IRC log of wam on 2009-03-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:50:04 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wam
12:50:04 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-irc
12:50:06 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
12:50:06 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #wam
12:50:07 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be WAPP
12:50:08 [Zakim]: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
12:50:08 [trackbot]: Meeting: Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
12:50:09 [trackbot]: Date: 12 March 2009
12:50:23 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, code?
12:50:23 [Zakim]: sorry, MikeSmith, I don't know what conference this is
12:50:30 [MikeSmith]: wonderful
12:50:56 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, list
12:50:56 [Zakim]: I see Team_Global(review)8:00AM, IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM active
12:50:57 [Zakim]: also scheduled at this time are WS_WSRA(F2F)9:00AM, W3C_(W3F_TF)8:00AM, T&S_EGOV(F2F2)9:00AM, UW_UWA()9:00AM
12:51:25 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, this will be IA_WebApps
12:51:25 [Zakim]: ok, MikeSmith, I see IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM already started
12:51:42 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, code?
12:51:42 [Zakim]: the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MikeSmith
12:51:52 [Zakim]: +??P15
12:51:54 [Zakim]: -Josh_Soref
12:51:55 [Zakim]: +Josh_Soref
12:52:10 [MikeSmith]: timeless: you got another 10 minute before we start, chief
12:52:11 [fjh]: zakim, ?P15 is fjh
12:52:11 [Zakim]: sorry, fjh, I do not recognize a party named '?P15'
12:52:12 [JereK]: JereK has joined #wam
12:52:21 [timeless]: yeah, but otherwise i'll miss it
12:52:27 [fjh]: zakim, ??P15 is fjh
12:52:27 [Zakim]: +fjh; got it
12:52:32 [fjh]: zakim, mute me
12:52:32 [Zakim]: fjh should now be muted
12:52:53 [MikeSmith]: . whois fjh
12:52:58 [MikeSmith]: Frederick?
12:53:16 [timeless]: gah, cgi:irc sucks:)
12:53:49 [MikeSmith]: timeless: it's just a proof of concept.. be glad that it exists at all
12:54:10 [MoZ]: MoZ has joined #wam
12:54:32 [timeless]: mikesmith: is this actually being logged?
12:54:33 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, who's on the phone?
12:54:33 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Josh_Soref, fjh (muted)
12:54:38 [timeless]: if so, could you trim it? :)
12:54:44 [MikeSmith]: timeless: this channel not logged
12:54:51 [JereK]: Hi Marcos, do we still have sthg to do re #299? (the ISO 8859-1 encoding?)
12:55:04 [MikeSmith]: ah, logged by RRSAgent
12:55:08 [MikeSmith]: yeah, I can trim it
12:55:31 [Marcos]: JereK: depends what you mean?
12:56:02 [JereK]: Max q'd the decision to use Latin-1, but didn't the I18N WG advise to do so?
12:57:13 [Marcos]: JereK: yes, I have followed what i18n said to do
12:57:17 [Marcos]: timeless: agreed
12:57:32 [Marcos]: timeless: P&C spec is all case sensitive now
12:57:37 [JereK]: Would've used UTF-8, but need to research why that was so...
12:57:42 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, bye
12:57:42 [RRSAgent]: I see no action items
12:59:57 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wam
12:59:57 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-irc
13:00:00 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, who's on the call?
13:00:01 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Josh_Soref, fjh, Mike, JereK, Art_Barstow
13:00:25 [Zakim]: + +44.771.751.aabb
13:00:36 [fjh]: zakim, who is making noise?
13:00:38 [ArtB]: ScribeNick: ArtB
13:00:42 [ArtB]: Scribe: Art
13:00:45 [ArtB]: Chair: Art
13:00:47 [Zakim]: fjh, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: JereK (18%), Art_Barstow (11%), +44.771.751.aabb (18%)
13:00:53 [ArtB]: Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:00:57 [ArtB]: Date: 12 March 2009
13:01:09 [ArtB]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0695.html
13:01:13 [ArtB]: Regrets: Thomas
13:01:41 [ArtB]: Present: Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Mike
13:01:42 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, who's on the phone?
