IRC log of wam on 2009-05-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:02:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:02:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/07-wam-irc
13:02:06 [darobin]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
13:02:06 [Zakim]
+darobin; got it
13:02:08 [Zakim]
- +358.503.85aaaa
13:02:30 [Zakim]
+ +358.503.85aabb
13:02:32 [ArtB]
ArtB has joined #wam
13:02:40 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
13:02:44 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
13:02:46 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
13:02:51 [ArtB]
Regrets: Josh, David
13:02:58 [ArtB]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0499.html
13:03:05 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:03:11 [ArtB]
Date: 7 May 2009
13:03:30 [ArtB]
trackbot, associate this channel with #webapps
13:03:30 [trackbot]
Associating this channel with #webapps...
13:03:32 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
13:03:32 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
13:03:33 [Zakim]
+Thomas
13:03:37 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
13:03:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.536.aacc
13:03:43 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
13:03:43 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
13:03:44 [JereK]
zakim, +358.503.85aabb is JereK
13:03:44 [Zakim]
+JereK; got it
13:03:45 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
13:03:45 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
13:04:20 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike
13:04:20 [Zakim]
ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
13:04:22 [Zakim]
+Mike
13:04:30 [Zakim]
+??P5
13:04:34 [ArtB]
Present: Art, Jere, Thomas, Andy, Mike
13:04:48 [ArtB]
Present+ Marcos
13:04:51 [ArtB]
Present+ Robin
13:04:52 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, Mike is MikeSmith
13:04:52 [Zakim]
+MikeSmith; got it
13:04:58 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute me
13:04:58 [Zakim]
MikeSmith should now be muted
13:05:23 [ArtB]
Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:05:29 [ArtB]
AB: I submitted the Draft Agenda on May 6 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0499.html). One change is discussing Marcos' P&C ToDo List (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0500.html) during the "3.e." agenda item. Any other change requests?
13:05:54 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:05:59 [ArtB]
Topic: Announcements
13:06:13 [ArtB]
AB: earlier today I announced a Call for Editor(s) to help with the P&C spec but we'll get to that later. Any other announcements?
13:06:41 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: Proposal to add "required" attribute to <access>
13:07:04 [ArtB]
AB: last week Bryan proposed (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/att-0444/00-part) adding two new requirements to the <access> element. Their was agreement the "optional" attribute would be deferred until the next version but there was no consensus on the "required" attribute. Given this spec is already in LC, my inclination is move "required" attribute to the v2 list. Comments?
13:07:51 [ArtB]
MC: I agree with defering required attr to v2
13:08:05 [ArtB]
RB: I thought we agreed to add it so I did but I'm also OK with dropping it
13:08:50 [ArtB]
AB: what would be the burden of the UA if it was included?
13:09:02 [ArtB]
MC: the UA wouldn't necessarily do anything with it
13:09:11 [ArtB]
... the URI may not be available
13:09:33 [ArtB]
AB: I propose the "required" attribute be moved to the v2 feature list
13:09:37 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
13:09:43 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:09:52 [Zakim]
+ +47.23.69.aadd
13:10:08 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: the "required" attribute will be moved to the v2 feature list
13:10:20 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow add the required attribute to the v2 feature list
13:10:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-340 - Add the required attribute to the v2 feature list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-05-14].
13:10:25 [ArtB]
Present+ Arve
13:10:38 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: <access> element comments by Thomas
13:10:49 [ArtB]
AB: last week Thomas submitted several comments regarding the access element (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0470.html). Earlier today Robin replied to Thomas (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0504.html). Let's start with Robin ...
13:11:19 [ArtB]
RB: TLR made 5 points
13:11:31 [arve_]
arve_ has joined #wam
13:11:36 [ArtB]
... #1 asks for clarification and I've done that in the draft
13:12:04 [ArtB]
... #2: I kept the name and added a subdomain attr
13:12:15 [tlr]
q+
13:12:19 [arve_]
zakim, who is here?
