IRC log of wam on 2009-07-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:03:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:03:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:04:03 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
13:04:06 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
13:04:09 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
13:04:16 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
13:04:33 [ArtB]
13:04:41 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:04:45 [ArtB]
Date: 2 July 2009
13:04:53 [ArtB]
Regrets: TLR, Benoit
13:05:06 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike-Mobile
13:05:06 [Zakim]
ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
13:05:08 [Zakim]
13:05:34 [ArtB]
Present: Art, Marcos, Arve, Mike, Jere, Kai, David, Marcin,
13:05:52 [ArtB]
Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:05:59 [ArtB]
AB: draft agenda sent on July 1 ( ). Any change requests? During the AOB topic we will talk about cancelations of this weekly call due to summer holidays.
13:06:22 [Zakim]
13:06:31 [ArtB]
Present+ AndyB
13:06:36 [abraun]
abraun has joined #wam
13:06:39 [ArtB]
[ No change requests ]
13:06:44 [ArtB]
Topic: Announcements
13:06:51 [ArtB]
AB: anyone have any short announcements they want to make?
13:07:00 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:07:13 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C LCWD comments
13:07:19 [ArtB]
AB: the LCWD comment period ended on June 19. We have not addressed all of the comments submitted before the deadline. We can take some time to discuss those comments that can benefit from interactive group discussion.
13:07:38 [ArtB]
AB: Comment tracking doc is ( )
13:08:26 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, what is the status of the Disposition of Comments document?
13:08:35 [ArtB]
MC: it is about 80% up to date
13:08:44 [ArtB]
... awaiting responses from about 20 emails
13:08:57 [ArtB]
... I've got all of Marcin's comments
13:09:06 [ArtB]
... and all of AvK's comments that I've responded to
13:09:41 [ArtB]
AB: earlier today MC sent this email and it contains comments he'd like to discuss on this call
13:10:17 [ArtB]
AB: first one is from Josh
13:10:31 [annevk]
annevk has joined #wam
13:10:34 [ArtB]
AB: what is the main isssue here Marcos?
13:10:47 [ArtB]
MC: Josh thinks there is a prob with the l10n model
13:11:03 [ArtB]
... I'm not sure how serious this is
13:11:19 [ArtB]
... it could create a problem in some use case
13:11:57 [ArtB]
... I tend to think this is a problem for localizers and not a problem with the model
13:12:03 [ArtB]
JK: I agree with you Marcos
13:12:26 [ArtB]
... re the assertion the prob is at the package level
13:12:36 [ArtB]
... I don't agree; don't want a new zip per locale
13:12:48 [Marcos]
13:12:54 [ArtB]
... want a package to contain as much locale info as possible
13:13:16 [ArtB]
... L10N testing should catch the error Josh identified
13:13:53 [ArtB]
AB: based on this, there is the question - has Josh identified a bug in the model?
13:13:56 [ArtB]
MC: I don't think so
13:14:09 [ArtB]
JK: agree with Marcos
13:14:35 [ArtB]
AB: I tend to agree with Marcos and JK's interpretation
13:15:01 [ArtB]
AB: any disagreements with MC and JK's opinion?
13:15:03 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:15:25 [ArtB]
AB: given this, what will your response be Marcos?
13:15:47 [ArtB]
MC: want to wait for JK to respond to Josh and then see the follow up responses
13:15:57 [ArtB]
JK: I just sent the response
13:16:17 [ArtB]
AB: status then is to wait and see how Josh responds
13:17:09 [ArtB]
AB: next up is this comment from Dom:
13:17:42 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, what's the issue here?
13:17:59 [ArtB]
MC: this is about the CC
13:18:05 [Zakim]
13:18:09 [ArtB]
... the spec isn't as complete as it could be
13:18:15 [ArtB]
Present+ Dom
13:18:30 [ArtB]
... with respect to the CC requirements
13:18:53 [ArtB]
... These were originally just Authoring comments and they were reformulated as CC reqs
13:19:03 [ArtB]
... we just didn't do all of the work that could have been done
13:19:19 [dom]
zakim, mute me
13:19:19 [Zakim]
Dom should now be muted
13:19:40 [ArtB]
AB: so one way fwd is to move all of the CC reqs to a separate spec
13:19:54 [ArtB]
... naturally that would be considered a substantial change
13:20:02 [ArtB]
MC: yes, that's true
13:20:26 [ArtB]
... Dom suggested some additions
13:21:13 [ArtB]
AB: we could just add the 3 Dom indicates and any others if we find them
13:21:17 [ArtB]
MC: yes, agree
13:21:48 [ArtB]
AB: we could view these as bugs i.e. these 3 are missing
13:22:04 [ArtB]
MC: yes, because the UA will need to address some of these
13:23:00 [ArtB]
... the CC reqs are not called out in the steps for processing
13:23:43 [dom]
[possible implementation of conformance checker for widgets: ]
13:23:47 [dom]
13:24:21 [ArtB]
AB: we could add the missing CC and then during Candidate, if CC implementor feedback dictates a sep spec we can do that
13:24:25 [dom]
ack me
13:24:36 [ArtB]
AB: Dom, what are your thoughts on this?
