IRC log of wam on 2009-10-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:00:17 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:00:17 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc
13:00:23 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make log Public
13:00:31 [ArtB]: ScribeNick: ArtB
13:00:32 [fhirsch]: fhirsch has joined #wam
13:00:34 [ArtB]: Scribe: Art
13:00:38 [ArtB]: Chair: Art
13:00:43 [ArtB]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0073.html
13:00:54 [ArtB]: Meeting: Widgets Voice Conf
13:00:58 [ArtB]: Date: 8 October 2009
13:01:23 [ArtB]: Regrets: Josh, Robin
13:01:25 [Zakim]: +??P24
13:01:26 [Zakim]: -??P24
13:01:31 [Zakim]: +??P24
13:01:31 [fhirsch]: zakim, ??P24 is fjh
13:01:39 [Zakim]: +Marcos
13:01:52 [marcin]: marcin has joined #wam
13:01:56 [Zakim]: +fjh; got it
13:02:07 [ArtB]: Present: Art, Frederick, Marcos, Jere, Marcin,
13:02:12 [Zakim]: + +1.850.385.aaaa
13:02:40 [Steven]: zakim, dial steven-617
13:02:40 [Zakim]: ok, Steven; the call is being made
13:02:41 [Zakim]: +Steven
13:02:43 [JereK]: zakim, aaaa is JereK
13:02:43 [Zakim]: +JereK; got it
13:02:44 [Zakim]: + +49.163.829.aabb
13:02:46 [ArtB]: Present+ Steven
13:03:09 [marcin]: Zakim, aabb is Marcin
13:03:09 [Zakim]: +Marcin; got it
13:03:20 [ArtB]: Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:03:27 [ArtB]: AB: draft agenda submitted Oct 7 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0073.html ). Any change requests?
13:03:42 [ArtB]: [ No ]
13:03:47 [ArtB]: Topic: Announcements
13:03:52 [ArtB]: AB: does anyone have any short announcements?
13:04:04 [ArtB]: AB: see member-webapps for TPAC announcements
13:04:25 [ArtB]: MC: I noticed RIM is supporting the W3C widgets spec
13:04:30 [ArtB]: AB: yes, I saw that too
13:04:43 [Zakim]: +Bryan_Sullivan
13:04:50 [Bryan]: Bryan has joined #wam
13:04:56 [ArtB]: Present+ Bryan
13:05:09 [ArtB]: ACTION: barstow contact RIM and ask them to join WebApps
13:05:10 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-412 - Contact RIM and ask them to join WebApps [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-15].
13:05:40 [drogersuk]: drogersuk has joined #wam
13:05:47 [ArtB]: Topic: P+C: Issue #88
13:05:57 [ArtB]: AB: Issue #88 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/88 ) was Raised several months ago. If we are going to address this, the spec must be changed before the next LCWD is published.
13:06:02 [Zakim]: + +1.919.536.aacc
13:06:11 [ArtB]: Present+ AndyB
13:06:22 [Zakim]: +??P5
13:07:15 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos raised this in May
13:07:19 [JereK]: q+
13:07:30 [ArtB]: ... we should record a group's decision on this for v1
13:07:35 [Bryan]: q+
13:07:35 [ArtB]: Present+ David
13:07:40 [drogersuk]: Hi, yes on mute
13:07:47 [Marcos]: +q
13:07:48 [drogersuk]: Horrendous feedback from someone
13:08:00 [ArtB]: JK: not much a widget can do because there is no event re locale change
13:08:08 [Steven]: zakim, ??P5 is drogersuk
13:08:08 [Zakim]: +drogersuk; got it
13:08:11 [ArtB]: ... if there was an event, something could be done
13:08:19 [ArtB]: ... not clear how prefs are connected
13:08:25 [ArtB]: ... should be locale independent
13:08:29 [Steven]: zakim, aacc is AndyB
13:08:29 [Zakim]: +AndyB; got it
13:08:30 [ArtB]: MC: agree it is a no issue
13:08:39 [ArtB]: Bryan: agree with what has been said
13:08:48 [ArtB]: ... thus I say don't do anything
13:08:50 [Bryan]: q-
13:08:53 [JereK]: q-
13:09:00 [drogersuk]: I agree with Bryan's comment
13:09:12 [ArtB]: AB: any disagreements with what has been said so far?
