical discussions should occur on public-webapps mail list.
14:04:00 <ArtB> ... Are there any change requests? 
14:04:08 <ArtB> [ None ]
14:04:13 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
14:04:20 <ArtB> AB: I don't have any urgent announcements
14:04:25 <ArtB> ... what about others?
14:04:48 <ArtB> FH: please submit comments on XML Sig 1.1 drafts
14:05:04 <ArtB> DR: I will respond to Art's BONDI 1.0 email so please look at that
14:05:29 <fjh> please review XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties FPWD
14:05:30 <fjh> http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25
14:05:32 <ArtB> MC: I uploaded the Window Modes spec; would like to get that on the agenda
14:05:58 <ArtB> Topic: DigSig + P&C synchronization 
14:06:11 <ArtB> AB: earlier this week Frederick asked me if the DigSig + P&C specs are now in synch, based on last week's discussions?
14:06:14 <fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
14:06:22 <ArtB> ... I believe the answer is yes.
14:06:43 <ArtB> AB: where are we on this?
14:07:01 <ArtB> MC: FHI and I talked about this
14:07:15 <ArtB> ... I think this is mostly now addressed
14:07:45 <ArtB> ... P&C has no real depedency on DigSig
14:07:55 <ArtB> s/FHI/FH/
14:08:01 <fjh> marcos notes merged steps 4 +5, moved locating to dig sig, removed signature variable from p + c
14:08:06 <ArtB> ... I haven't completed the P&C changes yet
14:08:21 <ArtB> ... e.g. renumber some steps
14:08:22 <fjh> fjh notes revised text on locating to fit it within digsig but essence is same
14:08:42 <ArtB> FH: I had to revise the location text a bit but the logic is the same
14:09:00 <ArtB> ... Josh asked about the sorting
14:09:28 <ArtB> ... I need to think about that a bit more
14:09:45 <ArtB> JS: need to clarify diff between "9" and "009"
14:09:55 <ArtB> ... we can take this discussion to the list
14:10:03 <ArtB> FH: I agree we need more rigor here
14:10:10 <ArtB> MC: I agree too
14:10:47 <ArtB> ... need to address case sensitivity too
14:11:04 <ArtB> AB: can we point to some existing work?
14:11:31 <ArtB> FH: I don't think this is a big issue and agree we can discuss on the list
14:11:52 <ArtB> AB: what needs to be done then?
14:12:07 <ArtB> FH: I need to make a few changes to DigSig and MC needs to do a bit more on P&C
14:12:22 <abraun> abraun has joined #wam
14:12:36 <ArtB> JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding readability
14:12:43 <ArtB> MC: I can help with that
14:13:12 <ArtB> FH: I'll take a pass at that
14:13:40 <ArtB> DR: re the ell curve issue, I have asked OMTP to provide comments by March 9 so I should have data for the WG by Mar 12
14:13:50 <ArtB> Topic: Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use cases and requirements; 
14:13:58 <ArtB> AB: do we now consider this issue adequately addressed to close it?
14:14:05 <ArtB> ... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19>
14:14:32 <fjh> zakim, unmute me
14:14:32 <Zakim> fjh should no longer be muted
14:14:35 <ArtB> AB: my gut feel here is this is now addressed and we can close it.
14:14:38 <ArtB> AB: any comments?
14:14:54 <ArtB> MC: the DigSig enumerates reqs it addresses
14:15:03 <ArtB> ... it's a bit out of sync
14:15:22 <ArtB> ... we need to sync the Reqs doc with the DigSig spec re the reqs
14:15:37 <ArtB> MC: so I think we can close it
14:15:45 <ArtB> AB: any other comments?
14:15:46 <fjh> zakim, unmute me
14:15:46 <Zakim> fjh was not muted, fjh
14:15:59 <ArtB> FH: not sure how much synching we need to do on the reqs
14:16:19 <ArtB> ... I do think we can close this issue 
14:16:52 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: we close Issue #19 as the spec now adresses the original concerns
14:17:04 <ArtB> Topic: Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets
14:17:05 <fjh> zakim, mute me
14:17:05 <Zakim> fjh should now be muted
14:17:15 <ArtB> AB: are there still some pending actions and input needed?
14:17:23 <ArtB> ... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/80>
14:17:44 <ArtB> ... what is the plan for the next couple of weeks?
