13:00:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:00:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-irc
13:00:22 <fjh> zakim, who is here?
13:00:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller]
13:00:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, darobin, Steven, fjh, timeless_mbp, ArtB, tlr, shepazu, kenneth, Marcos, steve, timeless, trackbot
13:00:31 <fjh> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
13:00:31 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
13:00:31 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
13:00:32 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
13:00:34 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
13:00:35 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0878.html
13:00:37 <ArtB> Chair: Art
13:00:38 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:01:16 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
13:02:25 <Marcos> Marcos has joined #wam
13:02:39 <fjh> zakim, who is here?
13:02:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see fjh, Art_Barstow
13:02:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see Marcos, RRSAgent, Zakim, darobin, Steven, fjh, timeless_mbp, ArtB, tlr, shepazu, kenneth, steve, timeless, trackbot
13:03:24 <Zakim> + +1.479.524.aaaa
13:03:48 <ArtB> Present: Art, Frederick, Marcos
13:04:06 <darobin> on my way sir!
13:04:18 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-work
13:04:18 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
13:04:20 <Zakim> +Steven
13:04:31 <ArtB> Present+ StevenP
13:04:34 <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:04:40 <ArtB> AB: the draft agenda was submitted yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0878.html ). Any change requests?
13:05:01 <ArtB> AB: we will drop GZip if Arve doesn't join
13:05:11 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
13:05:14 <Zakim> +darobin
13:05:18 <ArtB> AB: any short announcements?
13:05:23 <ArtB> Present+ Robin
13:05:28 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
13:05:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see fjh, Art_Barstow, +1.479.524.aaaa, Steven, darobin
13:05:35 <ArtB> Topic: Digital Signatures for Widgets spec
13:05:42 <ArtB> AB: the LC comment period ended June 1 and no comments were submitted. As such, I think the spec is ready to be published as a Candidate Recommendation. Any comments?
13:06:28 <ArtB> SP: if there are no comments, it will raise some suspicion
13:07:12 <ArtB> AB: we published a CR last summer 
13:07:25 <ArtB> ... the LCs we published since then reflected impl feedback
13:07:39 <ArtB> ... we also got review from XML Sec WG
13:07:50 <ArtB> SP: ok; include that data in the Trans Req
13:07:52 <ArtB> AB: will do
13:08:00 <ArtB> AB: proposed resolution: the group agrees to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the widgets Digital Signature spec 
13:08:15 <ArtB> AB: any comments?
13:08:22 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
13:08:27 <ArtB> MC: Opera supports CR
13:08:40 <ArtB> FH: I think it supports a lot of good improvements
13:08:43 <ArtB> ... I support it
13:09:04 <ArtB> AB: hearing no objections, I will record a positive decision
13:09:10 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the widgets Digital Signature spec
13:09:18 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
13:09:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html Steven
13:09:24 <ArtB> AB: who will prepare the CR version including an updated SotD? Perhaps we should use the WARP CR as a template for the SotD (http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-access/)
13:09:58 <ArtB> MC: I can do it but not until next week
13:10:41 <ArtB> FH: when do you expect to publish?
13:10:54 <ArtB> AB: probably not until June 22 or 24
13:13:06 <ArtB> ACTION: macros notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated
13:13:06 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - macros
13:13:28 <ArtB> ACTION: marcos notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated
13:13:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-559 - Notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-06-10].
13:13:36 <ArtB> AB: what is the date of the earliest PR? I'd say pub date + 4 weeks
13:14:10 <ArtB> MC: ok with me
13:14:17 <arve> arve has joined #wam
13:14:23 <ArtB> AB: re the pub date, how about June 24?
13:15:00 <ArtB> SP: we want to do trans call for VMMF at same time?
13:15:02 <Zakim> + +47.23.69.aabb
13:15:04 <ArtB> AB: yes, that is correct
13:15:11 <ArtB> Present+ Arve
13:15:14 <arve> Zakim, aabb is me
13:15:14 <Zakim> +arve; got it
13:15:27 <ArtB> AB: anything else on DigSig?
13:16:17 <ArtB> Topic: Packaging and Configuration spec
13:16:23 <ArtB> AB: the agenda ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0878.html ) includes pointers to comments from the I18N WG. They were are marked as "Editorial". What is the status Marcos?
13:16:25 <Zakim> -fjh
13:16:56 <ArtB> MC: I think I addressed them all
13:17:26 <ArtB> AB: please check and make any editorial changes that are needed
13:17:35 <ArtB> AB: there was also an email from Addison Phillips the Chair of the I18N WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0863.html ). In this e-mail he voiced support for the spec changes Marcos has made. As such I think we have "closed the loop" with the I18N WG and the spec is ready for a new publication which is a Proposed Recommendation.
