13:02:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:02:05 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-irc
13:02:08 <darobin> Zakim, who's here?
13:02:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see Art_Barstow, Mauro
13:02:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, marcin2, Zakim, Steven, Marcos, JereK, fjh, Viper23, anne, ArtB, darobin, marcin, shepazu, heycam, trackbot
13:02:11 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
13:02:17 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
13:02:20 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
13:02:24 <ArtB> Chair: Art
13:02:30 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conf
13:02:31 <Zakim> +marcin
13:02:36 <ArtB> Date: 1 October 2009
13:02:39 <Zakim> +??P4
13:02:45 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1493.html
13:03:06 <darobin> Zakim, who's here?
13:03:08 <ArtB> Regrets: Josh, Arve
13:03:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Art_Barstow, Mauro, marcin, fjh
13:03:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, marcin2, Zakim, Steven, Marcos, JereK, fjh, Viper23, anne, ArtB, darobin, marcin, shepazu, heycam, trackbot
13:03:46 <ArtB> Present: Art, Marcin, Frederick, Robin
13:03:56 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-work
13:03:56 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
13:03:58 <Zakim> +Steven
13:04:05 <ArtB> Regrets+ JereK
13:04:06 <drogersuk> drogersuk has joined #wam
13:04:13 <ArtB> Present+ Steven
13:04:54 <Zakim> +??P7
13:05:12 <ArtB> Present+ David
13:05:18 <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:05:24 <ArtB> AB: Agenda posted Sep 30 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1493.html ). Any change requests?
13:05:42 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:05:43 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
13:06:05 <ArtB> AB: any short announcements? Reminder to register for the Nov 2-3 f2f meeting and TPAC ( http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/ )
13:06:16 <Steven> q+
13:06:23 <ArtB> AB: any other?
13:06:38 <ArtB> SP: please do register; early bird registration is Oct 5
13:06:49 <ArtB> Topic: DigSig spec: Test Assertions and Test Suite Status
13:07:03 <ArtB> AB: earlier this week Dom sent an update on the DigSig Test Suite ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1468.html ). He and MWTS continue to do good work including a DigSig Test Plan ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/tests/ ). Is there anything else to add re this test suite?
13:07:27 <fjh> q+
13:07:32 <Steven> q-
13:07:48 <ArtB> FH: I think the goal is syntactic assertions
13:08:24 <ArtB> ... not sure on the goal
13:08:38 <ArtB> AB: would you please FH ask your question re goal on the mail list?
13:08:51 <ArtB> FH: yes; and I'll add something to the IRC log
13:09:03 <ArtB> AB: anything else on the DigSig test suite?
13:09:06 <fjh> s/I think the goal is syntactic assertions/it seems we can use assertions for syntactic checking, and then compare signature values for signature generation and verification
13:09:10 <ArtB> AB: any info to share on who is implementing this spec?
13:09:45 <drogersuk> zakim unmute drogersus
13:09:49 <drogersuk> zakim unmute drogersuk
13:09:50 <ArtB> RB: is Nokia implementing it?
13:10:00 <drogersuk> grr zakim
13:10:08 <ArtB> AB: I am not aware of any information Nokia has made about implementing widget specs
13:10:28 <ArtB> DR: I think you can search the lists
13:10:35 <Zakim> + +1.452.9.aacc
13:10:57 <ArtB> ... think the question could be answered by looking at the mail lists
13:10:59 <Zakim> -fjh
13:11:12 <ArtB> DR: is Nokia implemmenting the DigSig and can you Art find out?
13:11:17 <fhirsch> fhirsch has joined #wam
13:11:26 <ArtB> AB: I answered the first part of the question
13:11:54 <ArtB> AB: I can find out what has been stated publicly about what we are implemting
13:11:58 <ArtB> DR: that would be good
13:12:12 <ArtB> ... there is a fair amount of info
13:12:37 <drogersuk> no
13:12:41 <drogersuk> google
13:12:43 <drogersuk> :-)
13:12:43 <ArtB> ... not sure about DigSig spec but probably more about P+C spec
13:13:14 <ArtB> AB: I am not aware of any public statements that Nokia has made regarding implementing Widget specs
13:13:44 <darobin> http://bondisdk.limofoundation.org/docs/Signing_a_Web_Widget/
13:14:34 <drogersuk> Please can you go away and find out?
13:14:36 <ArtB> AB: David, please enter your question into IRC
13:14:54 <Zakim> +Frederick_Hirsch
13:15:00 <drogersuk> If you can make a public statement in relation to implementation of digsig
13:15:24 <Zakim> +Marcos
13:15:25 <ArtB> AB: AFAIK, Nokia employes are not allowed to make public statements about their implementation plans
13:15:33 <Marcos> Marcos has joined #wam
13:15:39 <ArtB> DR: ok; that's what I was asking
13:15:43 <drogersuk> thanks
13:15:48 <ArtB> AB: anything else about impl?
