14:01:35 RRSAgent has joined #wam 14:01:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-irc 14:01:41 Scribe: ArtB 14:01:46 ScribeNick: ArtB 14:01:49 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1089.html 14:01:54 Present+ Marcin_Hanclik 14:01:55 Meeting Widgets Voice Conference 14:02:02 + +33.2.08.82.90.aabb 14:02:05 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 14:02:09 Zakim, aabb is marcin 14:02:09 +marcin; got it 14:02:14 Date: 3 December 2009 14:02:24 RRSAgent, make log Public 14:02:57 darobin has joined #wam 14:03:12 Present: Art, Arve, Marcos, Marcin, Suresh, Robin 14:03:25 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 14:03:32 AB: agenda posted on 2 December ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1089.html ). Any change requests? 14:03:32 +[IPcaller] 14:03:59 [ None ] 14:04:07 Topic: Announcements 14:04:15 AB: 1) reminder that December 18 is the last day to request a publication for 2009. 2) December 8 is the last day for comments on TWI LC#2. 14:04:42 AB: any other short announcements? 14:04:57 [ None ] 14:05:04 Topic: the Widget Interface (TWI) spec 14:05:16 AB: LC#2 comment period ends Dec 08. The comment tracking (CT) document is ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20091117/ ). 14:05:29 AB: The TWI spec has several Editors. Who is going to take the lead on the CT document? 14:05:46 AB: or share the responsibility? 14:05:50 MC: I can maintain it 14:05:59 ... would like some help from ArtB 14:06:07 ... don't expect too many comments 14:06:20 AB: It is theoretically possible for a CR to be published in 2009 but IFF we are able to respond to complete the round-trip with all Commentors by Dec 10 and we could get approval from the Director by the 18th. 14:07:26 MC: I would like to try to do this 14:07:33 ... we already have the test suite 14:07:45 AB: in the best case scenario, on Dec 10 we would be in a position to agree to publish a Candidate of the spec. 14:08:13 AB: anything else on TWI for today? 14:08:17 [ No ] 14:08:31 Topic: WARP: CfC to publish LC#2 14:09:17 AB: the CfC to publish WARP LC#2 ended 2 December ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1006.html ). There were no objections to that CfC thus this CfC has "passed" and later today I will submit a publication request for this LC. 14:09:41 AB: In Marcin's response to this CfC he asked for some clarification on the commenting process ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1098.html ). Let's discuss that now. 14:10:01 AB: First, let me re-state one of WebApps' mantras: "WebApps welcomes and encourages comments for all of its specs at any time." 14:10:21 AB: naturally, there is some tension between actually completing a spec and reflecting ongoing feedback. Completing a spec can be impossible if the comment deadline isn't fixed. 14:10:49 AB: on July 9 ( http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-minutes.html#item06 ) we agreed the WARP spec met the Last Call requirements and the comment period for LC#1 was 7 weeks (more than twice the required 3-weeks). 14:11:25 AB: There has been no indication the people who participated in that agreement have changed their position. I do not generally support re-visiting Resolutions unless there is overwhelming support for doing so from the people who agreed to a Resolution. 14:11:51 AB: So, before we move to the next topic re "handling post-LC#1 comments", does anyone have any comments? 14:12:27 MC: no comments from Opera 14:12:35 AB: anyone else? 14:12:40 SC: no comments 14:12:44 MH: no comments 14:13:15 AB: the CfC included the resolution so need to capture it here 14:13:25 AB: re the LC#2 comment period end date, I propose Jan 13. Any objections to that? 14:13:36 +1 14:13:46 [ No objections ] 14:14:06 ACTION: Robin to prepare LC#2 draft for WARP 14:14:07 Created ACTION-463 - Prepare LC#2 draft for WARP [on Robin Berjon - due 2009-12-10]. 14:14:13 ACTION: barstow submit a pub request for WARP LC#2 with a comment end date of Jan 13 2010 14:14:13 Created ACTION-464 - Submit a pub request for WARP LC#2 with a comment end date of Jan 13 2010 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-10]. 