13:09:47 [ArtB]: MC: I agree there is no relationship between locale and prefs
13:10:26 [ArtB]: AB: my recommendation is we change the state to Closed since we aren't going to do anything about it
13:10:37 [ArtB]: AB: any disagreements with that recommendation?
13:10:38 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:10:49 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: Issue #88 is closed
13:10:59 [ArtB]: Topic: P&C: Issue #93: deprecated, grandfathered, and redundant tags should be skipped
13:11:05 [ArtB]: AB: Issue #93 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/93 ) was raised by Opera during the CR phase. Has this been fixed in the TSE spec?
13:11:41 [ArtB]: MC: yes I believe this has been addressed
13:12:03 [ArtB]: AB: your use of "believe" here makes me feel a bit uncomfortable
13:12:32 [ArtB]: ACTION: caceres send a status report on Issue #93
13:12:32 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-413 - Send a status report on Issue #93 [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-15].
13:12:56 [ArtB]: AB: if you think it is closed, please include a proposal to close it, Marcos
13:12:58 [ArtB]: MC: OK
13:13:11 [ArtB]: Topic: P&C: its:dir
13:13:19 [ArtB]: AB: the its:dir feature is marked "At Risk" in CR#1. Going forward the options include: remove before LC#3; remove before CR#2; move it to a new spec; keep it in the spec. What do people think we should do with this feature?
13:14:28 [ArtB]: MC: I think we should leave the feature and remove the at risk
13:14:36 [ArtB]: ... that is, make it an optional part of the spec
13:14:45 [ArtB]: AB: any other comments?
13:14:54 [ArtB]: MH: I'm OK with making it optional
13:15:13 [ArtB]: JK: I'm kinda' indifferent
13:15:32 [ArtB]: ... not much of a diff between leaving it optional and removing
13:15:33 [fhirsch]: would leaving it in require interop and will that be achieved?
13:15:40 [ArtB]: MC: think it will be needed at some point
13:15:53 [drogersuk]: zakim, who's making noise?
13:16:07 [Zakim]: drogersuk, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: JereK (24%), Art_Barstow (42%), Marcos (75%)
13:16:14 [ArtB]: ... if we leave it in, requires use of another name space
13:16:34 [ArtB]: ... think we should define these two attrs in our own namespace
13:16:46 [ArtB]: AB: not sure I agree with that later recommendation
13:17:40 [ArtB]: AB: summary: people want to keep it in
13:18:09 [ArtB]: AB: does anyone object to keeping it in?
13:18:11 [ArtB]: [ No ]
13:18:26 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: the its:dir feature will remain in the P+C spec
13:19:02 [ArtB]: MC: want to also discuss removing the At Risk Feature
13:19:20 [ArtB]: AB: that's a separate discussion that I would like more time for the group to consider
13:20:14 [ArtB]: MC: I'm OK with more time but personally I want to remove At Risk for this feature
13:20:47 [ArtB]: ACTION: barstow start some type of CfC on whether or not the the its:dir should be labeled as Feature At Risk
13:20:47 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-414 - Start some type of CfC on whether or not the the its:dir should be labeled as Feature At Risk [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-15].
13:21:23 [ArtB]: FH: I think what MC says makes sense but wonder if we create a problem during interop
13:21:34 [ArtB]: MC: no because we will not test Optional parts of the spec
13:21:38 [ArtB]: FH: OK; thanks
13:21:53 [ArtB]: Topic: P&C: Need normative statement of Mandatory vs. Optional attributes?
13:22:23 [ArtB]: AB: apparently, I am the only member of the group that thinks the P&C spec should include a normative statement about attributes being Required or Optional ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0072.html ). This information was included in CR#1 but is not included in the TSE.
13:23:06 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos indicated in ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1476.html ) that he moved the Conformance Checker requirements to the new PC-CC spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html ). That email did not say anything about removing normative authoring requirements from the spec.
13:24:01 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos thinks this was the right thing to do; anyone else?
13:24:13 [ArtB]: MH: I think the spec should say whether attrs are optional or not
13:24:52 [JereK]: q+
13:24:57 [JereK]: q-
13:25:01 [Marcos]: +q
13:25:14 [ArtB]: JK: the relax NG schema, is it normative?