13:12:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see darobin, Art_Barstow, JereK, Thomas (muted), +1.919.536.aacc, MikeSmith (muted), ??P5, +47.23.69.aadd
13:12:20 [abraun]
abraun has joined #wam
13:12:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see arve_, ArtB, RRSAgent, Marcos__, Zakim, JereK, MikeSmith, tlr, ArtB_, heycam`, darobin, heycam, trackbot
13:12:38 [ArtB]
... #3: I'm not exactly sure what TLR is needed
13:12:54 [ArtB]
... #4 is defined in the spec
13:13:06 [ArtB]
... #5: I explained the wildcard use
13:13:16 [tlr]
ack t
13:13:48 [ArtB]
TR: I will elaborate in another email
13:14:12 [ArtB]
... there are some details we need to think about
13:14:48 [ArtB]
... To what extent it is likely someone will want to link to an inline image/iframe
13:15:29 [ArtB]
... Want a widget to do same things a web page can do but nothing more
13:16:09 [ArtB]
... Permiting XHR leads to a larger risk surface
13:17:46 [ArtB]
... If there is a significant piece of widgetry that uses inline content e.g. images, scripts, etc. and do not use XHR then it might be worthwhile to separate XHR from the inline requests in the access element
13:18:21 [ArtB]
... Do people have insight if that distinticint exists with authors todayh
13:18:37 [ArtB]
RB: in terms of separateing the two, default is inline use
13:19:15 [ArtB]
... need to think security complexities of different contexts
13:20:30 [ArtB]
s/think security/think about security/
13:20:44 [tlr]
tlr: if you have an access tag, then you're mixing content already. That means you need to think about the mix of security context anyway. Note that this is most important in the case of frames.
13:21:21 [ArtB]
MC: I don't have any firm ideas on this at this point
13:22:10 [ArtB]
TR: are we trying to close down things a web browser has anyway
13:22:22 [ArtB]
... or are we saying we want another surface
13:22:45 [ArtB]
MC: we want a separate sec model for widgets
13:23:06 [ArtB]
... not sure about the implications of using the browser's sec model
13:23:19 [ArtB]
TR: not sure we want to define a diff sec model
13:23:40 [ArtB]
... what do you want to protect; what is the cost of deviating from the browser model
13:23:41 [darobin]
q+
13:23:52 [darobin]
q+ to talk about mixing conversations
13:23:53 [ArtB]
... don't want to go that route without compelling reasons
13:24:17 [ArtB]
MC: since we don't have an origin ala web origin, we need to define our own model
13:24:30 [darobin]
s/ala/à la/
13:25:11 [ArtB]
TR: could say the signature protects everything
13:25:50 [ArtB]
... can think about access element as it defines the exceptions to the browser sec model
13:25:55 [ArtB]
MC: I think that makes sense
13:26:06 [ArtB]
TR: we need more input, especially from security experts
13:26:29 [ArtB]
MC: this would be better for authors too e.g. developers creating iphone apps, etc.
13:27:08 [darobin]
ack
13:27:12 [ArtB]
RB: think we may be mixing conversations
13:27:25 [ArtB]
... config doc enables a variety of sec models
13:27:41 [arve_]
q+
13:27:41 [ArtB]
... could say inline is OK and for everything else must go thru access
13:28:04 [ArtB]
... access element defines the metadata for sec model
13:28:18 [ArtB]
TR: I have concerns about that view
13:28:47 [ArtB]
Arve: I have a concerns about the view RB presented
13:29:34 [ArtB]
TR: don't think the access element should defer to a future spec
13:29:43 [ArtB]
MC: I agree
13:30:01 [ArtB]
RB: I think we should separate discusion of access element from security policy
13:30:12 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #wam
13:30:17 [ArtB]
TR: I don't think they are related
13:30:22 [ArtB]
Arve: I agree with TR
13:31:35 [ArtB]
AB: how do we move the P+C spec forward if we need a detailed sec model spec?
13:32:12 [ArtB]
TR: could say origin is ignored and can't access network resources
13:32:54 [ArtB]
... could say a widget is a web page and inherits HTML5 sec model
13:33:10 [ArtB]
... this means could have inline content
13:33:43 [ArtB]
... access element could specify exceptions to the same origin policy
13:34:38 [ArtB]
... there are pros for both of these models
13:35:00 [ArtB]
Arve: so you want it to be an opt in of the sec model?
