<scribe> Scribe: Art

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

Review and tweak agenda

AB: the draft agenda was submitted yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0124.html ). Any requests for changes?

[ None ]

Announcements

AB: I have two; first is that Widget Updates WD was published April 13 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-updates-20100413/ )
... 2nd is that Digital Signatures for Widgets LC will be published today; May 6 is deadline for comments
... any other annoucements?

View Modes Media Features spec

AB: Robin has responded to all of the pre-LC comments and updated the ED accordingly ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/ ). As such, I think the spec is ready for LC publication. Any comments?
... proposed RESOLUTION: the group agrees the View Modes Media Features spec is ready for LC publication
... any comments or objections?
... any voices of support?
... I support this spec moving to LC

RB: I support this

RESOLUTION: the group agrees the View Modes Media Features spec is ready for LC publication

AB: Marcos told me offline that he support LC of this spec
... re which WGs we should ask to review, are there any groups other than CSS WG?
... does anyone know about BONDI?

RB: don't know but we can ask

AB: I will include BONDI in the list of review groups
... re the review period length, the minimum is 3 weeks but since this is the first LC and we want review from others, I think 4 weeks would be the minimum.

<darobin> +1

SP: this is an HCG area
... should ask them and adjust the time accordingly

AB: I'm OK but don't want it to be too openended

SP: right, so ask them something like "is 4 weeks OK?"

AB: that's OK with me

<Steven> How many pages is it?

AB: is 4 a good number or do we need it longer

RB: I think 4 is fine since it is a smallish spec and CSS WG already reviewed it once

AB: good points
... I'll use 4 weeks in my proposal to HCG

<Steven> In that case 4 weeks will be fine

RB: it's about 5 pages including all of the boilerplate stuff

<scribe> ACTION: berjon notify Art when the VMMF LC is ready for a publication request [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-524 - Notify Art when the VMMF LC is ready for a publication request [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-04-22].

RB: OK, but we need agreement on the short name

AB: good point
... so now it is widgets-vmmf?

RB: right

AB: one option is vmmf, another is view-mode
... I am mostly indifferent

SP: something that is readable is good

AB: how about view-mode?

RB: OK

<darobin> view-modes

RB: use view-modes
... no, make that "view-mode"

AB: any objections to "view-mode"

<timeless> what's the reason for singular?

RB: want singular because media feature in CSS is singular

JS: OK

AB: let's consider that agreed "view-mode"

<scribe> ACTION: barstow submit TransReq for VMMF LC and ask groups to review it; use "view-mode" as new shortname [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-525 - Submit TransReq for VMMF LC and ask groups to review it; use "view-mode" as new shortname [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-04-22].

View Modes Interfaces spec

AB: earlier this week Anne van Kestern (the Editor of the CSSOM spec) asked us for "use case example" for the CSSOM spec (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0105.html ). Consider this a request for *everyone* to submit use case examples.
... this is a reasonable request and we should submit use cases as soon as we can
... one process related issue here is the mail list to use: www-style, public-webapps or cross-post. I generally don't like cross-posting but think that's appropriate ATM since currently there isn't yet agreement on the work split with the CSS WG.
... going forward www-style will be used for CSSOM discussions since the precedence is already set
... Marcos made a proposal re CSSOM's stlyeMedia.matchMedium usage ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0071.html ). There has been some follow-up.
... anything today on this?

RB: think we should continue to hash this out on the list

AB: I agree with that

<darobin> +1

AB: we do loose some control if our use cases are addressed by a CSS WG spec
... but they have the right expertise so I think this is good
... any concerns?

[ No concerns raised ]

AB: this gives us all the continued action to work with AvK and the CSS WG
... anything else on VM Interfaces for today?
... I don't know if we will have anything left in the VM-I spec

RB: that's good

AB: agree

AoB

AB: anything else for today?
... thanks Robin for following up on the URI scheme disussions

RB: sure; hopefully we can close that soon

AB: next call is April 22; there will not be a call on April 29
... 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)

Found Scribe: Art
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Present: Art Josh StevenP Frederick Frederick_Hirsch Robin Arve
Regrets: Marcos Bryan
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0124.html
Got date from IRC log name: 15 Apr 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: ask barstow berjon for groups lc submit transreq vmmf