13:16:05 <fhirsch> q+
13:16:07 <ArtB> RB: Aplix has released some info
13:16:09 <fhirsch> q-
13:16:12 <fhirsch> q-
13:16:14 <fhirsch> q+
13:16:18 <ArtB> ... I think it supports signing
13:16:43 <darobin> s/I think it/it
13:16:54 <ArtB> FH: it would be good to have a list of links 
13:16:58 <ArtB> RB: yes, of course
13:17:12 <ArtB> ... Marcos, are you implementing DigSig?
13:17:14 <ArtB> MC: not sure
13:17:26 <ArtB> ... we can only confirm we are implementing P+C
13:17:47 <fhirsch> zakim, fhirsch is fjh
13:17:47 <Zakim> sorry, fhirsch, I do not recognize a party named 'fhirsch'
13:17:53 <fhirsch> zakim, fjh is fhirsch
13:17:53 <Zakim> sorry, fhirsch, I do not recognize a party named 'fjh'
13:17:54 <ArtB> ... I can check though
13:18:09 <fhirsch> zakim, fhirsch is Frederick_Hirsch
13:18:09 <Zakim> sorry, fhirsch, I do not recognize a party named 'fhirsch'
13:18:17 <fhirsch> zakim, Frederick_Hirsch is fjh
13:18:17 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
13:18:26 <ArtB> AB: FH, as to your question, see http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting
13:18:36 <ArtB> ... we can add new info
13:18:57 <fhirsch> zakim, mute me
13:18:57 <Zakim> sorry, fhirsch, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
13:19:10 <ArtB> Topic: P&C spec: Test Suite questions
13:19:21 <ArtB> AB: Marcos sent an email that enumerates spec redundancies that were found during the test fest ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1477.html ). He agreed with all but one of the redundancies. 
13:19:32 <drogersuk> zakim, mute me
13:19:32 <Zakim> drogersuk should now be muted
13:19:45 <fhirsch> zakim, fhirsch is fjh
13:19:45 <Zakim> sorry, fhirsch, I do not recognize a party named 'fhirsch'
13:19:47 <ArtB> AB: if anyone disagrees with Marcos' proposals, send your feedback to public-webapps
13:20:22 <ArtB> AB: I think there was exchange between RB and MC on one of them
13:20:46 <ArtB> AB: your proposals seemed reasonable to me
13:21:02 <darobin> should we look at agreeing on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1488.html ?
13:23:12 <ArtB> MC: need to say what to do if zip isn't labeled
13:23:25 <ArtB> ... should it be a must if from hard disk
13:23:42 <ArtB> RB: but if on the disc, system could give  you something different than if from the net
13:23:50 <ArtB> MC: do we make this a must?
13:24:37 <ArtB> RB: I don't feel strongly on this
13:25:24 <ArtB> AB: so wrt ta-VngNBkhUXz, leave it as is?
13:25:25 <ArtB> MC: yes
13:25:29 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
13:25:32 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:25:56 <ArtB> AB: what about a-HTgovPjElK?
13:26:01 <ArtB> RB: it is redundant
13:26:10 <ArtB> ... we can try to create something like an Acid test
13:26:16 <ArtB> ... we can keep it
13:26:25 <ArtB> MC: I don't think we want Acid tests at this point
13:26:45 <drogersuk> That is potentially on the table for the future in MWI
13:26:55 <ArtB> RB: we need feedback from implementors
13:27:02 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #wam
13:27:26 <ArtB> s/a-HT/ta-HT/
13:28:08 <ArtB> RB: I think we just keep
13:28:12 <ArtB> MC: I agree
13:28:17 <ArtB> AB: any disagreements?
13:28:19 <ArtB> [ No ]
13:28:30 <ArtB> Topic: P&C spec: bug in Rule for Identifying the Media Type of a File
13:28:38 <ArtB> AB: Marcos identified a bug in the ABNF for zip relative paths ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1475.html ). Marcin proposed a fix.
13:29:06 <ArtB> AB: have you looked at Marcin's patch?
13:29:50 <ArtB> MC: could change the prose instead of changing the ABNF
13:30:02 <marcin2> q+
13:30:26 <ArtB> ... option #2 is to just change some prose
13:31:18 <darobin> ack marcin
13:31:25 <ArtB> AB: options are to change the ABNF or the prose and there are two ways to handle it via prose changes
13:31:25 <fhirsch> q?
