13:00:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:00:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-irc
13:00:32 <JereK> zakim, aabb is JereK
13:00:32 <Zakim> +JereK; got it
13:00:33 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
13:00:38 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
13:00:44 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
13:00:47 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
13:00:50 <ArtB> Chair: Art
13:00:57 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conf
13:01:02 <ArtB> Date: 4 June 2009
13:01:03 <MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike-Mobile
13:01:03 <Zakim> ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
13:01:04 <Zakim> +Mike
13:01:08 <arve> arve has joined #wam
13:01:14 <Zakim> +??P2
13:01:20 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0728.html
13:01:37 <arve> Zakim, PP2 is me
13:01:38 <Zakim> sorry, arve, I do not recognize a party named 'PP2'
13:02:10 <arve> zakim, ??PP2 is me
13:02:10 <Zakim> sorry, arve, I do not recognize a party named '??PP2'
13:02:18 <arve> Zakim: P2 is me
13:02:22 <ArtB> Present: Art, Robin, Thomas, Arve, Marcos, Josh, Jere, David
13:02:28 <darobin> zakim, OMTP holds drogersuk 
13:02:28 <Zakim> +drogersuk; got it
13:02:34 <arve> Zakim, ??P2 is me
13:02:34 <Zakim> +arve; got it
13:02:42 <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:02:50 <ArtB> AB: I posted the agenda on June 3 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0728.html). The only change I propose is to change the order of 3.b and 3.c. Any change requests?
13:03:08 <mpriestl> mpriestl has joined #wam
13:03:56 <ArtB> TR: move f2f preps to end of meeting
13:04:04 <ArtB> AB: OK; we will do that
13:04:22 <ArtB> AB: add Mark's latest email re DigSig to the agenda
13:04:51 <ArtB> AB: Robin, will you represent Mark on this call?
13:05:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:05:02 <darobin> mpriestl: can you get on the call?
13:05:07 <ArtB> RB: no, not really
13:05:16 <ArtB> Present+ Frederick
13:05:23 <fjh> zakim, [IPcaller] is fjh
13:05:23 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
13:05:29 <Zakim> + +44.771.751.aacc
13:05:35 <ArtB> Present+ Mark
13:05:43 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
13:05:50 <ArtB> AB: I have one short announcement: for those of you following the Draft DAP WG Charter () discussions, Frederick has been designated as a Chair (along with Robin)
13:06:21 <ArtB> DR: what is the Chair selection process?
13:06:27 <ArtB> TR: it is mostly opaque
13:06:31 <ArtB> ... and Team driven
13:06:49 <ArtB> DR: if you would direct me to the Proc Doc; I'm not clear on it
13:06:55 <ArtB> TR: sure, I can do that
13:07:09 <ArtB> ... I think the only relevant text is "the Director will appoint the Chair"
13:07:19 <ArtB> AB: any other announcements?
13:07:21 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:07:39 <ArtB> Topic: DigSig LCWD comments by Vodafone
13:07:54 <ArtB> AB: Mark submitted comments this morning which is 3 days too late
13:07:58 <Zakim> + +68028aadd
13:08:16 <ArtB> AB: my recommendation is to postpone the handling of those comments until after the CR is published
13:08:24 <ArtB> AB: comments on my proposal?
13:08:29 <ArtB> MP: that is fine for VF
13:08:42 <ArtB> ... I am sorry those comments were late
13:09:10 <ArtB> ... I don't think any of the comments will affect Candidate
13:09:20 <ArtB> ... one may be a bit problematic
13:09:41 <Zakim> + +1.919.536.aaee
13:10:02 <ArtB> AB: want to emphasize we will always accept comments
13:10:14 <ArtB> ... we do have to be careful though about moving the target date
13:10:50 <ArtB> AB: proposed Resolution: we will handle VF's LCWD comments of June 4 during CR
13:10:55 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
13:10:57 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:11:01 <Marcos_> Marcos_ has joined #wam
13:11:11 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: we will handle VF's LCWD comments of June 4 during CR
13:11:20 <ArtB> Topic: Widgets Dig Sig spec: agree on candidate exit criteria:
13:11:30 <ArtB> AB: a few days ago I proposed some text for the WidDigSig's Candidate "exit criteria" (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0700.html). Any comments about that proposal?