13:24:57 [ArtB]
Dom: these comments are based on the work we did on the CC Checker
13:25:25 [ArtB]
... It would be be good if there is more detail on the CC checker
13:25:50 [ArtB]
... it probably would be best to move the CC reqs to a separate doc
13:26:02 [ArtB]
... but I don't think it would be a high priority work item
13:26:57 [ArtB]
AB: so if we just added the 3 reqs you mentioned would that be sufficient to address your concern?
13:27:55 [dom]
Dom: It would be fine yes; I would just be concerned for the pace of development of the Widgets specs that other bugs might be found at a later stage for conformance checkers, and would slow down the work for a low priority work item
13:28:13 [ArtB]
AB: is anyone aware of any other CC services?
13:28:26 [ArtB]
MC: Mike mentioned another person/group that is interested
13:28:36 [hendry]
I wrote a widget validator sometime ago (it's offline)
13:28:43 [dom]
zakim, mute me
13:28:43 [Zakim]
Dom should now be muted
13:28:43 [ArtB]
AB: do you know how far that has gone?
13:28:53 [ArtB]
MC: no, the email trail died
13:29:27 [ArtB]
AB: does anyone object to us addressing Dom's CC comments by just addding the 3 missing CC reqs?
13:29:36 [ArtB]
[ No objections ]
13:30:31 [ArtB]
AB: next is June 17 comments from Dom:
13:30:44 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, what are the main issues here?
13:30:53 [ArtB]
MC: I've addresed most of these already
13:31:28 [ArtB]
... need to go thru the spec and look for conformance reqs
13:31:47 [ArtB]
... need to clarify rule for identifying media image
13:32:00 [dom]
[I think they are mostly editorial]
13:33:41 [ArtB]
... most of these comments are Editorial
13:34:07 [ArtB]
... it will be a lot of work to go through all of the assertions
13:34:19 [ArtB]
... Dom used a tool to get the assertions
13:34:56 [Marcos]
"simplify the analysis of
13:34:56 [Marcos]
> conformance requirements for building test suites, and identify possible
13:34:56 [Marcos]
> ambiguities as to what is affected when the conformance requirements is
13:34:56 [Marcos]
> not respected;"
13:35:00 [ArtB]
... A question I have is whether or not I need to edit the spec such that the assertion extraction tool "will be happy"
13:35:56 [ArtB]
AB: what do others think about this?
13:35:59 [dom]
[it's rather an effort toward making the spec more testable]
13:36:20 [ArtB]
MC: the advantage is the spec will be better; the disadvantage is the spec will take longer
13:36:29 [dom]
zakim, unmute me
13:36:29 [Zakim]
Dom should no longer be muted
13:36:55 [ArtB]
MC: I would be interested in getting a sense from Dom about how much work this would be?
13:37:12 [ArtB]
Dom: it's hard to tell; most of the assertions were in OK shape
13:37:25 [ArtB]
... I don't think it is critical
13:37:33 [ArtB]
... but it would be helpful
13:37:46 [ArtB]
... you need to understand your schedule constraints
13:38:13 [ArtB]
AB: I agree it would be helpful but I don't think it is a high priority given our schedule
13:38:22 [hendry]
what about just checking on and updating the spec when and if possible
13:38:51 [dom]
zakim, mute me
13:38:51 [Zakim]
Dom should now be muted
13:38:54 [ArtB]
AB: my recommendation is this work could be done during the Candidate phase
13:39:03 [dom]
[that's fine with me fwiw]
13:39:05 [ArtB]
MC: yes, I agree; it would add some clarification
13:39:13 [hendry]
13:39:19 [ArtB]
... and I would agree to do the work during the Candidate phase
13:39:28 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
13:39:41 [ArtB]
... we have support from Kai and Dom
13:39:54 [ArtB]
[ No objections to doing this work during the Candidate phase ]
13:40:28 [ArtB]
ACTION: marcos During the P+C Candidate phase, make editorial changes to make assertions extractable
13:40:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-376 - During the P+C Candidate phase, make editorial changes to make assertions extractable [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-07-09].