14:17:55 <ArtB> MC: I added a new example to the latest ED
14:18:05 <ArtB> ... I still have some additional work on the model
14:18:12 <ArtB> ... I talked with JS earlier today
14:18:22 <ArtB> ... I'm still uneasy re the fwd slash "/"
14:18:30 <ArtB> ... we must maintain the semantics of URI
14:18:49 <ArtB> ... Need to understand if we can do it without the leading /
14:19:01 <ArtB> ... and to still have the fallback model
14:19:12 <Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#fallback-behavior-example
14:19:42 <ArtB> AB: note there are related actions 298 and 299
14:20:09 <ArtB> AB: are there other inputs you need?
14:20:31 <ArtB> MC: by the end of the day I hope to have something to share with Jere and Josh
14:21:23 <ArtB> JK: I will review it later and send comments
14:22:19 <ArtB> AB: we need not just Editors but technical contributors too
14:22:36 <ArtB> DR: it would be helpful if MC could identify areas where Bryan can help
14:23:12 <ArtB> AB: any other comments on #80?
14:23:17 <ArtB> ... we will leave that open for now
14:23:26 <ArtB> Topic: Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML <access> and Widget <access> element. 
14:23:43 <ArtB> AB: What, if anything, should be done?
14:23:58 <ArtB> ... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82>
14:24:16 <ArtB> MC: re last Topic, Jere, please consider XML Base when you review the new inputs
14:24:36 <ArtB> JK: yes, good point and that should be reflected in the spec
14:25:09 <ArtB> MC: this can be conceived of as a virtual file system at the conceptual level
14:25:25 <ArtB> JK: don't want the spec to specify a file system
14:25:44 <ArtB> MC: agree; I was just using that as part of my mental model 
14:26:14 <JereK> I thought it was just shuffling URLs also in impl
14:26:25 <ArtB> AB: re #82 was not discussed in Paris
14:26:30 <ArtB> ... what are people thinking?
14:26:43 <ArtB> MC: I think we can close this since we are using a separate namespace
14:26:46 <ArtB> Arve: agree
14:26:54 <ArtB> AB: other comments?
14:26:59 <ArtB> AB: I completely agree
14:27:20 <timeless> "namespaces will save us ;-)"
14:27:28 <ArtB> AB: propose we close this with a resolution of "we address this by defining our own namespace"
14:27:35 <ArtB> AB: any objections to this proposal?
14:27:36 <JereK> or "believe in namespaces or not" :)
14:27:55 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: close Issue #82 - we address by defining our own namespace
14:28:08 <ArtB> Topic: Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital signature. 
14:28:25 <ArtB> AB: What is the status of this issue and is this against P&C spec of DigSig spec?
14:28:31 <ArtB> ... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/83>
14:28:44 <ArtB> AB: did you create this Marcos?
14:28:55 <fjh> q+
14:28:58 <ArtB> MC: yes. It was raised by Marcoss
14:29:06 <fjh> zakim, unmute me
14:29:06 <Zakim> fjh should no longer be muted
14:29:14 <Marcos> s/Marcoss/Mark
14:29:29 <ArtB> FH: this issues identifies an potential attack
14:29:57 <ArtB> AB: is this something we must address in v1?
14:30:09 <ArtB> MC: yes. Need a 1-liner in the DigSig spec
14:30:22 <ArtB> FH: I don't quite understand the issue though
14:30:27 <ArtB> MC: me neither
14:30:37 <ArtB> FH: we already have some security consids
14:30:53 <ArtB> ... I recommend we get some more information from Mark
14:31:24 <ArtB> AB: so we need to get more info from Mark?
14:31:27 <ArtB> MC: yes
14:31:39 <ArtB> FH: I don't understand the real threat scenario
14:31:43 <Zakim> + +45.29.aabb
14:32:10 <ArtB> MC: me neither
14:32:14 <ArtB> JS: same with me
14:32:33 <ArtB> FH: I would close this and ask Mark to provide more information
14:32:43 <ArtB> DR: or could leave it open until Mark responds
14:33:15 <ArtB> AB: we'll leave it open for now and I'll take an action to ping Mark for more information on the threat scenario
14:33:17 <fjh> s/would close this/suggest this be closed unless we have new information
14:33:22 <fjh> zakim, mute me
14:33:22 <Zakim> fjh should now be muted
14:33:33 <ArtB> ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about the real threat scenario re Issue #83
14:33:44 <ArtB> Topic: Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail from Thomas:
14:34:04 <ArtB> AB: Thomas submitted some comments against Req #37 and I don't believe we have yet responded
14:34:10 <ArtB> ... <http://www.w3.org/mid/9DD110C1-D860-40C9-B688-2E08F4D86D20@w3.org>
14:34:17 <ArtB> AB: perhaps we should take the discussion to public-webapps and drop it from today's agenda. OK?