13:35:02 [ArtB]
TR: yes
13:35:17 [ArtB]
Arve: not sure how that aligns with operator models and handset models
13:35:32 [ArtB]
... not sure the HTML5 model is acceptable to handset vendors
13:36:17 [ArtB]
TR: we are defining a sec model without reqs for it
13:36:33 [ArtB]
MC: we have a synthetic origin
13:36:48 [ArtB]
TR: need an origin a server can handle
13:37:02 [ArtB]
Arve: not sure why a packaging format needs a detailed sec model
13:38:52 [ArtB]
AB: what's next steps here?
13:39:03 [ArtB]
TR: I will respond to Robin's email
13:39:13 [ArtB]
... I will also state where I think we are
13:39:24 [ArtB]
... Want Arve to state his reqs for sec model
13:39:51 [ArtB]
Arve: I can't do that today but it will have to wait a few days
13:40:01 [ArtB]
TR: I will miss next week's call
13:40:13 [ArtB]
AB: please follow-up on the mail list
13:40:35 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: I18N issue: case-sensitivity of locale subdirectories
13:40:44 [ArtB]
AB: on April 29 Robin made a proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0404.html) for addressing case-sensitivity for localize subdirectory names. There appears to be consensus that option "b" is preferred. Any comments?
13:40:47 [tlr]
TR: regrets for 14 and 21 May (argh); happy to do call out of normal schedule
13:41:15 [ArtB]
Present+ Jere
13:41:39 [ArtB]
JK: I sent comments on this today
13:41:55 [ArtB]
... would be good if RB and MC would read those comments
13:42:20 [ArtB]
... will need to do case comparisions anyway
13:42:46 [ArtB]
MC: OK; I'll followup
13:43:23 [ArtB]
... I think the proposal was to use ASCII order
13:43:35 [ArtB]
JK: using ASCII may not be a good idea
13:43:54 [ArtB]
AB: so no consensus yet on that issue
13:43:55 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: status of L10N model agreements
13:44:01 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, what is the status of you integrating the L10N model agreements into the ED?
13:44:52 [ArtB]
MC: I've started to integrate the comments.
13:45:06 [ArtB]
AB: when do you expect to complete that work?
13:45:19 [ArtB]
MC: maybe by mid next week
13:45:38 [ArtB]
... it effects diff parts of the spec
13:45:40 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: proposal to close Issue #80 (Runtime localization model for widgets)
13:45:56 [ArtB]
AB: given the agreements we reached during the April 30 call regarding Marcos' L10N model, I think we can now close Issue #80 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/8) "Runtime localization model for widgts". Comments?
13:46:34 [ArtB]
MC: ok with me
13:46:37 [ArtB]
JK: agree
13:46:41 [ArtB]
AB: any other comments?
13:47:03 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: Issue #80 is now closed given the agreements from the 30 April call
13:47:15 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C ToDo List aka how to get P&C to LCWD#2
13:47:29 [ArtB]
AB: yesterday Marcos submitted a detailed list of open items for the P&C spec (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0500.html). Thanks for creating this list Marcos! I don't want to necessarily do a deep dive for any of these but for each would like to understand a) its priority; and b) who will commit to doing the work.
13:47:50 [ArtB]
AB: I see at least four different priorities that could be assigned: 1) Must be addressed before LCWD #2 is published; 2) can be addressed after LCWD #2 is published but before the CR is published; 3) can be addressed during Candidate; 4) can be moved to the v2 feature list. Let's see if we can get quick agreement on the priorities as well as a firm commitment from someone to complete the work.
13:50:30 [ArtB]
AB: #1 - priority #1
13:50:44 [ArtB]
... and who?
13:50:54 [ArtB]
AB: #1: prio #1 and Marcos
13:51:12 [ArtB]
... anyone can help?
13:51:17 [ArtB]
MC: I'll take it
13:51:42 [ArtB]
JK: I can help; MC, just let me know
13:51:58 [ArtB]
AB: #2:
13:52:12 [ArtB]
... prio #2?