13:41:26 [ArtB]
AB: next comment is from Krzy:
13:41:49 [ArtB]
... I do want to note that this set of comments was submitted on June 22 which is after the deadline
13:41:57 [ArtB]
MC: I asked him to submit comments
13:42:26 [ArtB]
... I don't know how people feel about the lateness of these comments
13:42:46 [ArtB]
AB: any comments on the date of these comments?
13:43:21 [ArtB]
DR: I think it sets a dangerous precedence if we were to take these late comments into consideration
13:43:30 [ArtB]
... I can't speak to the comments themselves
13:43:43 [ArtB]
AB: any other feedback on the timing of these comments?
13:44:39 [ArtB]
AB: my recommendation is we make these low priority and not address them until after all of the LCWD comments submitted by June 19 are addressed
13:44:41 [dom]
zakim, who's on the call?
13:44:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Arve/Marcos, ??P1, David_Rogers, +49.208.40.aabb, ??P3, Art_Barstow, Mike, abraun, Dom (muted)
13:44:45 [drogersuk]
I agree
13:44:52 [ArtB]
MC: so does this mean do _not_ put them in the DoC doc?
13:44:54 [ArtB]
AB: yes
13:45:19 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to this way of handling Krzy's comments?
13:45:21 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:45:27 [dom]
[I feel uncomfortable about it, but I'm not a member of the group]
13:46:17 [ArtB]
AB: next up is some comments from Kai
13:46:35 [ArtB]
MC: these comments were sent to me privately
13:47:42 [ArtB]
... they were NOT sent to public-webapps on June 19
13:48:03 [ArtB]
... Do we include these comments as part of our LCWD review cycle?
13:48:18 [ArtB]
AB: what do other people think?
13:48:35 [drogersuk]
I agree with art
13:48:39 [ArtB]
AB: I think we just sent a precedent that we should follow
13:48:44 [dom]
[I think it makes no sense to reject good comments]
13:49:01 [ArtB]
... and that would mean we should not consider these until after LCWD
13:49:16 [ArtB]
DR: agree with Art; we need to have some discipline and respect the deadlines
13:49:23 [drogersuk]
I also agree with dom by the way
13:49:28 [dom]
[not including them in the DoC reduces the value of the DoC]
13:49:39 [ArtB]
MC: no problem; we can address them after LC
13:50:30 [ArtB]
AB: to be consistent, we should NOT include Kai's comments in the DoC
13:50:40 [ArtB]
MC: yes, I agree; I will not add them
13:51:07 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to not addressing Kai's comments during this LCWD review cycle?
13:51:13 [ArtB]
[ No objections ]
13:52:10 [ArtB]
AB: next up is a 2nd comment from Kai that is also dated June 19
13:52:19 [ArtB]
... was this also private email to you Marcos?
13:52:35 [ArtB]
MC: yes; this email was also sent to me privately by Kai on June 19
13:52:47 [ArtB]
... so we should ingore this too for this LCWD review cycle
13:53:15 [ArtB]
AB: OK; do not add this 2nd comment of Kai's to the DoC
13:53:29 [dom]
zakim, who's noisy?
13:53:40 [Zakim]
dom, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arve/Marcos (38%), abraun (18%)
13:53:44 [dom]
zakim, mute abraun
13:53:44 [Zakim]
abraun should now be muted
13:54:46 [ArtB]
MC: I have 8 emails that I have not yet responded to
13:55:05 [ArtB]
... I plan to respond to all of them by Friday July 3
13:55:23 [ArtB]
AB: what can we do to help you?