14:34:46 <ArtB> AB: any comments?
14:34:59 <ArtB> Topic: Open Actions 
14:35:09 <ArtB> AB: last week we created about 20 Actions and about 15 are still open.
14:35:24 <ArtB> ... To continue to make good progress on our specs we need to address these actions ASAP
14:35:33 <ArtB> ... Please review the actions and address any assigned to you.
14:35:40 <ArtB> ... Also do indeed feel free to submit inputs to address others' actions
14:35:46 <ArtB> ... Widget Actions are: <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8>
14:36:44 <ArtB> ... Let me know if you want agenda time for any of these Actions
14:37:08 <ArtB> Topic: June f2f meeting
14:37:15 <ArtB> AB: re location, we now have three proposals: Oslo/Opera, Edinburgh/OMTP and London/Vodafone. That's certainly sufficient to close the call for hosts.
14:37:27 <ArtB> AB: re the dates, June 2-4 are preferable.
14:37:40 <ArtB> AB: it will of course be impossible to satisfy everyone's #1 priority
14:37:59 <ArtB> DR: June 2-4 conflicts with OMTP meeting
14:38:25 <ArtB> AB: we should also be as Green as we can as well as to try to minimize travel costs and simplify logistics for everyone, including those attending from other continents
14:38:40 <fjh> that first week of june is not good for me
14:38:59 <ArtB> AB: are there any other conflicts with June 2-4?
14:39:10 <fjh> zakim, unmute me
14:39:10 <Zakim> fjh should no longer be muted
14:39:28 <ArtB> AB: are there any conflicts with June 9-11?
14:39:30 <fjh> zakim, mute me
14:39:30 <Zakim> fjh should now be muted
14:39:32 <abraun> there are always places in North America. I can think of one place with lots of hotels ;)
14:39:41 <ArtB> DR: not from OMTP's side
14:39:52 <ArtB> MC: that's OK with Opera
14:39:59 <ArtB> AB: anyone else
14:40:10 <ArtB> AB: it looks like June 9-11 then is best
14:40:29 <ArtB> AB: any comments about the location?
14:40:30 <timeless> abraun: there's already SJ later in the year
14:40:36 <timeless> so i think the us is out for this meeting
14:40:54 <ArtB> DR: We are happy to cede with Dan's offer to host in London
14:41:16 <ArtB> ... I think London is probably the most cost effective
14:41:32 <ArtB> JS: housing in London can be very expensive
14:41:44 <ArtB> ... I assume Edinburgh would be cheaper
14:41:55 <ArtB> ... I expect to pay for this trip out of my own pocket
14:42:13 <fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
14:42:36 <ArtB> Arve: lodging in London is not cheaper than Oslo
14:43:10 <ArtB> DR: London is an inexpensive hub to get to
14:43:25 <ArtB> ... i think airfare costs will dominate the overall cost of travel
14:43:34 <ArtB> MC: we can live with London
14:43:41 <ArtB> ... but want to host the next meeting
14:44:47 <ArtB> AB: any other comments?
14:44:57 <ArtB> JS: I need to check another calendar
14:45:08 <ArtB> AB: I will make a decision in a week or so
14:45:28 <ArtB> AB: the leading candidate is London June 9-11
14:45:38 <ArtB> JS: I just checked, no conflicts that week
14:45:46 <ArtB> Topic: TPAC meeting in November
14:45:55 <ArtB> AB: Charles asked everyone to submit comments about the W3C's proposed TPAC meeting in November
14:46:01 <ArtB> ... see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2009JanMar/0044.html>
14:46:06 <ArtB> ... I think the general consensus is: a) it's too early to make a firm commitment; b) we support the idea of an all-WG meeting; c) if there are sufficient topics to discuss then we should meet that week.
14:46:19 <w3c_> w3c_ has joined #wam
14:46:35 <ArtB> ... Does that seem like a fair characterization? Does anyone have any other comments?
14:46:58 <w3c_> w3c_ has joined #wam
14:47:02 <Marcos> ?
14:47:06 <arve> did everyone, or just us get dropped from the call?