14:14:31 Topic: WARP spec: post-LC#1 comment handling 14:14:36 Steven has joined #wam 14:14:47 zakim, dial steven-617 14:14:47 ok, Steven; the call is being made 14:14:48 +Steven 14:14:49 AB: during the last call we discussed how to handle "post LC#1 features" ( http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-wam-minutes.html#item06 ). Since then, Marcin created an input for the "local" feature. 14:15:05 Apologies for lateness 14:15:08 AB: I responded ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1085.html ) with a list of information that should be included in his proposal. I think Marcin is now "aligned" with the rest of us on this re what we expect for the "local" proposal. 14:15:10 zakim, mute me 14:15:10 Steven should now be muted 14:15:26 rrsagent, here? 14:15:26 See http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-irc#T14-15-26 14:15:51 MH: yes 14:16:11 ... I will add some sec considerations 14:16:22 Present+ Steven 14:16:36 MH: re use cases and requirements 14:16:46 ... think they are the same as what we have in WARP 14:17:00 ... or in the Widgets Reqs doc 14:17:02 Can someone please post the link to Marcin's draft? 14:17:24 ... not sure what we expect for reqs and use cases 14:17:44 RB: re reqs and UCs, we agreed we would be put them in the Widgets Reqs doc 14:18:03 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/ 14:18:13 MH: if we want to handle the reqs this way, is that problematic? 14:18:24 RB: no, we just need to republish the Reqs doc 14:18:37 ... it's not a big deal to re-publish it 14:18:47 MH: so it's just a matter of editing it? 14:19:09 MC: on 24-Jan-2010, I plan to repub the Widgets Reqs 14:19:53 MH: could be a problem with timing 14:20:21 RB: don't think we need to publish Reqs whenever we add some new ones to the ED 14:21:00 AB: think it would be helpful if MH submitted "local" reqs to the list 14:21:16 Q+ 14:21:18 MC: we must have the reqs documented because Director will ask for them when we try to enter CR 14:21:25 AB: good point MC! 14:21:45 AB: is it clear on how you are to proceed with the "local" proposal? 14:21:59 MH: yes; if I have any questions, I'll ask RB and MC 14:22:16 SC: re the process 14:22:31 ... the local feature will be in a separate track e.g. 1.1? 14:22:38 MC: no, it will be in a separate spec 14:22:47 ... that will extend the semantics of the WARP spec 14:23:10 ... the way P&C was written, it is easy to add new features via new specs 14:23:20 q+ 14:23:45 SC: so we are not positioning WARP as 1.0? 14:23:55 MC: no, we are going to remove 1.0 from the WARP title 14:24:13 SC: so, it will be a stand-alone spec which will go along the Rec track separately 14:24:19 Benoit_ has joined #wam 14:24:27 Arve: yes, the local spec will only depend on WARP 14:25:25 MH: can the "local" feature be re-submitted as a comment during the LC#2 comment period 14:25:40 MC: if can be submitted as a comment 14:25:49 ... but I think we want it to be a separate spec 14:25:59 ... We agreed to feature completeness last July 14:26:07 +1 14:26:07 ... don't want to add new features 14:26:12 Arve: agree with MC 14:26:21 ... do not want to add new features to WARP 14:26:50 AB: from a process perspective, and adhereing to previous agreements, I agree with MC, Arve and Robin 14:27:07 RB: we made commitments to external parties and they expect it to ship 14:27:21 MC: we are NOT saying we don't want new features spec'ed 14:27:38 ... on the contrary, we want WARP to continue and the other features to continue 14:27:53 Arve: yes, we want this features to continue independently 14:29:11 Arve: Opera has running code and a document we will submit for review concerning local service discovery 14:29:32 Arve: the spec is agnostic WRT to the underlying technology 14:29:32 [not to interrupt, but VF wants this feature too — just not to slow down publication] 14:30:01 SC: re the feature I proposed, I understand we want them spec'ed in a separate spec 14:30:11 AB: that is correct 14:30:37 MH: I understand Suresh is working on a different proposal 14:31:01 ... wondering if we should combine our proposals or keep them separate? 14:31:18 ... If we align around "local" 14:31:31 ... we can assume the local support will be quite fast 14:31:44 ... Whereas, Suresh's proposal could take longer to get consensus 14:32:05 ... Suresh, what are your thoughts on how you are going to proceed? 