See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
AB: the draft agenda was submitted yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0124.html ). Any requests for changes?
[ None ]
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?
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
... 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.
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?
AB: one option is vmmf, another
... I am mostly indifferent
SP: something that is readable is good
AB: how about view-mode?
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
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].
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
... 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
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: anything else for
... 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[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]