13:55:43 [ArtB]
MC: the main concern I had was how to handle Dom's comments
13:55:53 [ArtB]
... apart from that, it's mostly Editorial stuff
13:56:11 [ArtB]
... not sure there is much other WG members can do
13:56:22 [ArtB]
... I asked Jere for some help on L10N and he has responded
13:56:39 [ArtB]
... I still have about 20 emails that I waiting for responses
13:56:47 [ArtB]
... apart from that, I think we are pretty good
13:57:30 [ArtB]
AB: I am happy to ping/bother people that have not responded to you
13:57:50 [ArtB]
MC: it's only been a few days so we need to give people at least a week
13:58:07 [ArtB]
... I can give people about one week
13:58:26 [ArtB]
... with a plan to close DoC on July 10
13:59:09 [ArtB]
AB: I'll follow up with you Marcos on July 6 re who needs to be pinged
13:59:41 [ArtB]
... when you reply, please include a July 10 deadline for a response
13:59:55 [ArtB]
MC: time to start setting up a Trans to Candidate
14:01:11 [ArtB]
AB: we won't have all of the data to make a decision about CR vs. WD until we have feedback from the Commentors about our responses
14:01:38 [ArtB]
DR: I think we should be aggresive with the Commentors re deadline for responses to our comments
14:01:48 [ArtB]
... think 1:1 follow-ups would be good to do
14:02:24 [fjh]
fjh has joined #wam
14:03:00 [ArtB]
AB: it would be best if the deadline for resonses was July 9
14:03:06 [ArtB]
MC: yes, that's OK with me
14:03:52 [ArtB]
AB: so ideally, on July 9 when we meet we will have responses from all of the Commentors
14:04:53 [ArtB]
AB: Mike, do we need to wait for responses from all Commentors before we make a decision of CR vs. WD?
14:05:06 [ArtB]
MS: not sure what the Process Doc says explicitly
14:05:24 [ArtB]
... but I think we need to give adequate opportunity to comment
14:05:35 [ArtB]
MC: so you think one week isn't enough?
14:05:49 [ArtB]
MS: one week may not be enough
14:06:02 [ArtB]
... I think 1 week is the minimum
14:06:08 [drogersuk]
I would like to think that one week is enough
14:06:28 [ArtB]
AB: it makes sense to also consider the comments themselves
14:06:47 [drogersuk]
...if we are proactively contacting people too
14:07:10 [ArtB]
AB: thanks for that feedback Mike
14:07:30 [ArtB]
AB: anything else?
14:07:41 [ArtB]
MC: I could use some help with the DoC document
14:07:48 [ArtB]
... it is about 80-90% done
14:08:10 [ArtB]
... it would mean clicking some buttons when emails come in
14:08:17 [ArtB]
AB: any volunteers?
14:08:43 [ArtB]
AB: I can help starting July 6
14:09:09 [ArtB]
AB: anything P+C spec today?
14:09:43 [ArtB]
Topic: Issue raised by Francois
14:09:49 [ArtB]
AB: in MC's response to Francois, he indicated the group should discuss one of Francois' comments (
14:10:06 [ArtB]
MC: most of the questions have to do with the Widget URI scheme spec
14:10:41 [ArtB]
... so we are "punting" on those issues with respect P+C
14:10:50 [ArtB]
AB: any comments on that?
14:10:52 [ArtB]
[ None ]
14:11:14 [ArtB]
Topic: Widget Testing wiki
14:11:21 [ArtB]
AB: yesterday I started a widget testing wiki to consolidate pointers to testing resources ( ). This is a Group Resource and as such, everyone should contribute to its evolution and maintenance.
14:11:39 [ArtB]
Topic: Widgets Dig Sig Testing
14:11:49 [ArtB]
AB: Kai has started some related work but I think it would be helpful to get an enumeration of all of the testable assertions.
14:12:13 [ArtB]
AB: can anyone commit to contributing a testable assertion list for the Widgets Digital Signature spec?
14:12:33 [dom]
zakim, unmute me
14:12:33 [Zakim]
Dom should no longer be muted
14:12:51 [dom]
14:12:56 [ArtB]
AB: Dom, that was relatively easy because of the markup P+C used, right?
14:13:02 [ArtB]
Dom: yes
14:13:11 [ArtB]
... does DigSig use the same convention?
14:13:12 [ArtB]
MC: yes
14:13:22 [dom]
(based on )
14:13:38 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
14:13:38 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
14:13:46 [ArtB]
AB: OK, that's good; it will help us scope the set of test cases needed
14:14:03 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on WidDigSig testing for today?
14:14:22 [ArtB]
... any status from you Kai?
14:14:38 [ArtB]
Kai: I'm finding it difficult to do the testing
14:14:48 [ArtB]
... thought there would be some examples
14:15:38 [fjh]
14:15:38 [dom]
-> XML SIgnature Interop report might be a useful source of ideas?
14:15:55 [fjh]
should also look at 1.1 interop for new algorithms.
14:16:01 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig Sig tests
14:16:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-377 - Find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig Sig tests [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-09].