14:32:41 SC: since we still a bit early, I would prefer to keep them separate at least for now 14:32:57 ... but depending on how things go, it may sense to merge them 14:33:13 ... but lets wait and see 14:33:25 ... I hope to get a proposal out this month 14:33:43 MH: what do others think? 14:34:07 RB: I think the "local" could be relatively easy to put in a separate spec 14:34:17 q+ 14:34:24 ... it could be that Suresh's proposal would make more sense for a WARP 2.0 14:34:25 q- 14:34:31 q- 14:34:33 ... but until I see the proposal, it's hard to say 14:34:55 Arve: "local" is a difficult term to define 14:35:14 ... it is relative to where the device is e.g. behind a firewall or not 14:35:48 ... not sure we want to down the path about hardcoding network policies 14:36:05 q+ 14:36:36 ... don't want to add definition of "local" to WARP 14:36:57 MH: I agree there is no general defintion of "local" 14:37:54 ... need to consider home networks too 14:38:05 No, the definition of local falls over even on IPv4 14:38:19 ... not sure we need to define it precisely though for the purposes of this spec 14:38:42 ... don't want to block widget functionality 14:39:16 ... agree local can mean different things in different contexts e.g. mobile, corporate, etc. 14:40:35 AB: my proposal is to continue discusssion of "local" on the mail list 14:41:35 AB: any open questions about how to handle new features proposed after LC? 14:41:48 MH: is there some precedence to follow? 14:43:19 AB: we are required to follow the Process Document 14:43:34 ... I think what we are saying with WARP is we will follow the PD quite closely 14:44:13 ... I can believe there are some cases where the group agreed to do things a bit "differently" but would expect there have been unanimous support for doing that 14:44:55 Benoit_ has joined #wam 14:45:12 AB: do we need a resoulution on how we are going to handle post-LC#1 comments for WARP? 14:45:19 It would help to avoid rediscussion 14:45:30 MH: we've agreed new features will be handled via new specs 14:46:12 AB: Draft Resolution: feature requests beyond the scope of WARP LC#1 will be handled via new specs 14:46:22 AB: any objections? 14:46:43 +1 14:46:58 MH: is this in general or just WARP? 14:47:05 AB: this resolution is for WARP 14:47:20 AB: any objections to that resolution? 14:47:22 [ None ] 14:47:43 RESOLUTION: feature requests beyond the scope of WARP LC#1 will be handled via new specs 14:47:53 Topic: URI Scheme spec: LC comment processing 14:48:03 AB: the LC comment period ended 10 November. The comment tracking document is: ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/ ). Robin asked Larry Masinter when we can expect a response ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0832.html ). Robin, what's the status? 14:48:39 RB: I have not heard back 14:48:43 ... not sure what to do 14:48:53 AB: I'm not sure either 14:48:57 ack me 14:49:01 ... Stephen, are you on the call? 14:49:11 SP: a couple of weeks is usually enough 14:49:12 q- 14:49:17 arve has left #wam 14:49:20 arve has joined #wam 14:49:39 ... but should send him a message that clearly states if you something like "no response will be considered assent" 14:49:43 RB: I've done that 14:50:23 AB: I'm a little hesitant about this; OTOH, we can't go unbounded 14:51:21 ACTION: barstow work with Robin and WebApps Team Contacts re getting Larry Masinter to reply to Robin's comments 14:51:21 Created ACTION-465 - Work with Robin and WebApps Team Contacts re getting Larry Masinter to reply to Robin's comments [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-10]. 14:51:28 zakim, mute me 14:51:28 Steven should now be muted 14:51:42 AB: if we don't get a response, we will move that doc to the next stage 14:52:02 ... and that could mean that on December 10 we agree to move to URI Scheme to Candidate 14:52:18 AB: anything else on this spec for today? 14:52:25 RB: it has already been implemented 14:52:30 AB: widgeon? 14:52:38 ... any other? 14:52:43 RB: not that I know about 14:52:49 ... it is easy to implement 14:52:57 Topic: View Modes Interface (VMI) spec 14:53:04 AB: we still don't have a FPWD of the VM-I spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-interfaces.src.html ). What is the priority of this spec and what needs to be done before we can publish the FPWD? 14:53:46 MH: I edited it recently 14:53:53 ... I have removed some bugs 14:54:01 ... the ToC is there; date is updated 14:54:22 ... the structure resemlbes D3E spec 14:54:31 ... since they are similar "in nature" 14:54:36 ... think it is ready for FPWD 14:54:37 timeless_mbp has joined #wam 14:55:10 ... need to sync with VM-MF 14:55:49 ... I want to consolidate design between VM-MF values and properties with VM-I 14:56:22 AB: what do others think about FPWD readiness? 