13:18:00 <ArtB> AB: any comments on publishing P&C as a Proposed Rec?
13:18:29 <ArtB> AB: Marcos, we have implementation data?
13:18:37 <ArtB> MC: yes
13:18:51 <ArtB> ... and we can also have some implementation data for the I18N stuff
13:19:23 <ArtB> AB: are we going to need a 2nd impl for the I18N features?
13:19:40 <ArtB> MC: if we can show a JS impl and an Opera impl
13:19:42 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
13:19:48 <ArtB> ... that should be sufficient
13:19:52 <ArtB> Present+ Josh
13:20:11 <ArtB> SP: if a May, then yes, 1 impl should be enough; 2 would of course be better
13:20:20 <ArtB> AB: proposed resolution: the group agrees to publish a Proposed Recommendation of the Widget Packaging and Configuration spec
13:20:36 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
13:20:47 <ArtB> AB: any support you want to indicate?
13:20:53 <darobin> +1
13:21:00 <ArtB> SP: yes, go for it
13:21:04 <ArtB> RB: support
13:21:09 <ArtB> MC: support
13:21:16 <ArtB> AB: I also support this
13:21:27 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a Proposed Recommendation of the Widget Packaging and Configuration spec
13:21:29 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
13:21:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html Steven
13:21:41 <ArtB> AB: Marcos, please prepare the doc for publication. You may want to look at other PRs in /TR/ e.g. CSS3 Selectors ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-css3-selectors-20091215/ )
13:22:22 <ArtB> AB: this will require a Director's call as well as some additional process e.g. AC review.
13:22:47 <ArtB> ... I need to read up on the Process part
13:22:52 <ArtB> SP: need a transition call
13:23:00 <ArtB> ... then a vote form gets sent to the AC
13:23:11 <ArtB> ... Must make sure that AC reps submit their vote
13:23:22 <ArtB> ... We want to get as many votes as we can
13:23:30 <ArtB> AB: excellent advice
13:24:01 <ArtB> SP: do we want to include 3 specs in one trans call?
13:24:18 <ArtB> AB: the advice I got from PLH is to keep them to 1 hour
13:24:44 <ArtB> SP: let's first take care of the TransReq
13:24:47 <ArtB> ... and then the call
13:24:51 <ArtB> AB: OK; will do
13:25:02 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow submit a TransReq for P&C PR
13:25:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-560 - Submit a TransReq for P&C PR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-06-10].
13:25:50 <ArtB> AB: anything else on P&C for today?
13:25:59 <ArtB> AB: CONGRATULATIONS TO MARCOS!
13:26:15 <ArtB> Topic: view-mode Media Feature spec
13:26:33 <ArtB> AB: last week we agreed to publish a CR of the VMMF spec
13:26:35 <ArtB> AB: Jim Allan from WAI's User Agent Guidelines WG submitted an e-mail ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0858.html ) about the VMMF spec. Marcos, Robin and I all responded. I haven't seen a reply from Jim nor the UA WG.
13:27:10 <ArtB> AB: I did ask Jim to please follow-up 
13:27:35 <ArtB> AB: I am tempted to move ahead with the TransReq to CR
13:27:38 <ArtB> RB: I agree
13:28:06 <ArtB> AB: any concerns about moving forward?
13:28:22 <darobin> "Please consider including a statement such as "The user agent *must* display the view-modes in a manner that meets the accessibility guidelines of UAAG20. ""
13:28:27 <ArtB> AB: hearing no concerns, I will proceed with the TransReq
13:29:11 <ArtB> RB: NB the "please CONSIDER" part
13:29:17 <ArtB> ... we did consider it
13:29:30 <ArtB> AB: the Plan of Record is to move forward
13:29:55 <ArtB> Topic: GZip, ... 
13:30:06 <ArtB> AB: during the last call we began to discuss GZip, streaming and widget packaging, etc. ( http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#item06 ) but Arve wasn't available.
