See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 21 May 2009
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?
[ None ]
AB: I don't have any announcements. Any one?
[ None ]
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).
... 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.
... any comments about Marcos' proposal?
MC: the proposal is to not treat
them as generic URI but rather opaque strings
... this has a cascade effect
... affects mildly the A+E spec
... but impl is simplified
AB: I think that is a fine proposal
MP: I think this is a good change
AB: anyone else?
[ No ]
AB: question about moving <feature> out of P+C
MC: I received feedback that is a
bad idea
... the associated text is in
... I recommend we leave it
AB: any other comments?
DR: we agree with Marcos
... BONDI is using <feature>
... if it is taken out that could cause problems
... surprised it wasn't fixed earlier
<mpriestl> +1 from Vodafone on keeping <feature> in P&C
MC: nothing was broken with
feature
... the proposal was to move it out because it was related to
access element
AB: I am fine with leaving it
in
... Robin voiced support for leaving it in
... propose a resolution: the <feature> element will be
left in the P+C spec
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: <feature> element will remain in the P+C spec
AB: Marcos, what is the status of the L10N model (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/)?
MC: the folder-based model is
done
... the element-based model is almost done
... just needs a few tweaks re edge cases
... effectively it is 99% done
AB: is there any need for us to block LC publication while you complete the remaining 1 %?
MC: no
AB: other comments on l10n model?
[ None ]
AB: the Team only publishes docs
on tue and thurs thus next date is May 26
... 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.
... my proposal is we agree to publish LC#2 on May 26
... comments?
... any objections?
MC: I prefer May 28
<abraun> seems reasonable
MP: how does this fit with WebApps schedule?
AB: what "schedule"?
... I told BONDI I wanted a LC published in April and Candidate
in June
... we missed the LC but Candidate in June is still
theoretically possible
MP: we support getting LC out
soon
... we think Marcos has done an exceptional job
... we also want Candidate to be published as soon as
possible
DR: we have a deadline for our
pubs
... our intention is to publish very shortly
... would like to ref the current LC of P+C
... we will have to ref the December version
... but we want to refernce LC #2
... thus want LC#2 published as soon as possible
... but don't want shortcuts taken
... we hope we can issue a minor rev to our spec to ref
LC#2
AB: that would seem to favor a May 26 pub if at all possible
MP: agree but if things need to fixed then they should be
MC: the doc would be published
without any additional review
... by the group
AB: understood but we also know we will have at least a 3-week review of the LC doc
MC: really do prefer May 28
AB: propose a resolution: we
agree to publish P+C LC #2 on May 28
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: we agree to publish LCWD #2 of the P+C spec on May 28
AB: thanks very much Marcos for the good work!
DR: agree; thanks very much Marcos; and the other WG members too
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?
... any movement at all on the A+E spec in the last week
MC: no, don't think so
AB: action for everyone to look
at A+E spec and submit inputs
... that's the next priority for LC
... anything else on A+E?
[ No ]
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?
MC: Robin has addressed some
questions I had in the ED
... I think it needs some editorial tweaks
<mpriestl> +1 from Vodafone to go FPWD as soon as possible
DR: we haven't had enough time to review it
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.
... I can also schedule some additional calls for this
Andy: I think that would be useful and support additional review time
MP: I think we can live with a
week for review
... but encourage people to submit comments within a week
AB: yes, I don't think we need a
wide open input period
... if there are no inputs on UCs and Reqs within 1 week then
we make a decision on May 28 without those inputs
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow make an explicit call for inputs for the WAR doc's UCs and Requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<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].
AB: anything else about the WAR doc?
[ No ]
AB: I don't have anything
... anyone?
... I'll start fine-tuning the agenda for our June 9-11
agenda
... Meeting Ajourned
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Default Present: Marcos, Art_Barstow, +1.919.536.aaaa, +44.771.751.aabb, +0207070aacc, David_Roger Present: AndyB Art Marcos Mark David Regrets: Thomas Frederick Arve Jere Robin Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0557.html Found Date: 21 May 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]