13:31:40 <ArtB> MC: I don't think we need to update the prose but do need to change the ABNF
13:31:40 <fhirsch> ack fjh
13:31:43 <fhirsch> ack fhirsch
13:31:54 <ArtB> s/MC: I don't/MH: I don't/
13:32:09 <ArtB> MC: agree the ABNF has an ambiguity
13:32:28 <ArtB> ... think we need to change ABNF and prose
13:32:46 <ArtB> MH: I am OK with modifying both
13:32:58 <ArtB> ... i.e. add sniffing 
13:33:43 <ArtB> AB: would like MC and MH to work on a proposal and submit it to the list
13:33:48 <ArtB> MC: OK; I'll do that
13:34:17 <ArtB> ACTION: Marcos submit a proposal to address the Rule for Identifying MT of a file bug
13:34:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-408 - Submit a proposal to address the Rule for Identifying MT of a file bug [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
13:34:25 <ArtB> Topic: P&C: Proposal to move Conformance Checker assertions from P&C spec to another doc
13:34:34 <ArtB> AB: since we are not aware of any implementations of the Conformance Checker requirements, Marcos proposed ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1476.html ) they be moved into a separate spec. Any comments on this proposal?
13:35:12 <ArtB> AB: does anyone object to this proposal?
13:35:22 <ArtB> Present+ Benoit
13:35:26 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: P&C Conformance Checker requirements will be removed
13:35:43 <ArtB> AB: we can figure out later how to handle it
13:35:59 <darobin> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
13:36:02 <ArtB> MC: it's already in a new standalone doc
13:36:13 <ArtB> Topic: P&C: Test suite status
13:36:17 <Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
13:36:20 <ArtB> AB: Marcos, Kai, Dom, et al. have done some good work on the P&C test suite ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting#Widgets_1.0:_Packaging_and_Configuration_spec ). What's the status of the test suite?
13:37:06 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda
13:37:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-409 - Add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-08].
13:37:50 <ArtB> MC: all of the tests were verified during the test event
13:37:57 <ArtB> ... that means someone checked each of them
13:38:06 <ArtB> ... I now to copy them into the master XML file
13:38:11 <ArtB> ... and check for consistency
13:38:23 <ArtB> ... also need to remove some redundant assertions
13:38:36 <ArtB> AB: what type of time frame?
13:38:40 <ArtB> MC: about a week
13:38:46 <ArtB> ... there are about 160 tests
13:39:07 <ArtB> AB: are there still some TAs that are outside our repo?
13:39:17 <ArtB> MC: no, I was told they are now in w3 domain
13:39:26 <ArtB> AB: cool; last comments?
13:39:34 <ArtB> Topic: P&C: Next steps & planning
13:39:43 <ArtB> AB: we've had a couple of thread related to next steps for P&C, latest one is ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1499.html ). The fact is, sufficient issues have been identified in CR#1 that we must go back to Working Draft.
13:40:03 <ArtB> AB: although in theory we could skip CR#2, I am reluctant to do so as I indicated in ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1499.html ). Any comments on that?
13:40:26 <drogersuk> zakim, unmute drogersuk
13:40:26 <Zakim> drogersuk should no longer be muted
13:40:53 <ArtB> RB: I don't see any value in skipping CR#2
13:41:07 <ArtB> ... same timeline diff
13:41:10 <drogersuk> Art you stated that you don't know that anyone is implementing P&C - there are some public statements about that
13:41:20 <ArtB> ... we should go to CR ASAP
13:41:43 <ArtB> DR: we have quite a few implementations we know about
13:41:50 <ArtB> ... e.g. Microsoft
13:42:13 <ArtB> ... we know Opera has implemented
13:42:19 <ArtB> ... we think Nokia has as well
13:42:30 <ArtB> AB: re the plan going forward, according to Dom, we can publish a new LC before CR#1 ends. This seems like a process bug to me because I think a reasonable interpretation of "a PR will not be published before Nov 1" is "I have until October 31 to submit comments about CR#1". As such, I'm concerned that publishing  CR#2 on or before Oct 31 could mean we miss comments.
13:43:41 <ArtB> DR: how long is CR#2?
13:43:50 <ArtB> RB: we must go to LC
13:44:04 <ArtB> ... LC starts an exclusion period that lasts 8 weeks
13:44:14 <ArtB> ... shortest LC period is 3 weeks
13:44:57 <ArtB> DR: is this a sequential period?