14:16:19 [ArtB]
MC: what kinds of probs are you haveing?
14:16:24 [ArtB]
... generating or verifying?
14:16:34 [ArtB]
Kai: I'm not familiar with openssl tools
14:16:51 [ArtB]
... not that familiar with XML Dig Sig 1.1
14:17:03 [ArtB]
... not sure if I'm generating the right keys and their formats
14:17:09 [fjh]
there are also java tools
14:17:13 [ArtB]
... would like someone to just tell me what to do
14:17:29 [dom]
-> XML Signature Implementation report for 2nd Ed
14:17:34 [ArtB]
AB: I will find the right experts to help you
14:17:46 [fjh]
perhaps you should summarize your questions and send to the xml security public list
14:17:55 [dom]
(thomas roessler would definitely be a good person to contact on that)
14:17:56 [ArtB]
MC: if there is some guidance needed in the spec, please let me know
14:18:02 [dom]
(Frederick Hirsch would be another candidate)
14:18:06 [ArtB]
... we want it easy to author
14:18:09 [fjh]
14:18:31 [fjh]
I'm suggesting we share questions on public xml security list - collective intelligence
14:18:44 [fjh]
I cannot call into the bridge, the conference is "restricted"
14:18:50 [ArtB]
Kai: After I get "hello world" done then I can start some real work
14:19:32 [ArtB]
AB: Kai, FH recommends you send your questions directly to XML Sec WG ->
14:19:42 [ArtB]
MC: and please cc public-webapps
14:19:46 [ArtB]
Kai: ok; will do
14:19:57 [ArtB]
Topic: Online Widget Checker
14:20:10 [ArtB]
AB: Dom recently announced ( ) the availability of an alpha version of an Online Widget Checker service (
14:20:18 [ArtB] ).
14:20:25 [ArtB]
AB: Thanks very much for this Dom! I haven't used it yet; does anyone have feedback for Dom?
14:20:36 [ArtB]
AB: Dom, what is the status and plans for this service?
14:20:41 [dom]
ack me
14:21:07 [ArtB]
Dom: waiting for some feedback before we do anything more
14:21:16 [ArtB]
... would like to get others to contribute to the code
14:21:47 [ArtB]
... it does some good things now but will require a big chunck of effort to make it really useful
14:22:19 [ArtB]
AB: make a plea to everyone to:
14:22:25 [ArtB]
... 1. Review the services
14:22:30 [ArtB]
... 2. Send comments to Dom
14:22:40 [ArtB]
... 3. Contribute to the code
14:23:08 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on this service Dom?
14:23:27 [ArtB]
Dom: could be useful with going to CR i.e. going thru the CC reqs
14:23:38 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C Test Plan
14:23:45 [ArtB]
AB: yesterday I noticed Dom had created a P&C Test Plan ( ). Dom, what is the status and plan for this Test Plan?
14:24:12 [ArtB]
Dom: I only annouced it to the MWTS WG
14:24:31 [ArtB]
... it is based on the extractable assertions for the CC
14:25:00 [ArtB]
... added some comments on some of the tests
14:25:18 [ArtB]
... Kai has taken an action to review the Test Plan
14:25:34 [ArtB]
... Marcos said he would review it too
14:26:34 [ArtB]
... Plan to have something "fairly reliable" next week
14:27:25 [ArtB]
MC: want to fix the spec to make the extraction process work better
14:27:46 [ArtB]
Dom: we are focusing on test cases now
14:28:05 [ArtB]
... I think our test cases will be ok even if the spec changes
14:28:20 [ArtB]
... but they may require some minor updating
14:28:58 [dom]
zakim, mute me
14:28:58 [Zakim]
Dom should now be muted
14:29:09 [ArtB]
Topic: A+E spec
14:29:26 [ArtB]
Arve: since Robin isn't here, we could take this topic to the mail list
14:29:35 [ArtB]
AB: yes, that's fine with me
14:29:58 [ArtB]
Topic: Test Fest proposal
14:30:06 [ArtB]
AB: there has been some off-list discussion about a Widgets Test Fest in September.