14:47:18 <timeless> just you
14:47:18 <arve> our call appears to be up, but we can't hear
14:47:22 <ArtB> AB: Charles and I need to report to the Team by the end of next week
14:47:37 <fjh> zakim, unmute me
14:47:37 <Zakim> fjh should no longer be muted
14:47:42 <fjh> q+
14:47:47 <ArtB> AB: again that November TPAC meetingn is in Silicon Valley
14:47:52 <Zakim> -Arve/Marcos
14:48:17 <ArtB> JS: if Moz has a meeting I can piggy-back then that would increase my probability of attending
14:48:19 <Zakim> +Arve/Marcos
14:48:34 <ArtB> FH: we are tentatively meeting that week Wend to Friday
14:49:13 <ArtB> AB: I think the most we can report to the Team is "Yes, we tenatively have agreement to meet during TPAC"
14:49:35 <ArtB> Topic: Window Modes
14:49:49 <Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html
14:50:21 <ArtB> AB: this is Excellent Marcos!
14:50:28 <fjh> s/we are tentatively meeting that week Wend to Friday/XML Security is tentatively planning to meet at TPAC on Thursday Friday, so to avoid overlap can Widgets meet Mon and Tue
14:50:36 <ArtB> MC: give the credit to Arve :)
14:51:03 <ArtB> AB: so this captures last week's strawman?
14:51:12 <ArtB> MC: yes
14:51:22 <ArtB> Arve: it also includes some interfaces
14:51:39 <ArtB> MC: the APIs will be moved to the A&E spec
14:51:52 <ArtB> ... it will only contain the defn of the modes and the Media Queries
14:51:58 <ArtB> Present+ Benoit
14:52:03 <ArtB> BS: this is a good start
14:52:18 <ArtB> AB: anything else on this topic Marcos?
14:52:46 <ArtB> MC: we will work on this over the next few weeks and get it ready for a FPWD
14:52:59 <ArtB> AB: so a FPWD in the beginning of April?
14:53:03 <ArtB> MC: yes, that would be ideal
14:53:04 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #wam
14:53:36 <ArtB> Topic: Editorial Tasks 
14:54:10 <ArtB> DR: I asked OMTP members if they can contribute
14:54:18 <ArtB> ... we have an offer from Bryan and ATT
14:54:27 <ArtB> ... they want to know specifics
14:54:54 <ArtB> AB: that's a good idea
14:55:07 <ArtB> ... I want to first talk to the editors
14:55:25 <ArtB> DR: OK. I will also see if I can get more support
14:55:47 <ArtB> AB: any other comments on this topic?
14:56:07 <ArtB> Topic: Anything Else
14:56:28 <ArtB> DR: I just responded to Art's BONDI Release Candidate e-mail
14:56:42 <ArtB> ... we have extended the comment period to March 23
14:56:51 <ArtB> ... the comments should all be public
14:57:32 <ArtB> JS: I tried to submit feedback and I ran into problems with OMTP's web site
14:57:48 <ArtB> ... it would be really good if the comments could be sent to a mail list
14:57:59 <ArtB> DR: if you send me the comments that would be good
14:58:05 <ArtB> JS: OK; will do but not this week
14:58:54 <ArtB> AB: is the URI of the public comment archive available?
14:59:05 <ArtB> DR: yes Nick sent it to public-webapps
14:59:26 <ArtB> DR: depending on the comments we will determine our next step
14:59:36 <ArtB> ... the next OMTP meeting is the following week
14:59:44 <ArtB> AB: thanks for the update David
14:59:49 <ArtB> AB: anythign else?
14:59:55 <ArtB> AB: Meeting Adjourned
15:00:00 <Zakim> -David
15:00:01 <Zakim> -fjh
15:00:02 <Zakim> - +45.29.aabb
15:00:03 <Zakim> -Jere
15:00:03 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
15:00:07 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:00:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html ArtB
15:00:08 <Zakim> -Arve/Marcos
15:00:58 <JereK> JereK has left #wam
15:02:34 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
15:02:36 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
15:02:37 <Zakim> Attendees were Art_Barstow, fjh, Josh_Soref, Jere, +47.23.69.aaaa, David, Arve/Marcos, +45.29.aabb
15:03:10 <ArtB> RRSAgent, bye
15:03:10 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-actions.rdf :
15:03:10 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about the real threat scenario re Issue #83 [1]
15:03:10 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-irc#T14-33-33