13:25:24 [ArtB]: ... if yes, it should state what is required
13:25:39 [ArtB]: MC: none of the attributes are required
13:25:50 [ArtB]: ... the schema can't help here
13:26:03 [ArtB]: ... I think Step 7 is clear enough
13:27:05 [ArtB]: MC: the document doesn't include author requirements
13:27:17 [ArtB]: ... that is the role of the ConfChecker
13:27:53 [ArtB]: ... the spec is only about the user agent
13:28:05 [ArtB]: AB: this is not consistent with the WARP spec which explicitly states whether the <access> element's attributes are Required or Optional
13:28:15 [ArtB]: AB: this is not consistent with the Updates spec which explicitly states whether the <update> element's attributes are Required or Optional
13:28:21 [Zakim]: + +1.452.9.aadd
13:29:41 [JereK]: maybe need both normative schema and processing model?
13:29:51 [ArtB]: AB: does anyone else have any comments on this topic?
13:29:57 [Benoit]: + Benoit
13:30:04 [fhirsch]: q+
13:30:05 [Marcos]: The rationale for removing if something is required to be used by an author is that it does not matter to the user agent. The user agent just processes files, it does not tell the author anything meaningful.
13:30:29 [fhirsch]: q-
13:31:38 [Bryan]: q+
13:31:44 [ArtB]: MC: if a CC is included, these concerns about authoring will be addressed
13:32:06 [ArtB]: ... it could use the schema and correct authoring errors
13:32:47 [JereK]: HTML with errors in browser is different use case than this
13:33:04 [ArtB]: Bryan: the constraints in limited devices are clear
13:33:06 [JereK]: I don't want validation in device either
13:33:20 [ArtB]: ... can't have comprehensive conf checking for example
13:33:51 [ArtB]: ... when processing does occur, the ua should inform user if there are errors
13:34:02 [ArtB]: ... are you saying ua should do no validation
13:34:10 [ArtB]: MC: want to separate concerns
13:34:18 [ArtB]: ... ua may or may not inform user
13:34:27 [ArtB]: ... can add CC reqs on top or not
13:34:39 [Bryan]: q-
13:34:46 [Marcos]: q-
13:34:50 [ArtB]: AB: I object to this spec no longer addressing the requirements for the Author/Creator of a config document. I would prefer this be fixed before we publish the next LCWD but if people feel there is some urgency to publish a new LCWD, I can wait and submit my formal objection during the next LC review period.
13:35:21 [Steven]: q+
13:35:23 [ArtB]: AB: is there a preference?
13:35:37 [ArtB]: SP: last call implies all issues are dealt with
13:36:05 [ArtB]: ... so group should address the issue before new LC is published
13:36:16 [drogersuk]: q+
13:36:35 [ArtB]: MC: I still am confused as to how these things are expressed
13:36:47 [ArtB]: ... not sure what to say
13:36:48 [ArtB]: AB: my concern could be addressed by stating something like the following in Section 7 "From an authoring perspective, all attributes are optional unless explicitly stated as required."
13:37:36 [ArtB]: AB: let's continue on the mail list
13:37:50 [drogersuk]: q+
13:38:29 [Steven]: ack me
13:38:36 [ArtB]: DR: does this mean we need to deal with this now?
13:38:42 [ArtB]: Benoit: yes, I think so
13:38:58 [ArtB]: AB: yes, David that's what I meant by "continue on the mail list"
13:39:07 [ArtB]: DR: OK; so we need to agree with this now
13:39:38 [ArtB]: AB: by "now" we mean before next LC not "during this voice conf"
13:39:57 [ArtB]: MC: I understand what Art wants
13:40:03 [drogersuk]: q-
13:40:16 [ArtB]: ... we could say something about the minimal config doc
13:40:26 [ArtB]: ... agree to continue on the mail list
13:40:37 [ArtB]: Benoit: so you are OK with what Art wants to add?
13:40:43 [ArtB]: MC: yes
13:41:04 [ArtB]: Topic: is P&C-CC ED ready for FPWD?
13:41:19 [ArtB]: AB: last week we said that today we would discuss whether the P&C-CC ED ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html ) was ready for FPWD.