14:30:45 [ArtB]
DR: I can give a brief
14:30:55 [ArtB]
s/brief/brief udpate/
14:31:20 [ArtB]
... VF proposed a "test fest" but that may not be the most descriptive title
14:31:38 [ArtB]
... want to create test cases
14:31:48 [ArtB]
... want it to be coordinated by W3C
14:31:56 [ArtB]
... want OMTP to be involved
14:32:03 [ArtB]
... VF can host it
14:32:15 [ArtB]
... proposed dates are Sep 21 thru 23
14:32:22 [ArtB]
... can handle 50-55 people
14:32:33 [ArtB]
... want it to be under the W3C rules
14:32:57 [ArtB]
... want to understand more about how test suites are created in W3C
14:33:14 [ArtB]
... need to think about licensing since it will be collaborative effort
14:33:26 [dom]
14:33:33 [ArtB]
... Does this sound like a good idea?
14:33:41 [hendry]
14:33:43 [ArtB]
MC: sounds like a good idea to me
14:33:55 [ArtB]
AB: sounds like quite a bit of support
14:33:55 [mhanclik]
14:34:01 [JK]
14:34:15 [ArtB]
DR: I've asked VF to send a mail to public-webapps
14:34:28 [ArtB]
AB: that sounds good
14:34:56 [ArtB]
... we agreed in London we would not have any more f2f meetings until TPAC
14:35:05 [ArtB]
... this is NOT a WebApps WG meeting
14:35:24 [ArtB]
DR: yes; understood; want the impl people to attend
14:35:48 [ArtB]
AB: you will form some type of organizing committee?
14:35:54 [ArtB]
DR: yes, that's the idea
14:36:05 [dom]
14:36:23 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow work with Mike and Dom to determine if their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with OMTP
14:36:23 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-378 - Work with Mike and Dom to determine if their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with OMTP [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-09].
14:37:00 [ArtB]
DR: OMTP supports this but it is VF that is sponsoring this initiative
14:37:02 [dom]
14:37:13 [dom]
ack me
14:37:32 [drogersuk]
Yes this intiative is Vodafone's so I am just speaking on behalf of Christian who is not here
14:37:43 [ArtB]
Dom: I don't think we need an organizing committee; I am awaiting more info from VF
14:38:01 [drogersuk]
I would also like to add that for licensing - I believe it should be under the W3C process
14:38:07 [ArtB]
... re the licensing, I am already working on this
14:38:42 [dom]
> 3.) If non-W3C members / non Bondi members declare their wish to participate, they must possibly sign an extra agreement for IP exclosure (like the Turin rules for BONDI members). This is possibly an "edge case" but we should bear it in mind. My suggestion is that W3C legal take a closer look at that.
14:38:42 [dom]
Essentially, those that don't participate to the Web Applications
14:38:42 [dom]
Working Group should fill up and submit the Grant I linked from the test
14:38:42 [dom]
cases policy:
14:38:43 [dom]
14:39:05 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on the Test Fest?
14:39:24 [ArtB]
DR: not sure if the Turin Rules apply
14:39:30 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:39:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
14:39:51 [Zakim]
14:40:13 [ArtB]
Dom: there is No Patent Policy issue re test cases but there will be some Copyright issues that will be applicable
14:40:26 [ArtB]
Topic: AOB
14:40:33 [ArtB]
AB: because of summer holidays, there will be NO Widgets calls on July 16, July 23 and August 6.
14:40:50 [ArtB]
AB: any other business?
14:41:22 [ArtB]
[ None ]
14:41:37 [ArtB]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
14:41:38 [Zakim]
14:41:40 [Zakim]
14:41:41 [Zakim]
14:41:41 [Zakim]
14:41:43 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:41:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
14:41:50 [JK]
JK has left #wam
14:42:37 [dom]
dom has left #wam
14:43:46 [Zakim]
14:43:47 [Zakim]
14:43:49 [Zakim]
- +49.208.40.aabb
14:43:52 [Zakim]
14:43:53 [Zakim]
IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:43:55 [Zakim]
Attendees were +47.23.69.aaaa, David_Rogers, Arve/Marcos, +49.208.40.aabb, Art_Barstow, Mike, abraun, Dom
14:51:08 [Marcos_]
Marcos_ has joined #wam
15:00:24 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #wam
15:02:10 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #wam
15:03:06 [annevk]
annevk has joined #wam
15:31:49 [mhanclik]
mhanclik has joined #wam
16:18:37 [Marcin]
Marcin has joined #wam
16:21:47 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, bye
16:21:47 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
16:21:47 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: marcos During the P+C Candidate phase, make editorial changes to make assertions extractable [1]
16:21:47 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:21:47 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig Sig tests [2]
16:21:47 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:21:47 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow work with Mike and Dom to determine if their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with OMTP [3]
16:21:47 [RRSAgent]
recorded in