13:01:42 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Josh_Soref, fjh, Mike, JereK, Art_Barstow, +44.771.751.aabb
13:01:51 [ArtB]: Present+ Mark
13:02:03 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, +44 is Mark
13:02:03 [Zakim]: +Mark; got it
13:02:36 [Zakim]: +Bryan_Sullivan
13:02:48 [Marcos]: Marcos has joined #wam
13:02:48 [Bryan]: Bryan has joined #wam
13:02:50 [ArtB]: Present+ Bryan
13:03:18 [arve]: arve has joined #wam
13:03:42 [ArtB]: Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:03:48 [ArtB]: AB: agenda posted on March 10: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0695.html
13:03:58 [ArtB]: AB: any change requests?
13:04:02 [Marcos]: zakim, passcode
13:04:02 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'passcode', Marcos
13:04:04 [ArtB]: AB: what about Marcos' "Screenshots and case sensitive file names" thread
13:04:10 [MikeSmith]: zakim, code?
13:04:10 [fjh]: zakim, unmute me
13:04:10 [Zakim]: the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MikeSmith
13:04:12 [Zakim]: fjh was not muted, fjh
13:04:18 [ArtB]: ... http://www.w3.org/mid/b21a10670903110711g321e8b7asfdff4f9bd46b1c09@mail.gmail.com
13:04:21 [Zakim]: + +47.23.69.aacc
13:04:30 [arve]: Zakim, aacc is Marcos/Arve
13:04:32 [ArtB]: FH: want to talk about a few other things re DigSig
13:04:33 [Zakim]: +Marcos/Arve; got it
13:04:35 [ArtB]: AB: OK
13:04:53 [ArtB]: Present+ Arve
13:04:58 [ArtB]: Present+ Marcos
13:05:03 [tlr]: tlr has joined #wam
13:05:06 [ArtB]: Topic: Announcements
13:05:12 [ArtB]: AB: the only one I have is the next Widgets f2f meeting is June 9-11 in London; host is Vodafone
13:05:24 [ArtB]: ... I will announce this meeting
13:05:35 [ArtB]: AB: any other short annoucements?
13:05:45 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:05:49 [ArtB]: Topic: DigSig spec
13:05:59 [ArtB]: AB: two items related to DigSig spec
13:06:06 [ArtB]: ... ED is <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/>
13:06:12 [ArtB]: AB: first, any comments on "Identifier and Created Signature property" proposal by FH?
13:06:23 [ArtB]: ... <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0693.html>
13:06:46 [ArtB]: FH: this is a response to Thomas' suggestion
13:06:57 [ArtB]: ... it was a good suggestion
13:07:21 [ArtB]: ... the time is wall clock; don't want to get too fine-grained
13:07:30 [ArtB]: ... but works at a rough level
13:07:39 [ArtB]: ... the identifier is per signer
13:07:49 [ArtB]: ... if people have suggestions, please let me know
13:07:58 [ArtB]: ... want to know if this OK to put in the ED or not
13:08:19 [ArtB]: MP: generally I think it is good
13:08:32 [ArtB]: ... some concernn about Created property
13:08:51 [ArtB]: ... I raised my concerns earlier
13:08:58 [ArtB]: ... I will respond to the list
13:09:24 [ArtB]: ... it's OK to have the timestamp there
13:09:37 [ArtB]: ... but validation should not be based on the timestamp
13:09:59 [ArtB]: ... because on mobile devices the date may not be correct e.g. if the user did not set the date and clock
13:10:27 [ArtB]: FH: so timestamp can't be used in verifcation?
13:10:29 [Bryan]: q+
13:10:35 [ArtB]: MP: yes, that's right
13:10:57 [ArtB]: ... think MUST is to strong for this property and prefer SHOULD
13:11:06 [ArtB]: s/to strong/too strong/
13:11:21 [ArtB]: ... the rest of the text looks good
13:11:42 [ArtB]: Bryan: on devices today I don't think the time is problem because can get network time
13:12:00 [fjh]: zakim, mute me
13:12:00 [Zakim]: fjh should now be muted
13:12:06 [ArtB]: MP: we see this as an issue at VF
13:12:16 [ArtB]: Bryan: are these legacy devices?
13:12:51 [ArtB]: Arve: inaccurate time is still a problem on some devices especiall in java environment
13:13:10 [ArtB]: ... date on devices isn't relevant to lots of people
13:13:24 [fjh]: zakim, unmute me
13:13:24 [Zakim]: fjh should no longer be muted
13:13:30 [ArtB]: Bryan: we haven't seen this be a problem for several issues
13:13:56 [ArtB]: MP: don't want to confuse Created property with sig expiring
13:15:06 [ArtB]: FH: I'm OK with changing this to SHOULD
13:15:31 [ArtB]: ... can we accept my proposal with a SHOULD?