13:41:32 [ArtB]: AB: it's missing too much of the boilerplate plus I need to review it in the context of what holes it may have created in the P&C spec.
13:42:06 [ArtB]: AB: we will poll on this question today
13:42:21 [ArtB]: AB: anything else on this new doc for today?
13:42:42 [ArtB]: AB: I strongly encourage to look at both the TSE and this P+C-CC spec
13:43:02 [ArtB]: ... I think we need to advance these two simultaneously
13:43:08 [drogersuk]: Some notes to add to minutes above: (just above my q+) My original question said that art stated that he would object if we didn't solve this before next LC so I responded by saying that we therefore need to deal with this issue before LC - happy to continue on mailing list.
13:43:20 [ArtB]: Topic: TWI: status of LC comments?
13:43:27 [ArtB]: AB: TWI Editors, what is the status of the TWI LC comment processing ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20090818/
13:43:49 [ArtB]: MC: the td is not up to date
13:44:06 [ArtB]: ... the spec itself still has some outstanding emails
13:44:23 [ArtB]: Topic: TWI: spec testability
13:44:47 [ArtB]: AB: is the TWI spec testable as is? It would be good if we can learn from our P&C test suite and minimize the number of LCWDs that need to be published.
13:45:25 [ArtB]: AB: does this spec need a huge amount of work?
13:45:28 [Marcos]: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
13:45:36 [ArtB]: MC: no; it already uses the test case markup syntax
13:45:51 [ArtB]: ... thus it should be relatively easy to extract testable assertions
13:45:58 [ArtB]: ... and hence to create test cases
13:46:21 [ArtB]: AB: OK; good
13:47:08 [ArtB]: MC: probably need to check the assertions to make sure they all have ids
13:47:29 [ArtB]: ... also have some test infra in place and that should help
13:47:37 [ArtB]: Topic: TWI: LCWD#2 publication plans
13:48:05 [ArtB]: AB: when will it be ready for us to do a pre-LC scrub?
13:48:24 [ArtB]: MC: I'm held back because P+C is higher prio
13:48:43 [ArtB]: AB: is there something you need from the rest of us re the TWI spec?
13:48:53 [ArtB]: MC: not really
13:49:25 [ArtB]: MC: I still have a fair amount of work on P+C
13:49:33 [ArtB]: ... including media type
13:50:04 [ArtB]: ... Arve isn't available now and that doesn't help
13:50:21 [ArtB]: Topic: WARP: is "uri" attribute name clear enough?
13:50:31 [ArtB]: AB: Scott Wilson ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0019.html ) and Phil Archer ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0042.html ) have given their opinion. Is the new information compelling enough to change the name of the "uri" attribute?
13:51:08 [marcin]: q+
13:51:29 [ArtB]: MH: the comments are more about the contents of the attr rather than the name
13:52:23 [ArtB]: ... need to think about the proposals e.g. use regex
13:52:34 [marcin]: q-
13:52:45 [ArtB]: Topic: WARP: is semantics too constrained?
13:52:58 [ArtB]: AB: Steve Jolly says ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0011.html ) WARP's model is too constrained for some of BBC's use cases. Do people agree and if so, is this something we want to address in v1.0?
13:53:24 [marcin]: q+
13:53:36 [ArtB]: MH: I think we should address this in v1
13:54:06 [ArtB]: ... if we go to v2 with this req, could have interop prob with v1
13:54:21 [marcin]: q-
13:54:23 [drogersuk]: just one minute to read Steve's email
13:54:24 [ArtB]: AB: any other comments on this?
13:55:02 [Bryan]: q+
13:55:05 [ArtB]: AB: David, do you have a comment on this topic
13:55:37 [ArtB]: Bryan: the question about URI resolvability and how to access stuff behind firewalls
13:55:53 [ArtB]: ... I don't think can be answered by the P+C or WARP spec
13:56:13 [marcin]: q+
13:56:32 [ArtB]: ... the protocols of resource access should not be blocked by what we specified
13:56:44 [ArtB]: ... need to be very clear with wildcards, etc.