13:11:36 <fjh> q+
13:12:45 <Marcos_> +a
13:12:52 <ArtB> AB: any objections to the proposed Exit Criteria?
13:12:56 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:13:02 <ArtB> Topic: Widgets Dig Sig spec: Dependency on XML Sig 1.1
13:13:24 <ArtB> AB: one issue we need to discuss before resolving to publish a DigSig CR is "how far can this spec go in the Recommendation track with a normative dependency on a WD of XML Digital Signatures 1.1?". My understanding is PR but no further. Thomas or Mike, would you please clarify?
13:13:59 <ArtB> TR: I believe your understanding is correct
13:14:06 <ArtB> ... but I'll check
13:14:23 <MikeSmith> q+ to say that we have not hard-and-fast rule
13:14:23 <ArtB> ... I think the doc is well hidden
13:14:55 <ArtB> AB: XBL2 has a precedence of this
13:15:18 <ArtB> TR: let's proceed as if this won't be an issue and we can deal with it later if we need to
13:15:24 <ArtB> MS: +1 to TR
13:15:36 <ArtB> AB: we then proceed as planned
13:15:43 <ArtB> Topic: Widgets Digital Signature spec: Proposal to publish Candidate Recommendation
13:15:56 <ArtB> AB: the WidDigSig spec is ready to be published as a Candidate Recommendation. Any objections to that?
13:16:18 <ArtB> MC: I have concerns about the cannoicalization aspects
13:16:24 <ArtB> ... have they been resolved?
13:16:44 <ArtB> TR: are these general issues or ones that can be dealt with during CR
13:16:45 <fjh> q+
13:16:57 <MikeSmith> ack MikeSmith 
13:16:57 <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that we have not hard-and-fast rule
13:17:01 <ArtB> MC: I hear cannoicalization doesn't work
13:17:12 <ArtB> TR: the only concern I know of is complexity
13:17:17 <arve> gotta call back in in a minute
13:17:32 <ArtB> ... the way the spec is used tho, there is no breakage
13:17:44 <ArtB> FH: we profiled it down
13:17:47 <fjh> q-
13:17:53 <ArtB> MC: so OK, it sholdn't be too bad
13:18:04 <Zakim> -arve
13:18:18 <ArtB> ... I heard it is difficult to implement in .NET
13:18:31 <ArtB> TR: which cannonicalization?
13:18:37 <ArtB> MC: the one in the spec
13:18:56 <ArtB> TR: if .NET it could be a 1.0 vs. 1.1 concern
13:18:56 <timeless_mbp> what does that mean?
13:19:03 <ArtB> DR: yes, I think that is true
13:19:12 <Zakim> + +47.23.69.aaff
13:19:16 <ArtB> TR: doesn't matter whether we use 1.0 or 1.1
13:19:25 <fjh> what i said about profiling is this, since the case is narrow enough
13:19:31 <tlr> ... or exclusive
13:19:34 <fjh> sounds like a comment that needs to be on the list
13:19:45 <ArtB> AB: my recommendation is that if this is an issue, it be raised during CR
13:19:53 <ArtB> MC: yes, I think that is OK
13:20:15 <ArtB> TR: this will affect interop
13:20:16 <arve_> arve_ has joined #wam
13:20:29 <ArtB> ... it may be worthwhile to shift to Exclusive right now
13:20:46 <ArtB> FH: I think that would be reasonable
13:20:56 <ArtB> ... I don't think we need the features of 1.1
13:21:21 <ArtB> FH: let me check the spec ...