13:52:24 [ArtB]
RB: not sure; it impacts the processing
13:52:43 [ArtB]
... I'm willing to take this
13:53:05 [ArtB]
AB: ok, then #2 is prio #1 and RB will take the lead
13:53:43 [ArtB]
AB: #3 and #4
13:53:52 [ArtB]
MC: I think RB was going to take these
13:55:20 [ArtB]
RB: I can take #3 and #4
13:55:36 [ArtB]
AB: great; anyone else that can help?
13:55:41 [ArtB]
[ No vols ]
13:56:02 [ArtB]
#5: prio #1 ; Robin is taking the lead already
13:56:14 [ArtB]
... everyone contribute to related discussions
13:56:31 [ArtB]
RB: I'm happy to edit which ever way the group resolves
13:56:56 [ArtB]
AB: #6 is part of the L10N model right?
13:56:58 [ArtB]
MC: yes
13:57:04 [ArtB]
... perhaps JK can help
13:57:17 [ArtB]
JK: yes, I can help; is there a tentative defn now?
13:57:25 [ArtB]
MC: yes, a 1-line defn
13:57:29 [ArtB]
... needs to be expanded
13:58:06 [ArtB]
#7: prio #3; can be done during CR phase; Art already agreed to do this
13:58:29 [ArtB]
AB: #8: comments?
13:58:50 [Zakim]
-MikeSmith
13:58:52 [ArtB]
AB: there has been some offlist discussion to remove these two attrs
13:59:04 [ArtB]
MC: we are unsure now
13:59:09 [ArtB]
... they are optional
13:59:21 [ArtB]
... they need to be clearly defined in the Window Modes spec
13:59:29 [ArtB]
... they make no sense e.g. in full screen mode
13:59:41 [ArtB]
... but text needs to be tightened up
13:59:58 [ArtB]
AB: so prio #1 for w/h?
14:00:01 [ArtB]
MC: yes
14:00:15 [ArtB]
AB: #9: window modes
14:00:26 [ArtB]
... is this critical for LCWD #2?
14:00:54 [ArtB]
MC: yes; the change isn't big; I will take this
14:01:16 [ArtB]
AB: #10; this is also related to the L10N model, right?
14:01:30 [ArtB]
MC: given last week's agreement, we don't need xml:base
14:01:49 [ArtB]
... not clear if we need it or not
14:01:54 [ArtB]
AB: is it in there now?
14:01:57 [ArtB]
MC: yes
14:02:17 [ArtB]
RB: what's in there now is wrong and should be dropped
14:02:20 [ArtB]
JK: agree
14:02:39 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: Marcos will remove all refs to xml:base from P+C spec
14:03:05 [ArtB]
AB: #11; not sure on the prio of this
14:03:32 [ArtB]
... not clear this is critical for v1
14:03:46 [ArtB]
MC: it is already specified
14:03:50 [billyjackass]
billyjackass has joined #wam
14:03:52 [ArtB]
... and we have a use case
14:04:03 [billyjackass]
Zakim, call Mike
14:04:04 [Zakim]
ok, billyjackass; the call is being made
14:04:05 [Zakim]
+Mike
14:04:27 [ArtB]
MC: Anne said we don't need it
14:04:34 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, Mike is MikeSmith
14:04:34 [Zakim]
+MikeSmith; got it
14:04:40 [ArtB]
AB: so I propose we leave it in
14:04:46 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to that?
14:04:53 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute me
14:04:53 [Zakim]
MikeSmith should now be muted
14:05:05 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: we will keep the content element attributes related to encoding and type
14:05:24 [ArtB]
AB: #12 - param parsing model
14:05:36 [ArtB]
MC: this is high prio and simple cut-and-paste
14:05:58 [ArtB]
AB: can you do that MC or do you need help?
14:06:01 [ArtB]
MC: I can take it
14:06:14 [Zakim]
-MikeSmith
14:06:28 [ArtB]
AB: #13, #14, and #15 are steps 2, 3, and 5
14:06:43 [ArtB]
MC: #13 is a 1-liner
14:06:52 [ArtB]
... #14 and #15 are L10N
14:07:04 [ArtB]
AB: given that, will you take those?