13:45:16 <ArtB> RB: during the exclusion period we can pub a new CR but we cannot exit CR
13:45:55 <ArtB> BS: not sure about exclusion period
13:46:05 <ArtB> RB: the only exclusion we have is on Updates spec
13:47:27 <ArtB> RB: DR was aksing about timeline
13:47:32 <drogersuk> what would be the earliest date we could exit LC#2
13:47:55 <drogersuk> a date to aim for
13:47:55 <ArtB> ... when ever we publish LC, we can expect to exit CR at the earliest about 8 weeks after entering LC
13:48:02 <drogersuk> for CR
13:48:15 <Steven> CR can be zero length
13:48:53 <ArtB> DR: if we publish LC next week, earliest we can exit CR is 8 weeks later
13:48:57 <drogersuk> So realistically we're looking at about Christmas eve?
13:49:08 <drogersuk> A nice Christmas present?
13:49:11 <drogersuk> lol
13:49:16 <ArtB> AB: on the other hand, we all want P&C to continue to progress ASAP
13:49:54 <ArtB> AB: what needs to be done before we can publish a new LC?
13:50:03 <ArtB> MC: we need to add fxes for ABNF
13:50:22 <ArtB> ... need to remove redundancies
13:50:46 <ArtB> ... before we publish a new doc want to have TS completed
13:51:43 <ArtB> AB: note we must also address all other comments that came in during the CR e.g. the WAI P+F WG
13:51:56 <ArtB> RB: we must address all comments before LC
13:52:01 <ArtB> AB: agree
13:52:02 <drogersuk> Art - I just noticed you're attributing some of Robin's comments to me :-) RB and DR
13:52:39 <ArtB> AB: here is a pointer http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets/PandC-LCWD-28May2009
13:53:07 <drogersuk> zakim, mute drogersuk
13:53:07 <Zakim> drogersuk should now be muted
13:53:54 <ArtB> AB: please respond to WAI comments
13:54:07 <ArtB> AB: anything else on P+C for today?
13:54:13 <Marcos> ACTION: Marcos to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0843.html
13:54:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-410 - Respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0843.html [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
13:54:32 <ArtB> RB: have we agree to a timeline for P+C?
13:54:50 <ArtB> AB: AFAIC, we should publish a new LC when we are ready
13:55:17 <ArtB> RB: Marcos, how much time do you think you need?
13:55:25 <ArtB> MC: I will try for 1-week
13:55:41 <ArtB> AB: I know I want some review time
13:55:57 <ArtB> AB: what do I review?
13:56:05 <ArtB> ... is the TSE going to be the main spec?
13:56:13 <ArtB> MC: yes but without the styles
13:56:33 <Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html
13:56:36 <ArtB> AB: so everyone should start reviewing the TSE
13:57:03 <ArtB> Topic: TWI spec: Closing widget Interface issues
13:57:10 <ArtB> AB: the Instance versus Origin issue has plagued this spec for quite a while now ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1456.html ). It appears there is now agreement to use Instance and to remove the dependency on Origin as defined in the Widget URI scheme spec.
13:57:52 <ArtB> AB: so we now need to agree on a defn of Instance, correct Marcos?
13:58:00 <ArtB> MC: yes that's true
13:58:08 <ArtB> AB: what is the plan for a proposed definition?
13:58:46 <ArtB> MC: I will check in changes soon
13:58:51 <ArtB> RB: this change is OK with me
13:59:08 <ArtB> MC: TWI has no dependency on URI spec
13:59:21 <ArtB> ... defining Instance is a bit tricky
13:59:42 <ArtB> ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of Widget Instance
13:59:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-411 - Submit a proposal for the definition of Widget Instance [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
14:00:07 <ArtB> Topic: TWI spec: TWI and View Modes
14:00:17 <ArtB> AB: last week Marcin sent an email about TWI and View Modes spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1203.html ).
14:01:03 <ArtB> MH: I have an answer to the main question
14:01:17 <ArtB> ... it will need some discussion when we get to VM-I spec
14:01:35 <ArtB> AB: anything else on this for today?
14:01:37 <ArtB> [ No ]
14:01:43 <ArtB> Topic: TWI spec: A&E LC comments
14:01:52 <ArtB> AB: Marcin sent two sets of comments re the TWI LC spec: ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1080.html ) and (  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1081.html )
14:01:56 <tlr> tlr has joined #wam
14:02:21 <ArtB> AB: do we have consensus yet?
14:02:28 <ArtB> MH: localization is still open
14:02:45 <ArtB> ... and don't have consensus on features
14:02:56 <ArtB> ... I still need to follow-up
14:03:14 <marcin2> I plan to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1173.html
14:03:24 <ArtB> RB: I think we should push this to v2
14:03:38 <ArtB> MH: I think there are use cases for these
14:03:46 <ArtB> ... think we should follow-up on the list
14:04:06 <ArtB> Topic: TWI spec: Status of LC comment responses and their tracking
14:04:13 <ArtB> AB: Marcos, what is the status of the TWI LC comment tracking doc ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20090818/ )?