13:22:07 <ArtB> ... 6.3 requires Canon 1.1
13:22:12 <timeless_mbp> fjh: if i want to give feedback, should i to: you and cc: wg?
13:22:23 <ArtB> ... we can change to Exclusive and that would address the concern
13:22:46 <ArtB> ... TR, is that OK with you?
13:23:00 <ArtB> TR: Exclusive isn't strictly mandatory
13:23:11 <ArtB> ... think Exclusive is the one to take
13:23:27 <arve> arve has joined #wam
13:23:39 <ArtB> MP: is there a ref that could be put in IRC?
13:23:59 <ArtB> ... are we confident we'd end up with the same result?
13:24:03 <fjh> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/
13:24:21 <ArtB> TR: the two disagree with the handling of namespaces
13:24:34 <ArtB> ... and some subset [missed details ...]
13:24:51 <ArtB> ... we don't use qnames and content
13:25:16 <ArtB> ... only 1 case there could be some diffs and it is if gratuitous namespaces are used but not needed
13:25:20 <fjh> proposal - change required algorithm in 6.3 from Canonical XML 1.1 omits comments to
13:25:26 <fjh> Exclusive XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments)
13:25:37 <fjh> http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#
13:25:38 <ArtB> AB: can we agree to make this change and also agree to move directly to CR?
13:26:01 <ArtB> TR: the question is if this would "invalidate" a review?
13:26:01 <fjh> also add reference for Exclusive Canonicalization 
13:26:07 <ArtB> ... does anyone think it would?
13:26:16 <ArtB> RB: no
13:26:36 <ArtB> FH: I think this is the right thing to do
13:26:51 <ArtB> ... I don't think we'll have any problems
13:27:18 <fjh> proposal - 1. change required alg in 6.3, 2. add reference to exclusive c14n
13:27:30 <ArtB> AB: are there any objections to FH's proposal?
13:27:37 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:27:56 <fjh> Exclusive XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments)
13:28:01 <ArtB> AB: since we agreed to make this change, are there any objections to going to CR directly?
13:28:15 <fjh> http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#
13:28:17 <ArtB> [ No ]
13:28:35 <ArtB> AB: propose: RESOLUTION: the group agrees Widgets Digital Signature spec is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation
13:28:52 <fjh> with additional changes agreed today
13:28:56 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
13:28:59 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:29:03 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the group agrees Widgets Digital Signature spec is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation
13:29:37 <ArtB> ACTION: hirsch notify Art when the excl c14n change has been made and the SoTD is updated for CR
13:30:15 <ArtB> Topic: WAR spec: UCs and requirements
13:30:31 <ArtB> AB: we've had a Call for UCs and Reqs (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0581.html) and two related action: Action 347 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/347) and Action 348 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/348).
13:31:00 <ArtB> AB: besides not having agreement on UCs and Reqs, we also do not have consensus on the definitions of Origin nor Domain of Trust (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/#security-model).
13:31:20 <ArtB> AB: additionally, there now seems to be an attempt to add UA behavior for the <feature> element regarding security policy e.g. Robin's proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0732.html).
13:32:01 <ArtB> AB: lastly, I agree with concerns raised by some members of this WG about us specifying something that is going to "tie the hands" of the DAP WG's security policy work.
13:32:42 <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute Mike
13:32:42 <Zakim> Mike should now be muted
13:33:28 <ArtB> AB: any status of UCs and Reqs?
13:33:30 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:33:57 <darobin> http://www.w3.org/mid/E3625432-E1AF-42F6-9E5E-73B29EE8DB10@berjon.com
13:34:00 <ArtB> RB: I sent a related email
13:34:41 <timeless_mbp> arve: does http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ show "Copyright © 2009 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply." in Opera (10beta)?
13:34:55 <ArtB> AB: I wasn't sure how the proposal would be reflected in the spec?
13:35:01 <ArtB> RB: has anyone read it?
