13:01:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:01:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-irc
13:02:16 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
13:02:19 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
13:02:21 <ArtB> Chair: Art
13:02:25 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0557.html
13:02:30 <Zakim> + +1.919.536.aaaa
13:02:31 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:02:37 <ArtB> Date: 21 May 2009
13:02:48 <ArtB> Present: AndyB, Art, Marcos
13:03:05 <ArtB> Regrets: Thomas, Frederick, Arve, Jere, Robin
13:03:35 <drogersuk> drogersuk has joined #wam
13:03:37 <Zakim> + +44.771.751.aabb
13:03:51 <ArtB> Present+ Mark
13:04:10 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
13:04:14 <mpriestl> mpriestl has joined #wam
13:05:02 <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:05:34 <ArtB> AB: the agenda was submitted on 19 May (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0557.html). One addition proposed by Robin (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0566.html), is to add the Widgets Access Request to the agenda and we will do that. Any other change requests?
13:05:41 <Zakim> + +0207070aacc
13:05:50 <ArtB> Present+ David
13:05:52 <abraun> abraun has joined #wam
13:06:10 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:06:16 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
13:06:23 <ArtB> AB: I don't have any announcements. Any one?
13:06:30 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:06:32 <ArtB> Topic: P&C: Status of completing L10N model
13:07:08 <ArtB> Topic: P&C spec: proposal to move the <feature> element to a separate spec.
13:07:14 <ArtB> AB: on May 19 we agreed to move the <access> element from to a separate spec (http://www.w3.org/2009/05/19-wam-minutes.html). This raises the question if the <feature> element (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-feature-element) should also be moved to a separate spec. Marcos submitted a related email on May 19 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0553.html).
13:07:55 <ArtB> AB: let's first start with comments on Marcos' feature proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0553.html). Then let's discuss moving <feature> out of P&C.
13:08:22 <ArtB> AB: any comments about Marcos' proposal?
13:08:45 <ArtB> MC: the proposal is to not treat them as generic URI but rather opaque strings
13:08:53 <ArtB> ... this has a cascade effect
13:09:02 <ArtB> ... affects mildly the A+E spec
13:09:08 <ArtB> ... but impl is simplified
13:09:22 <ArtB> AB: I think that is a fine proposal
13:10:00 <ArtB> MP: I think this is a good change
13:10:15 <ArtB> AB: anyone else?
13:10:17 <ArtB> [ No ]
13:10:31 <ArtB> AB: question about moving <feature> out of P+C
13:10:52 <ArtB> MC: I received feedback that is a bad idea
13:11:06 <ArtB> ... the associated text is in
13:11:12 <ArtB> ... I recommend we leave it
13:11:30 <ArtB> AB: any other comments?
13:11:36 <ArtB> DR: we agree with Marcos
13:11:50 <ArtB> ... BONDI is using <feature>
13:12:01 <ArtB> ... if it is taken out that could cause problems
13:12:25 <ArtB> ... surprised it wasn't fixed earlier
13:12:50 <mpriestl> +1 from Vodafone on keeping <feature> in P&C
13:13:05 <ArtB> MC: nothing was broken with feature
13:13:26 <ArtB> ... the proposal was to move it out because it was related to access element
13:13:44 <ArtB> AB: I am fine with leaving it in
13:13:55 <ArtB> ... Robin voiced support for leaving it in
13:14:18 <ArtB> AB: propose a resolution: the <feature> element will be left in the P+C spec
13:14:26 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
13:14:28 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:14:44 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: <feature> element will remain in the P+C spec
13:14:55 <ArtB> Topic: P&C: Status of completing L10N model
13:15:01 <ArtB> AB: Marcos, what is the status of the L10N model (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/)?
13:15:24 <ArtB> MC: the folder-based model is done
13:15:37 <ArtB> ... the element-based model is almost done
13:15:47 <ArtB> ... just needs a few tweaks re edge cases
13:15:57 <ArtB> ... effectively it is 99% done
13:16:39 <ArtB> AB: is there any need for us to block LC publication while you complete the remaining 1 %?
13:16:40 <ArtB> MC: no
13:16:48 <ArtB> AB: other comments on l10n model?
13:16:54 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:17:01 <ArtB> Topic: P&C spec: proposal to publish LC#2 on May 26
13:17:36 <ArtB> AB: the Team only publishes docs on tue and thurs thus next date is May 26
13:17:43 <ArtB> AB: I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns regarding getting review by WebApps' widgets people. We need much broader review and will only get that by formally publishing a new LC.
13:18:21 <ArtB> AB: my proposal is we agree to publish LC#2 on May 26
13:18:26 <ArtB> AB: comments?
13:19:04 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
13:19:21 <ArtB> MC: I prefer May 28
13:20:06 <abraun> seems reasonable
13:20:24 <ArtB> MP: how does this fit with WebApps schedule?
13:20:36 <ArtB> AB: what "schedule"?