14:07:06 [ArtB]
MC: yes
14:07:13 [ArtB]
AB: do you need help?
14:07:21 [ArtB]
MC: need someone to review after I'm done
14:07:54 [ArtB]
... #16 is in the same bucket
14:08:08 [ArtB]
... it is related to #1
14:08:21 [ArtB]
JK: I am willing to review; just let me know
14:08:30 [billyjackass]
billyjackass has joined #wam
14:08:31 [ArtB]
... I can also help write; just let me know
14:09:04 [ArtB]
MC: Jere, can you take finding the base folder and widget locale?
14:09:21 [ArtB]
JK: this aligns with item #6
14:10:06 [ArtB]
... I'll work on this and get something to MC next week
14:10:25 [ArtB]
MC: I should have something by Monday
14:10:29 [billyjackass]
Zakim, call Mike
14:10:29 [Zakim]
ok, billyjackass; the call is being made
14:10:30 [Zakim]
+Mike
14:10:48 [ArtB]
AB: #17 and #18 - these are prio #2 or #3
14:11:21 [ArtB]
... any disagreements on 17 and 18?
14:11:23 [ArtB]
[ None ]
14:11:54 [ArtB]
AB: if we want the LCWD#2 comment period to end before the June 9-11 f2f meeting then for a 4-week review period we must publish on May 11 and for a 3-week review period we must publish on May 18.
14:13:39 [ArtB]
MC: re LC, want to know who we can get to review
14:14:00 [ArtB]
AB: besides the "normal suspects"?
14:14:17 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike
14:14:17 [Zakim]
ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
14:14:19 [Zakim]
+Mike.a
14:14:27 [ArtB]
MC: could we premtively contact people
14:14:39 [ArtB]
... so people could start pre-allocating time
14:14:53 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike.a
14:14:53 [Zakim]
Mike.a should now be muted
14:15:14 [ArtB]
Topic: A&E spec: Action 232 - Check the API spec for compliance with the Web IDL spec
14:15:21 [ArtB]
AB: Arve and I briefly discussed Action #232 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/232) today in IRC (logger not working). His take is that this is not required for LCWD thus I want to drop it from the agenda. Any short comments/feedback?
14:15:40 [marcos]
zakim, who is here?
14:15:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see darobin, Art_Barstow, JereK, Thomas, +1.919.536.aacc, ??P5, +47.23.69.aadd, Mike, Mike.a (muted)
14:15:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MikeSmith, shepazu, abraun, arve_, ArtB, RRSAgent, marcos, Zakim, JereK, tlr, ArtB_, heycam`, darobin, heycam, trackbot
14:15:44 [ArtB]
AB: defer discssion
14:15:47 [ArtB]
Topic: A&E spec: Action 290 - Review changes to HTML5 that may affect API and Events spec and propose a way forward
14:15:56 [ArtB]
AB: Arve, what is the status of Action #290 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/290)?
14:16:19 [ArtB]
AB: without Arve here, need to defer this
14:16:30 [marcos]
zakim, who is making noise
14:16:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', marcos
14:16:34 [ArtB]
Topic: A&E spec: Red Block issue in section 5.14 "ISSUE: do we need to do some kind of URI normalization to check for equivalency?"
14:16:42 [marcos]
zakim, who is making noise?
14:16:49 [ArtB]
AB: we will defer discussion on this too
14:16:52 [Zakim]
marcos, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: JereK (73%), darobin (44%), Art_Barstow (29%), +47.23.69.aadd (3%)
14:17:04 [marcos]
zakim, mute darobin
14:17:04 [Zakim]
darobin should now be muted
14:17:12 [ArtB]
JK: the corresponding RFCs define the baseline
14:17:23 [ArtB]
... the answer is Yes by RFCXXXX
14:17:53 [ArtB]
TR: are we talking about full URI refs?