14:56:37 MC: working with VF, we may have some additions we'd like to make 14:56:48 ... I'll provide a URI to those comments 14:57:30 http:/lab.vodafone.com/w3c/vmmf-20091201.html 14:57:44 q+ 14:57:47 q- 14:58:18 AB: given Opera and VF have input and Marcin wants to do some consolidation work, it doesn't sound like we are ready for FPWD 14:58:39 ... I would prefer to publish FPWD when the scope, at least at the high-level, is complete 14:58:43 MH: that's OK with me 14:59:08 SC: looking at VM ChangeEvent, 14:59:17 ... are we talking about landscape and portrait? 14:59:28 ... Not clear it's ready to be published 14:59:48 MC: take a look at the proposal I just dropped in 14:59:57 ... it defines the view modes a better 15:00:07 ... my proposal is there for the WG to consider 15:00:26 ... We may want to use some of the text 15:00:42 ... Need to nail-down what the VMs mean at the semantic level 15:01:29 AB: given all this, it seems like spec won't be ready for FPWD until Jan/Feb 15:02:07 MH: why didn't you publish this doc on public-webapps 15:02:47 ACTION: Marcos send a link to the Opera+VF view modes input to public-webapps 15:02:47 Created ACTION-466 - Send a link to the Opera+VF view modes input to public-webapps [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-12-10]. 15:03:03 Topic: Updates spec: 15:03:10 AB: the Updates spec was last published over one year ago ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ). What is the plan a new publication? 15:04:00 MC: I want to have a new draft ready by Dec 17 15:04:09 ... need to look at core use cases 15:04:17 q+ 15:04:24 ... there are a lot of issues e.g. when DigSig is used 15:04:32 ... need to think about scope 15:04:47 ... and whether or not DigSig is handled 15:05:04 SC: what is the status of the PAG? 15:05:21 MC: the PAG finding is online 15:05:27 ... can find the results there 15:05:41 ... the PAG recommended some changes 15:06:04 ... the next WD will include those recommendations 15:06:35 AB: yes, the recommendations are about how to avoid the patent 15:06:50 AB: anything else on Updates for today? 15:06:53 [ No ] 15:07:01 Topic: AOB 15:07:08 AB: next meeting is 10 December 15:07:29 MC: I have been working on the P&C Impl Report 15:07:46 ... building some infra to reuse with other specs 15:08:08 ... after I get things setup, want to get alignment so we can reuse editing patterns 15:08:23 ... and hence reuse the tools 15:08:37 AB: Meeting Adjourned 15:08:46 -darobin 15:08:47 -Steven 15:08:48 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:08:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html ArtB 15:08:49 -arve 15:08:51 - +1.408.216.aaaa 15:08:53 -marcin 15:08:53 -Art_Barstow 15:08:55 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended 15:08:56 Attendees were +1.408.216.aaaa, Art_Barstow, arve, +33.2.08.82.90.aabb, marcin, darobin, Steven 15:09:02 Regrets from me for rest of the month 15:09:03 Benoit_ has joined #wam 15:09:55 Chair: Art 15:09:59 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:09:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html ArtB 15:14:57 zakim, bye 15:14:57 Zakim has left #wam 15:15:02 rrsagent, bye 15:15:02 I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-actions.rdf : 15:15:02 ACTION: Robin to prepare LC#2 draft for WARP [1] 15:15:02 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-irc#T14-14-06 15:15:02 ACTION: barstow submit a pub request for WARP LC#2 with a comment end date of Jan 13 2010 [2] 15:15:02 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-irc#T14-14-13 15:15:02 ACTION: barstow work with Robin and WebApps Team Contacts re getting Larry Masinter to reply to Robin's comments [3] 15:15:02 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-irc#T14-51-21 15:15:02 ACTION: Marcos send a link to the Opera+VF view modes input to public-webapps [4] 15:15:02 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-irc#T15-02-47