13:15:39 [ArtB]: MC: I'm OK with that
13:15:51 [ArtB]: FH: OK; I'll put the changes in
13:16:09 [ArtB]: FH: I have added some processing from P&C
13:16:31 [ArtB]: ... need the file casing to match P&
13:16:41 [ArtB]: ... I will need to add casing support
13:16:45 [mpriestl]: q+
13:16:57 [tlr]: Regrets+ tlr
13:17:14 [ArtB]: FH: need clarification on ID use
13:17:40 [ArtB]: AB: I think it makes sense to send it to the list first
13:17:44 [ArtB]: FH: OK; will do
13:18:44 [ArtB]: AB: have we then discused <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0684.html> ?
13:18:51 [ArtB]: FH: yes we have
13:18:58 [ArtB]: ... Josh and MC are OK with that
13:19:31 [ArtB]: MP: can't have just signature.xml i.e. no number
13:19:35 [ArtB]: FH: yes, that's OK
13:19:41 [ArtB]: MP: then must update the example
13:19:45 [ArtB]: FH: ok; will do
13:20:03 [ArtB]: AB: plan moving fwd is what FH?
13:20:12 [mpriestl]: q-
13:20:22 [ArtB]: FH: I'll make the changes we agreedd and share the new draft before next meeting
13:21:04 [mpriestl]: I have some editorial comments that I'll send to list before the end of the week
13:21:30 [ArtB]: FH: are you comment substantial Mark?
13:21:46 [ArtB]: MP: they are nearly all Editorial and consistency
13:21:58 [ArtB]: ... there may be some susbstanative comments
13:22:19 [ArtB]: FH: depending on the nature of MP's comments, we may not be ready by Mar 19 to make a decision to publish
13:22:23 [ArtB]: AB: understood
13:22:23 [fjh]: zakim, mute me
13:22:23 [Zakim]: fjh should now be muted
13:22:29 [ArtB]: Topic: Patent Disclosure for the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
13:22:40 [ArtB]: AB: as you know, Apple disclosed a patent patent for the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
13:22:47 [ArtB]: ... The information I received indicates Apple is not willing to license that patent on a Royalty-Free basis.
13:22:56 [ArtB]: ... <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0654.html>
13:23:06 [ArtB]: ... This raises some process-related issues for the WG; I think this is the first time WebApps has had to deal with a disclosure issue.
13:23:33 [ArtB]: ... I would like Doug or Mike to provide a short status and then want to provide an opportunity for people to ask questions.
13:23:38 [ArtB]: ... Mike, Doug, status please ...
13:23:40 [fjh]: next steps for Widgets Signature - integrate properties proposal into draft, changing MUST to SHOULD. Change file naming to be case sensitive. Fix example for naming, other editorial fixes.
13:24:01 [fjh]: Put proposal on list re ID and reference URIs, then upon comment, integrate into document.
13:24:01 [ArtB]: AB: reminder that these minutes are Public
13:24:06 [MikeSmith]: zakim, call shepazu
13:24:06 [Zakim]: ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
13:24:08 [Zakim]: +Shepazu
13:24:12 [MikeSmith]: shepazu: ping
13:24:45 [ArtB]: MS: I will not talk about anything that is not Public
13:25:01 [ArtB]: AB: we are not going to discuss the details of Apple's patent
13:25:49 [ArtB]: MS: W3C has a clear process to follow when disclosures like this are made
13:26:10 [ArtB]: ... Patent Policy w3c patent policy
13:26:18 [ArtB]: ... we will start a Patent Advisory Group
13:26:25 [ArtB]: ... we will meet weekly
13:26:29 [ArtB]: ... with a new mail list
13:26:39 [ArtB]: ... we will try to resolve the issue ASAP
13:26:49 [ArtB]: ... but there is some overhead to start the PAG
13:26:58 [ArtB]: ... and that process is started
13:27:06 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-formation
13:27:13 [ArtB]: Present+ Doug
13:27:29 [ArtB]: DS: we hope to avoid distracting from other work
13:27:57 [ArtB]: ... we also hope to avoid delaying the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
13:28:11 [ArtB]: ... the outcome of the PAG may effect the Updates spec
13:28:43 [ArtB]: ... It is certainly theoretically possible for Apple to change its position and offer RF licensing terms for this patent
13:28:57 [ArtB]: ... there could also be some prior art that affects the outcome
13:29:36 [ArtB]: ... Historically, some PAG outcomes have been effected by prior art
13:29:39 [fjh]: uhh, marcos, p + l says "All reserved file names must be treated as case insensitive" in 6.3?
