See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 17 December 2009
AB: yesterday I submitted the draft agenda for today ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1343.html ). The meeting will end at the end of this hour at the latest. Any change requests?
[ no ]
AB: the only announcement I have
is the next call is 7 January 2010. Any other short
... any others?
[ no ]
AB: the Test Suite wiki ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting#Widgets_1.0:_Digital_Signature_spec ) contains some info about DigSig. What is the status of the DigSig test suite?
MC: I have not been working on
... Kai and Dom started
... but they haven't done anything in the last two months
AB: does any anticipate participating in this test suite?
MC: yes; expect Opera to
contribute tests next year
... but there is a lot of work to do
... must go thru ever assertion in the spec
... and create a test case
... Not sure how much has been done by Kai and Dom
... perhaps they have discussed it in the MWTS WG
... The spec isn't written the same way P&C is so it's a bit more work to generate test assertions
<scribe> ACTION: barstow to follow-up with MWTS WG re the Widget DigSig test suite re their plans, status, etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-471 - Follow-up with MWTS WG re the Widget DigSig test suite re their plans, status, etc. [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-24].
AB: I'll plan to provide an update re MWTS on Jan 7
MC: I'll also follow-up with Kai
AB: anyone else on DigSig test suite for today?
AB: the Implementation wiki (
) contains some info about DigSig. Is there any other Public
info about DigSig implementations we can add?
... is there anything else to add here?
[ silence ]
<fjh> what do we need to do with andreas?
AB: anything else on this topic for today?
FH: I think Andreas is asking for
... he is looking for a CA
... perhaps there is some process that needs to start
... I'm not quite sure how W3C would work with him
AB: is there anything from previoius XML DigSig interop that can be used?
FH: just use openssl
... perhaps he can move his stuff into the WG's space
MC: have you looked at Andreas' work?
FH: perhaps he's just offering
... and we need to wait for another impl
<scribe> ACTION: barstow respond to the 21-Oct-2009 email from Andreas re Widget Dig Sig [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-472 - Respond to the 21-Oct-2009 email from Andreas re Widget Dig Sig [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-24].
AB: anything else on DigSig for today?
[ no ]
AB: comment tracking document is ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091007/doc/ ). What is the status of Larry Masinter's replies to your responses Robin?
RB: LM has accepted 1
... not replied to some
... a few appear to be disagreements and I replied to those
AB: I suspect we may not get closure here until January; is that your take too?
RB: yes. We need more discussion.
AB: anything you need from the WG?
RB: nothing specific
... everyone should feel free to respond
AB: anyone have any comments about the exchanges so far?
[ no ]
AB: Robin, what's the status of registering the widget: URI scheme?
RB: I believe we should wait
until we are in CR before making the registration request
... must have a stable spec
... We will have some process to follow
... specific mail list for discussion in IETF, etc.
... I had hoped there was a "fast track" for scheme registration but there isn't
AB: your proposal to wait until
CR before making the registration request makes sense to
... so that will be our Plan of Record
... anything else on this topic?
[ no ]
AB: one or two calls ago, Marcos mentioned a document by VF re the VM-MF spec ( http://lab.vodafone.com/w3c/vmmf-20091201.html ). What is the status of this spec vis-a-vis the WG?
RB: this was developed as a
... I think we should consider it as a WG input
... we should accept what make sense
... it comes from people that are using the technology
... so it is based on real use case
... think it's a good input
... so I am in favor of integrating it
AB: is the idea the interfaces would be added to the VM-MF spec?
RB: no, I think those interfaces
should be considered for VM-I
... those interfaces are pretty simple
... think we could add them to VM-I
AB: clear message for the group
is that this input is for both the VM-MF and VM-I specs
... not sure how we want to handle this process-wise
... if people don't comment otherwise, the Editors should feel free to take the good stuff
... is this about right?
MC: yes; it's an input for
... we need to evaluate the input
... it is indeed based on real use cases
... yes, we should target them at the right specs
AB: an action for everyone to review that input by Jan 7
<scribe> ACTION: barstow follow-up on the VF VM-MF thread and ask people to submit comments on the proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-473 - Follow-up on the VF VM-MF thread and ask people to submit comments on the proposal [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-24].
AB: anything else on view modes for today?
[ no ]
AB: last week Marcos said he was planning to have the Updates spec ready for a new WD publication and it would include all of the PAG's recommendation. Marcos, what's the status?
MC: I've done a lot of work on it
but it isn't ready yet
... still trying to work about some of the model
... Robin and I have had some offlist discussions
... One issue is where updates are done i.e. local disk or just from the Web
... perhaps each should model should have its own spec
... currently, the spec just covers updates over HTTP and a local storage medium
... thinking about changing the scope to only cover the HTTP case
AB: any comments about
... I will need to get some internal feedback
... but wrt the publication issue, I have no problem with delaying publication until we think we are ready
MC: we've only done a FPWD so
it's still not very well fleshed out
... would prefer to have something more concrete before making a new pub
AB: that's OK with me
... so we can expect a proposal from you in early January?
AB: anything else on this spec for today?
[ no ]
AB: any topics for AOB?
... I don't have
BS: as I mentioned to some of you
already, I am changing jobs at Orange
... consequently, I will not attend widget calls anymore
... I am not sure yet who will be a permanent replacement
... but we have identified a temporary replacement
RB: we will miss you!
<timeless_mbp> yeah, we'll miss you
AB: thanks very much for your
... best of luck in your new job!
BS: Best of Luck to you to get the specs DONE!
Arve: yes, good luck Benoit
AB: happy holidays and happy new
... Thanks very much for a very productive 2009!
BS: yes, it was a very productive year
RB: we'll finish everything next year!
AB: meeting adjourned!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/feel/feel free/ Succeeded: s/very production 2009/very productive 2009/ Found Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Default Present: fjh, Marcos, Josh_Soref, +1.919.536.aabb, Art_Barstow, arve, darobin, +1.452.9.aacc Present: Art Arve Josh Marcos Frederick AndyB Robin Benoit Regrets: Marcin Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1343.html Found Date: 17 Dec 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow respond[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]