14:04:52 <ArtB> AB: you want to maintain this doc even though we will publish a new LC
14:05:13 <ArtB> MC: yes; I think we need to do this because we may not get any comments during LC#2
14:05:20 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #wam
14:05:38 <ArtB> AB: so you will add all of the data?
14:05:39 <ArtB> MC: yes
14:05:50 <ArtB> ... there are only 3-4 threads
14:06:02 <ArtB> AB: anything else on TWI for today?
14:06:42 <ArtB> AB: if we want to get a new LC before TPAC, we just have a few weeks
14:06:49 <ArtB> 6. View Modes Media Features spec:
14:07:01 <Zakim> -Steven
14:07:06 <ArtB> Topic: View Modes Media Feature Spec
14:07:11 <ArtB> AB: we still haven't published a FPWD of VM-MF spec. I think it is particularly urgent to get something published before we republish P&C spec so we have a "real" spec to reference (not just some ED). Robin sent some comments ( http://www.w3.org/mid/F4F5ECF4-4DB8-4A8F-9744-7C6E0200A766@berjon.com ).  
14:07:48 <ArtB> AB: where are we?
14:07:55 <ArtB> MH: I tried to address his comments
14:08:05 <ArtB> ... I agree with all of them
14:08:16 <ArtB> ... I changed the layout quite a bit, especially Section 3
14:08:21 <ArtB> ... I will continue to work on it
14:08:45 <darobin> +1
14:08:46 <ArtB> AB: you think it is ready now for FPWD?
14:08:59 <ArtB> MH: yes; want to get Public feedback now
14:10:03 <ArtB> AB: if we were to record consensus now that it is ready for FPWD, then it could be published by Oct 6 and that would give MH some time to add prose.
14:10:17 <ArtB> AB: is this what we want to do?
14:10:27 <ArtB> RB: yes; works for me
14:10:32 <ArtB> MC: good plans
14:10:38 <ArtB> MH: yes, OK
14:11:00 <ArtB> AB: propose VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD
14:11:04 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
14:11:06 <ArtB> [ None ]
14:11:16 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD
14:11:48 <darobin> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
14:12:07 <ArtB> AB: I think MC and RB can help with pub rules
14:12:27 <ArtB> Topic: Widget URI spec
14:12:29 <darobin> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/Overview-LC.html
14:12:42 <ArtB> RB: I re-wrote it entirely
14:12:51 <ArtB> ... it's much better
14:12:57 <ArtB> ... think it is ready for LC
14:13:05 <ArtB> MC: think it's good
14:13:17 <darobin> s/good/good and fun to read/
14:13:22 <ArtB> ... it address the concerns I had
14:13:34 <ArtB> AB: any other feedback?
14:14:38 <ArtB> AB: I haven't looked at it yet and want to review it
14:15:12 <ArtB> ... how about we give people until Tues morning to submit comments and if none are submitted, I'll submit a Trans Req for LC?
14:15:18 <ArtB> RB: OK with me
14:15:31 <ArtB> MC: OK
14:16:05 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: we will publish a LCWD of the Widget URI scheme spec if no major issues are raised by Oc 6
14:16:13 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
14:16:17 <ArtB> AB: any topics?
14:16:20 <ArtB> [ None ]
14:16:26 <ArtB> AB: Meeting Adjourned
14:16:34 <Zakim> -fjh
14:16:36 <Zakim> - +1.452.9.aacc
14:16:37 <Zakim> -darobin
14:16:39 <Zakim> -marcin
14:16:39 <Zakim> -Marcos
14:16:40 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:16:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:16:41 <Zakim> -drogersuk
14:16:59 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
14:17:05 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:17:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:18:15 <drogersuk> drogersuk has left #wam
14:19:21 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
14:19:23 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:19:25 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.617.588.aaaa, Art_Barstow, +1.617.588.aabb, marcin, fjh, darobin, Steven, drogersuk, +1.452.9.aacc, Marcos
14:19:31 <ArtB> RRSAgent, bye
14:19:31 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-actions.rdf :
14:19:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Marcos submit a proposal to address the Rule for Identifying MT of a file bug [1]
14:19:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-irc#T13-34-17
14:19:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda [2]
14:19:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-irc#T13-37-06
14:19:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Marcos to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0843.html [3]
14:19:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-irc#T13-54-13
14:19:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of Widget Instance [4]
14:19:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-irc#T13-59-42