13:30:07 [ArtB]: ... One thing that is problematic is the reluctance of PAG members to actually read the patent
13:30:09 [Marcos]: fjh: will fix
13:30:21 [ArtB]: ... We will try for the best outcome possible
13:30:31 [MikeSmith]: q+ to say that PAG lifespan is expected to be about 3 months
13:30:34 [Bryan]: q+
13:30:43 [ArtB]: AB: I don't have anything else to add re the process
13:30:54 [ArtB]: AB: any questions?
13:31:48 [ArtB]: Bryan: what's the issue with reading the patent?
13:32:08 [ArtB]: DS: there is no issue from the W3C's perspective
13:32:25 [ArtB]: ... anyone should feel free to read the patent
13:32:38 [ArtB]: ... your company may not want you to read it?
13:32:42 [ArtB]: Bryan: why not?
13:33:07 [ArtB]: DS: if one intentionally infringes a patent there can be even more damages assessed
13:33:17 [ArtB]: ... I'm talking about triple damages
13:34:02 [Marcos]: fjh: fixed... but not checked in
13:34:24 [ArtB]: Bryan: what is the problem with talking about some details?
13:35:34 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-composition
13:35:53 [MikeSmith]: [[
13:36:11 [MikeSmith]: The PAG is composed of:
13:36:12 [MikeSmith]: Advisory Committee Representatives of each W3C Member organization participating in the Working Group (or alternate designated by the AC Rep)
13:36:12 [MikeSmith]: ]]
13:36:17 [MikeSmith]: (plus others)
13:36:35 [MikeSmith]: [[
13:36:38 [MikeSmith]: W3C Member participants in the PAG should be authorized to represent their organization's views on patent licensing issues. Any participant in the PAG may also be represented by legal counsel, though this is not required. Invited experts are not entitled to participate in the PAG, though the PAG may chose to invite any qualified experts who would be able to assist the PAG in its determinations.
13:36:40 [MikeSmith]: ]]
13:39:10 [ArtB]: [ Art discusses some of the potential outcomes as defined in the W3C Patent Policy ]
13:39:46 [ArtB]: DS: Apple could identify those part of the spec covered by their claims
13:40:04 [MikeSmith]: q?
13:40:09 [MikeSmith]: ack Bryan
13:41:07 [ArtB]: AB: I want to close this discussion soon
13:41:14 [ArtB]: AB: any other questions?
13:41:19 [ArtB]: Topic: A&E spec: Arve's proposed change to the A&E spec regarding preferences:
13:41:34 [ArtB]: AB: Arve proposed a change to the A&E spec regarding the preferences attribute
13:41:34 [Zakim]: -Shepazu
13:41:42 [ArtB]: ... see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0635.html>
13:41:49 [ArtB]: ... Are there any comments on this proposal?
13:42:03 [ArtB]: AB: It appears we can move directly to a resolution that Arve's proposal is accepted
13:42:08 [MikeSmith]: q-
13:42:37 [arve]: ACTION-233 and ACTION-313
13:42:46 [ArtB]: Arve: that would mean the two related actions can be closed 233 and 313
13:43:04 [ArtB]: AB: any objections to this proposal?
13:43:08 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:43:19 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: Arve's March 5 preferences proposal is accepted
13:43:26 [ArtB]: Topic: P&C spec - MaxF's comments
13:43:33 [ArtB]: AB: MaxF submitted a bunch of comments on the P&C spec <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0676.html>. It appears they are all good comments and Marcos has already addressed them in the latest ED. Is that correct Marcos? Is there anything we need to discuss today re Max's comments?
13:43:50 [ArtB]: MC: we're good; no need to discuss
13:44:09 [ArtB]: Topic: P&X spec - Mandatory config file:
13:44:15 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos made a proposal the config file be Manadatory via <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0679.html>
13:44:26 [ArtB]: ... There appears to be some confusion about whether this is being done solely for security reasons. What is the status of this Marcos?
13:44:51 [ArtB]: s/P&X spec/P&C spec/
13:45:50 [ArtB]: MC: issue is about identifying a package if it's missing its mime type
13:47:22 [ArtB]: Arve: the file extension isn't a good way to determine content types
13:47:48 [ArtB]: AB: does Ranier object to the proposal?
13:48:02 [ArtB]: MC: need to determine if it is mandatory or not
13:48:19 [ArtB]: AB: should the config.xml file be mandatory?