13:56:56 [ArtB]: ... but don't' think we need logical operators like "not"
13:56:59 [Bryan]: q-
13:58:09 [ArtB]: MH: SteveJ's use case re UPnP and DLNA
13:58:27 [ArtB]: ... there is no way today to express those by the WARP syntax
13:59:01 [ArtB]: ... I think there is a need for a more flexible syntax
13:59:12 [ArtB]: ... we should include this UC in v1's model
13:59:38 [ArtB]: ... If we do what Steve proposes, we probably do not need the subdomains attribute
13:59:52 [marcin]: q-
14:00:37 [ArtB]: AB: we still have some issues to work thru before LC; please continue to discuss this on the mail list
14:00:52 [ArtB]: Topic: VM-MF spec
14:01:00 [ArtB]: AB: the FPWD of the VM-MF spec was published on Oct 6 ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/ ). Marcin already indicated some issues ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0047.html ). I think this spec needs a lot of work, especially regarding definitions (e.g. what does "application-like" mean), what is actually implemented versus what is "hints" to a UA etc.
14:01:40 [ArtB]: AB: send comments to the list
14:02:05 [ArtB]: AB: is there any particular group we should contact for review besides CSS WG
14:02:23 [ArtB]: MH: just CSS
14:02:33 [ArtB]: Topic: Updates spec
14:02:41 [ArtB]: AB: the Charter of the Widget Updates PAG ( http://www.w3.org/2009/03/widgets-pag-charter#schedule ) expired 30 September. Presumably that means the PAG will soon complete its work with one of the so-called "PAG Conclusions" per the W3C Patent Policy ( http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-conclude ).
14:03:12 [ArtB]: AB: this PAG operates on a Member-confidential mail list so we need to be careful not to disclose any Member-confidential information. That said, what can we tell the Public about our plans for this spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ )?
14:04:54 [ArtB]: MC: after the PAG's report is published, we can communicate what, if anything, will be changed
14:05:06 [ArtB]: ... I don't think we need to add any new features
14:05:35 [ArtB]: AB: I think we have higher priorities ATM than this spec
14:06:31 [ArtB]: MC: after the PAG publishes the report, the WG will need to review the recommendations and agree on what to do
14:07:47 [ArtB]: Topic: URI spec: who do we ask to review the 8-Oct-2009 LCWD?
14:07:53 [ArtB]: AB: the LCWD of the URI spec should be published today ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/Overview-LC.html ). Other than the TAG, who do we want to review that spec?
14:08:38 [ArtB]: SP: could ask the HCG
14:08:44 [ArtB]: AB: good point; I'll do that
14:08:56 [ArtB]: MH: how about the people working on the IRI spec
14:09:11 [ArtB]: AB: is that an IETF WG?
14:09:18 [ArtB]: MH: yes plus others
14:09:37 [ArtB]: AB: I'll pursue with the Team how to get review from IETF
14:09:57 [ArtB]: ACTION: barstow ask Team about how to get IETF review of the Widgets URI spec
14:09:57 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-415 - Ask Team about how to get IETF review of the Widgets URI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-15].
14:10:09 [ArtB]: Topic: Requirements doc
14:10:16 [ArtB]: AB: we haven't published the requirements doc in about a half-year ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/ ). What's the pub plan for that Marcos?
14:11:22 [ArtB]: MC: some reqs from WARP and URI spec need to be removed to the Reqs doc
14:11:48 [ArtB]: ... let's aim to get it published after the TPAC
14:12:01 [ArtB]: ... but get it ready to review during our Nov 2-3 f2f meeting
14:12:14 [ArtB]: Topic: AOB
14:12:25 [ArtB]: AB: any other topics for today?
14:12:40 [ArtB]: FH: I updated Widgets DigSig example
14:12:48 [ArtB]: ... is there anything else that needs to be done?
14:13:03 [ArtB]: MC: it puts conformance criteria on docs and UAs
14:13:11 [ArtB]: ... could create a TSE of that doc
14:13:18 [ArtB]: ... to change the conformance criteria
14:13:27 [ArtB]: ... to statements of facts
14:13:36 [ArtB]: ... then create test cases based on that
14:13:49 [ArtB]: ... will need to republish that doc after we've made the TSE changes
14:14:12 [ArtB]: FH: not sure need a test for every MUST
14:14:27 [ArtB]: ... two categories of tests
14:14:38 [ArtB]: MC: agree; we need to differentiate the two
14:14:49 [ArtB]: FH: what's the prio of these tests?