13:20:47 <Zakim> +David_Roger
13:20:51 <Zakim> - +0207070aacc
13:22:19 <ArtB> AB: I told BONDI I wanted a LC published in April and Candidate in June
13:22:35 <ArtB> ... we missed the LC but Candidate in June is still theoretically possible
13:22:43 <ArtB> MP: we support getting LC out soon
13:22:55 <ArtB> ... we think Marcos has done an exceptional job
13:23:28 <ArtB> ... we also want Candidate to be published as soon as possible
13:24:12 <ArtB> DR: we have a deadline for our pubs
13:24:32 <ArtB> ... our intention is to publish very shortly
13:24:47 <ArtB> ... would like to ref the current LC of P+C
13:25:01 <ArtB> ... we will have to ref the December version
13:25:08 <ArtB> ... but we want to refernce LC #2
13:25:19 <ArtB> ... thus want LC#2 published as soon as possible
13:25:29 <ArtB> ... but don't want shortcuts taken
13:25:48 <ArtB> ... we hope we can issue a minor rev to our spec to ref LC#2
13:26:13 <ArtB> AB: that would seem to favor a May 26 pub if at all possible
13:26:28 <ArtB> MP: agree but if things need to fixed then they should be
13:26:43 <ArtB> MC: the doc would be published without any additional review
13:26:59 <ArtB> ... by the group
13:27:26 <ArtB> AB: understood but we also know we will have at least a 3-week review of the LC doc
13:28:23 <ArtB> MC: really do prefer May 28
13:28:43 <ArtB> AB: propose a resolution: we agree to publish P+C LC #2 on May 28
13:29:03 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
13:29:07 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:29:24 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: we agree to publish LCWD #2 of the P+C spec on May 28
13:29:41 <ArtB> AB: thanks very much Marcos for the good work!
13:29:58 <ArtB> DR: agree; thanks very much Marcos; and the other WG members too
13:30:15 <ArtB> Topic: A&E spec: Status of Red Block Issues
13:30:25 <ArtB> AB: the A&E spec still has some Red Block issues (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/). During the 14 May call we discussed these issues (http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-wam-minutes.html#item07). What is the status?
13:31:19 <ArtB> AB: any movement at all on the A+E spec in the last week
13:31:27 <ArtB> MC: no, don't think so
13:31:56 <ArtB> AB: action for everyone to look at A+E spec and submit inputs
13:32:05 <ArtB> ... that's the next priority for LC
13:32:13 <ArtB> AB: anything else on A+E?
13:32:17 <ArtB> [ No ]
13:32:30 <ArtB> Topic: Access Request spec
13:32:37 <ArtB> AB: Robin has done some good work on moving the WAR spec (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/) forward. A question is whether or not it is ready for a FPWD (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0566.html)? Comments on that?
13:33:33 <ArtB> MC: Robin has addressed some questions I had in the ED
13:33:42 <ArtB> ... I think it needs some editorial tweaks
13:34:24 <mpriestl> +1 from Vodafone to go FPWD as soon as possible
13:34:30 <ArtB> DR: we haven't had enough time to review it
13:34:54 <ArtB> AB: missing key use case(s) information. Requirements are a bit too thin. I would prefer a 1-week input period for UCs and Reqs so we can make a decision to publish a FPWD during our May 28 call.
13:35:47 <ArtB> AB: I can also schedule some additional calls for this
13:36:04 <ArtB> Andy: I think that would be useful and support additional review time
13:36:26 <ArtB> MP: I think we can live with a week for review
13:36:52 <ArtB> ... but encourage people to submit comments within a week
13:37:37 <ArtB> AB: yes, I don't think we need a wide open input period
13:38:00 <ArtB> ... if there are no inputs on UCs and Reqs within 1 week then we make a decision on May 28 without those inputs
13:38:36 <ArtB> ACTION: Barstow make an explicit call for inputs for the WAR doc's UCs and Requirements
13:38:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - Make an explicit call for inputs for the WAR doc's UCs and Requirements [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-05-28].
13:38:52 <ArtB> AB: anything else about the WAR doc?
13:38:54 <ArtB> [ No ]
13:39:00 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
13:39:10 <ArtB> AB: I don't have anything
13:39:14 <ArtB> ... anyone?
13:39:41 <ArtB> AB: I'll start fine-tuning the agenda for our June 9-11 agenda
13:39:52 <Zakim> - +1.919.536.aaaa
13:39:55 <ArtB> AB: Meeting Ajourned
13:40:00 <Zakim> - +44.771.751.aabb
13:40:01 <Zakim> -Marcos
13:40:02 <Zakim> -David_Roger
13:40:03 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
13:40:03 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
13:40:04 <Zakim> Attendees were Marcos, Art_Barstow, +1.919.536.aaaa, +44.771.751.aabb, +0207070aacc, David_Roger
13:40:08 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:40:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-minutes.html ArtB
13:48:26 <ArtB> zakim, bye
13:48:26 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wam
13:49:22 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
13:49:22 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-actions.rdf :
13:49:22 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Barstow make an explicit call for inputs for the WAR doc's UCs and Requirements [1]
13:49:22 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-irc#T13-38-36