13:48:24 [Bryan]: q+
13:48:37 [Bryan]: q-
13:48:39 [Bryan]: +1
13:48:41 [ArtB]: MC: yes
13:49:04 [ArtB]: Bryan: yes
13:49:06 [mpriestl]: Vodafone is still assessing the proposal
13:49:17 [ArtB]: JK: this is a good thing to have
13:49:43 [ArtB]: ... similar to l10n issues in that it uses a fallback
13:50:04 [mpriestl]: sure
13:50:25 [ArtB]: Topic: Opportunities and ToDos; seeking volunteers:
13:50:32 [ArtB]: AB: in response to Bryan's email regarding helping with Editorial tasks, I enumerated some open opportunities and "todos" via <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0694.html>
13:50:46 [ArtB]: AB: is anyone willing to take the lead on any of these items?
13:51:17 [ArtB]: Bryan: I will provide some input on the list
13:51:49 [ArtB]: AB: the Opera guys are already doing so much work
13:52:03 [ArtB]: JK: where are we on the URI scheme?
13:52:19 [ArtB]: ... for example is tag: still in consideration?
13:52:29 [ArtB]: MC: I think we need to mint our own scheme
13:52:42 [ArtB]: ... I think we need to make a decision and make it soon
13:52:50 [ArtB]: ... was hoping for some input from Josh
13:53:05 [ArtB]: Josh: I can't provide input today
13:53:39 [ArtB]: AB: we really need someon to step up and take the lead
13:53:54 [ArtB]: JK: is this about more evaluation or about writing a new spec?
13:54:56 [ArtB]: AB: my take is we have done our evaluation; we don't believe any existing scheme covers all of our constraints and use case and that we need a new scheme
13:55:05 [ArtB]: Bryan: does this mean a new IETF spec?
13:55:53 [ArtB]: AB: good question; I think it is within IETF's domain to define new scheme
13:56:52 [ArtB]: Bryan: if we agree a new scheme is needed and I think there is, does that mean someone must create an IETF draft and follow through?
13:57:14 [ArtB]: AB: I don't have definite answer
13:57:26 [ArtB]: ... need input from Mike or Doug
13:57:36 [ArtB]: MS: yes, IETF is the prefered process
13:57:59 [ArtB]: ... we may be able to define the scheme ourselves
13:58:32 [ArtB]: ... The process of registering the scheme isn't that bad
13:58:47 [ArtB]: Bryan: do you have an example of that being done before in the W3C?
13:58:56 [ArtB]: MS: no, I don't have an example
13:59:39 [ArtB]: ACTION: Barstow work with Mike to determine if the widget URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF proces must be used
13:59:39 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-324 - Work with Mike to determine if the widget URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF proces must be used [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-03-19].
14:00:14 [ArtB]: Bryan: I think we should be share some work with OMTP re widget testing
14:00:34 [ArtB]: ... also think security is an area where can work with OMTP
14:00:47 [ArtB]: s/be share/be able to share/
14:01:38 [ArtB]: AB: are there any other high priority items that are not included in this list and not recorded elsewhere (e.g. in the Issues and Actions db)?
14:02:12 [ArtB]: [ None ]
14:02:30 [ArtB]: AB: Meeting Adjourned
14:02:38 [Zakim]: -Mark
14:02:39 [Zakim]: -Marcos/Arve
14:02:39 [Zakim]: -Art_Barstow
14:02:39 [Zakim]: -fjh
14:02:41 [Zakim]: -Josh_Soref
14:02:43 [Zakim]: -Bryan_Sullivan
14:02:45 [Zakim]: -JereK
14:02:49 [Zakim]: -Mike
14:02:51 [Zakim]: IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:02:53 [Zakim]: Attendees were Josh_Soref, fjh, Mike, JereK, Art_Barstow, +44.771.751.aabb, Mark, Bryan_Sullivan, +47.23.69.aacc, Marcos/Arve, Shepazu
14:03:04 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:03:04 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:06:44 [JereK]: JereK has left #wam
14:07:20 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:07:20 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:07:57 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make log public
14:08:13 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:08:13 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:08:57 [ArtB]: Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
14:09:08 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:09:08 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:15:41 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, bye
14:15:41 [RRSAgent]: I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-actions.rdf :
14:15:41 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Barstow work with Mike to determine if the widget URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF proces must be used [1]
14:15:41 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-irc#T13-59-39