14:14:55 [ArtB]: MC: Kai is working on it now
14:15:09 [ArtB]: ... I am not personally involved with it
14:15:20 [ArtB]: ... but expect to get involved after the P+C is done
14:15:29 [ArtB]: ... it would be good if you FH could help
14:15:44 [ArtB]: ... e.g. to make sure we aren't creating tests that XML Sig tests
14:16:01 [ArtB]: AB: anything else for today?
14:16:02 [fhirsch]: Properties will need testing as well as widget specific processing.
14:16:27 [Steven]: Regrets from me for the next two weeks
14:16:30 [ArtB]: Benoit: who is attending TPAC?
14:16:33 [ArtB]: AB: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/registrants#apis
14:16:37 [Zakim]: -AndyB
14:16:53 [ArtB]: AB: Meeting Adjourned; next meeting same time on Oct 15
14:17:01 [Steven]: Regrets from me for the next two weeks
14:17:03 [Zakim]: -Bryan_Sullivan
14:17:05 [Zakim]: -Marcos
14:17:06 [Zakim]: -Art_Barstow
14:17:06 [Zakim]: -fhirsch
14:17:06 [Zakim]: - +1.452.9.aadd
14:17:08 [Zakim]: -Marcin
14:17:09 [Zakim]: -Steven
14:17:09 [Zakim]: -JereK
14:17:12 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:17:12 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:17:36 [Zakim]: -drogersuk
14:17:38 [Zakim]: IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:17:39 [Zakim]: Attendees were Art_Barstow, Marcos, +1.850.385.aaaa, Steven, JereK, +49.163.829.aabb, Marcin, Bryan_Sullivan, fhirsch, +1.919.536.aacc, drogersuk, AndyB, +1.452.9.aadd
14:18:29 [Marcos]: ArtB: would this be sufficient?
14:18:30 [Marcos]: Authoring Guidelines:Authors need to be aware that all elements, apart from the widget element, and related attributes are optional.
14:18:30 [Marcos]: The following example shows the smallest possible configuration document that a widget user agent will be able to process.
14:18:43 [Marcos]: <widget xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets" />
14:19:32 [ArtB]: Present+ Benoit
14:20:28 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:20:28 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:21:54 [JereK]: JereK has left #wam
14:22:10 [Marcos]: I rewrote it as:
14:22:10 [Marcos]: The only mandatory element in a configuration document is the widget element. All other elements and their respective attributes are optional.
14:22:31 [Benoit_]: Benoit_ has joined #wam
14:43:38 [Marcos]: Marcos has joined #wam
15:32:40 [Marcos]: s/object/objection
15:37:21 [tlr]: huh?
15:37:28 [tlr]: who objected against what?
15:45:59 [Marcos]: trl, Artb did not like that I removed normative text that described which element's attributes are mandatory from an authoring perspective.
15:47:00 [Marcos]: I made them into "Authoring guidelines"
15:47:07 [Marcos]: which are non-normative
15:47:09 [Marcos]: for example
15:47:14 [Marcos]: It is optional for authors to use the type attribute with a content element. When the value is absent, the user agent will assume the value text/html.
15:51:18 [ArtB]: Marcos, just back to my cube; will need to catch up and then I'll reply ...
15:51:36 [Marcos]: ArtB: no probs
15:52:03 [Marcos]: If you have time, can we please sort this out today? It's stressin me out :(
15:52:49 [Marcos]: Artb, Select *, move to trash (except if from: marcos :) )
15:56:19 [MikeSmith]: MikeSmith has joined #wam
15:58:15 [annevk]: annevk has joined #wam
16:00:17 [ArtB]: zakim, bye
16:00:17 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #wam
16:01:44 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, bye
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-actions.rdf :
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: barstow contact RIM and ask them to join WebApps [1]
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc#T13-05-09
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: caceres send a status report on Issue #93 [2]
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc#T13-12-32
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: barstow start some type of CfC on whether or not the the its:dir should be labeled as Feature At Risk [3]
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc#T13-20-47
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: barstow ask Team about how to get IETF review of the Widgets URI spec [4]
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc#T14-09-57