13:35:07 <ArtB> [ No responses ]
13:35:18 <ArtB> RB: it supports one of the options we have discussed
13:35:30 <ArtB> ... network access requires <access>
13:35:50 <timeless_mbp> does the widget have access to the iframe?
13:35:56 <ArtB> ... but <access> does not provide access to "sensitive APIs"
13:36:31 <ArtB> RB: Arve, any comments?
13:36:33 <timeless_mbp> we can't hear you
13:36:51 <timeless_mbp> tlr: were you OK or Not OK w/ the original?
13:37:31 <ArtB> Arve: I agree with a model where a doc outside of the widget does not get any additional access rights
13:38:15 <arve> artb's summary is right
13:38:59 <ArtB> RB: is there consensus here?
13:39:24 <ArtB> TR: I only had a superficial review
13:39:41 <ArtB> ... I am OK with this being added to the FPWD
13:39:53 <ArtB> FH: I have not reviewed it
13:40:35 <ArtB> TR: if no one has read it, we can resolve to publish it as FPWD if no objections by some date
13:40:37 <darobin_> darobin_ has joined #wam
13:41:04 <ArtB> RB: I haven't reflected my email into the spec
13:42:22 <ArtB> AB: I would prefer to get RB to reflect his input into the ED, then notify the group and then we can make a decision about FPWD
13:42:28 <ArtB> RB: I can do that tomorrow
13:42:34 <ArtB> TR: OK with me
13:42:40 <timeless_mbp> so basically this spec says that a widget has as much access as the browser?
13:42:59 <ArtB> AB: next Tues we can make a decision about FPWD
13:43:25 <ArtB> AB: any last comments about WAR spec for today?
13:43:27 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:43:48 <ArtB> Topic: Prepare for June 9-11 f2f meeting Draft agenda: comments, priorities, etc.:
13:43:55 <ArtB> AB: yesterday I tweaked next week's agenda (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsLondonJune2009#Agenda_Items) and will probably make additional small changes over the next few days. Any comments?
13:44:16 <ArtB> AB: the only firm time for a subject is Tues June 9 13:00-14:30 and it will be Security Policy. Priority will be P&C, and the issues related to advancing W/V Modes, A&E, WAR, and URI specs.
13:45:50 <ArtB> AB: any comments on agenda?
13:47:39 <ArtB> TR: I must stop at 15:00 on Tues
13:47:53 <ArtB> ... <access> element is the highest priority
13:48:17 <ArtB> AB: any other comments?
13:48:17 <tlr> (and the widget uri scheme, ugh.  Forgot about that one)
13:48:20 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:48:24 <fjh> I also have firm stop at 15:00 on Tuesday
13:48:27 <ArtB> Topic: Open Actions
13:48:33 <ArtB> AB: please address Open actions before the f2f meeting: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8
13:48:37 <Zakim> -Thomas
13:48:42 <timeless_mbp> ArtB: i might be able to make it if i can get some wiggle room w/ managers, i'll pick up transportation and someone will host a room, so i'd just need a manager not to complain about my lack of physical presence
13:49:03 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
13:49:09 <ArtB> AB: any topics?
13:49:13 <ArtB> ... I don't have any
13:49:27 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
13:49:33 <Zakim> - +47.23.69.aaff
13:49:35 <Zakim> -Mike
13:49:37 <Zakim> - +44.771.751.aacc
13:49:38 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
13:49:42 <Zakim> -OMTP
13:49:44 <Zakim> - +68028aadd
13:49:45 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:49:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-minutes.html ArtB
13:49:48 <Zakim> -fjh
13:49:50 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
13:49:52 <Zakim> -JereK
13:51:19 <ArtB> RRSAgent, bye
13:51:19 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-actions.rdf :
13:51:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: hirsch notify Art when the excl c14n change has been made and the SoTD is updated for CR [1]
13:51:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-irc#T13-29-37