14:18:15 [ArtB]
JK: the A+E spec defines valid uri
14:18:35 [ArtB]
AB: without Arve, I'd like to defer discussion
14:18:47 [ArtB]
TR: OK: I'll make a note to follow this
14:19:04 [ArtB]
Topic: Widgets URI spec: Widget instances and widget invocations
14:19:18 [ArtB]
AB: last week Robin submitted a proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0445.html) re widget instances and widget invocations. There was some followup
14:19:29 [ArtB]
... but no consensus
14:19:37 [marcos]
zakim, unmute robin
14:19:37 [Zakim]
sorry, marcos, I do not know which phone connection belongs to robin
14:19:40 [ArtB]
AB: RB, what's the next step on this?
14:19:46 [marcos]
zakim, unmute darobin
14:19:46 [Zakim]
darobin should no longer be muted
14:20:23 [tlr]
concerning 5.14, I'm comfortable with (a) restricting to URIs (not IRIs) here, and (b) byte-wise comparison of these
14:20:28 [ArtB]
RB: I can make a new set of proposals; I don't have a strong opinion
14:20:44 [ArtB]
MC: this is an interesting discussion
14:20:48 [Zakim]
-Mike
14:20:58 [JereK]
tlr, why not character-wise comparison?
14:21:10 [tlr]
because for URIs (not IRIs) that's the same
14:21:15 [tlr]
in other wrods, I meant character-wise
14:21:33 [JereK]
understood :-)
14:21:40 [ArtB]
MC: not sure how much behavior we want to specify
14:22:05 [ArtB]
AB: what advice are we giving Robin?
14:22:33 [ArtB]
MC: do we want copies of prefs, do we want to clone, ...
14:22:33 [JereK]
unless you had UTF-8 encoded URIs?
14:22:53 [ArtB]
MC: there are lots of issues
14:23:02 [ArtB]
RB: this stuff doesn't belong in URI spec
14:23:11 [ArtB]
MC: agree and doesn't belong in P+C either
14:23:27 [ArtB]
RB: T-Mobile has some ideas about lifecycle for widgets
14:23:34 [ArtB]
... would be good to see their input
14:23:40 [ArtB]
... I'll talk to them
14:23:45 [ArtB]
AB: that would be good
14:24:14 [ArtB]
... I also agree these issues don't belong in URI spec nor P+C spec
14:24:39 [ArtB]
AB: what's the next step with the URI spec?
14:24:49 [ArtB]
RB: still need to complete some Edits
14:25:17 [ArtB]
... when do we want to publish this?
14:25:27 [ArtB]
AB: we can talk about this
14:25:37 [ArtB]
RB: I think P+C is a higher prio
14:25:39 [ArtB]
AB: agree
14:25:50 [ArtB]
RB: perhaps we should wait until after P+C is published
14:26:30 [ArtB]
AB: my pref is to wait; want to get P+C and A+E to LC before we publish URI spec
14:26:47 [ArtB]
RB: OK. I'll focus on P+C and A+E
14:26:57 [ArtB]
AB: good priorities
14:27:21 [ArtB]
Topic: Widgets URI spec: Action 338 - "edit access element to take into account OMTP feedback and Bryan's"
14:27:46 [ArtB]
AB: Robin is Action #338 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/338) completed?
14:28:04 [ArtB]
RB: this is completed
14:28:12 [ArtB]
... and MC has added it to the spec
14:28:15 [ArtB]
AB: great
14:28:28 [ArtB]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
14:28:29 [Zakim]
-Thomas
14:28:34 [Zakim]
-darobin
14:28:34 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:28:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/07-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:28:35 [Zakim]
-JereK
14:28:36 [Zakim]
-Mike.a
14:28:40 [Zakim]
-Art_Barstow
14:28:43 [Zakim]
-??P5
14:29:01 [Zakim]
- +47.23.69.aadd
14:29:47 [Zakim]
- +1.919.536.aacc
14:29:48 [Zakim]
IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:29:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were +358.503.85aaaa, Art_Barstow, darobin, Thomas, +1.919.536.aacc, JereK, MikeSmith, +47.23.69.aadd, Mike, Mike.a
14:30:58 [JereK]
JereK has left #wam
14:33:30 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, stop