13:30:53 <ArtB> AB: we can discuss this today
13:31:16 <ArtB> Arve: the major diff between Zip and GZip Tarball
13:31:28 <ArtB> ... is the Zip has an index at the end of the file
13:31:43 <ArtB> ... need to wait for the zip to get loaded
13:31:52 <ArtB> ... with GZip, there is no such index
13:31:57 <ArtB> ... data stored in chunks
13:32:08 <ArtB> ... header contains the data needed
13:32:25 <ArtB> ... For packaged resources, GZip would allow immediate processing
13:32:56 <ArtB> ... so don't have to read everything before starting to process
13:33:14 <ArtB> ... Could place config.xml at the BoFile and then process it immediately
13:33:40 <ArtB> ... could process config.xml while the rest of the zip is still downloading
13:33:50 <ArtB> ... some widgets could benefit from this
13:33:58 <ArtB> ... e.g. large video or audio files in the package
13:34:22 <ArtB> ... could initialize and start game without the entire resource being available
13:34:35 <ArtB> ... this is a good advantage
13:34:55 <ArtB> ... Inserting this support into the current spec would just bloat the spec
13:35:00 <ArtB> ... and delay P&C
13:35:27 <ArtB> ... If we are to take this on, we should separate config into one spec and packaging into a separate spec
13:35:53 <ArtB> ... It would then allow Tar + GZ to be in a separate packaging spec
13:41:06 <ArtB> MC: if the market wants another signing format, we can specify one
13:41:21 <ArtB> ... XML Sig does work
13:41:29 <ArtB> ... we understand JAR signing could work too
13:41:46 <ArtB> ... on a technical level, XML Sig is OK
13:42:19 <ArtB> JS: one requirement is that it be easy to do
13:42:36 <ArtB> ... thus our use of Zip
13:42:59 <ArtB> ... relying on features on that are not readily available for on multiple platforms is not good
13:43:18 <ArtB> ... e.g. ordering of files in a Zip varies
13:44:39 <ArtB> Arve: if we have good use cases, tools will follow/exist
13:45:25 <ArtB> JS: the claim that Zip can't be used for streaming I questin
13:45:32 <timeless_mbp> s/tin/tion/
13:45:55 <ArtB> Arve: but end up doing more requests
13:46:37 <ArtB> JS: I think we have met our original reqs
13:46:52 <ArtB> ... there is no req for partial archives
13:47:27 <ArtB> ... I think the entire archive must be validated
13:47:51 <ArtB> ... concerned about partial archive validation
13:48:14 <ArtB> ... e.g. some file being deleted during the streaming
13:48:34 <ArtB> ... that would invalidate the signed archive
13:50:14 <timeless_mbp> OK
13:50:18 <timeless_mbp> The Game use case
13:50:24 <timeless_mbp> The game has a start video
13:50:55 <timeless_mbp> which is somehow "streamable" (it sounds like in order to make this work it needs to be interlaced, and I suspect that's either split across files or not done w/ tar)
13:51:05 <darobin> [The Streaming Widget Use Case: you want to embed a widget in a web page. You want that to be fast. End of UC]
13:51:29 <timeless_mbp> the game also has a file which it uses to verify that the game is licensed to this specific user
13:51:42 <timeless_mbp> the game archive has a signature which ensures that the archive isn't tampered with
13:52:08 <timeless_mbp> if the archive is retransmitted and someone deletes that file which was used to verify the license
13:52:31 <timeless_mbp> then the author is surprised
13:52:42 <timeless_mbp> because the author was relying on the signing of the complete package
13:52:47 <timeless_mbp> and the package validation to protect the archive
13:52:53 <timeless_mbp> --
13:54:14 <ArtB> AB: does anyone plan to push this into WebApps charter?
13:54:27 <ArtB> Arve: not sure it is important enough at the moment
13:54:43 <ArtB> ... we do need to think about market forces
13:55:33 <ArtB> ... If there is going to be a round 2 of widget specs, we should consider UCs like tar-gz
13:56:06 <ArtB> ... Should consider the spec split regarless of whether the tar-gz UC will be addressed
13:56:16 <ArtB> s/regarless/regardless/
13:56:29 <ArtB> JS: I am not opposed as making things extensible
13:56:35 <timeless_mbp> s/as/to/
13:56:38 <ArtB> s/opposed as/opposed to/
13:57:13 <ArtB> Arve: re Robin and streaming embedded widgets, agree you want that to be fast
13:57:23 <ArtB> RB: don't think range requests will work 
13:57:38 <ArtB> JS: not sure tar allows interleaving
13:57:58 <ArtB> Arve: yes, tar is one at a time
13:58:17 <ArtB> JS: perhaps MP3 could be used
13:59:03 <ArtB> s/MP3/MPEG tech/
13:59:36 <ArtB> RB: we need to be careful with MPEG because of W3C Patent Policy
13:59:55 <ArtB> ... think WebM support carolseling (sp?)
14:00:18 <ArtB> Arve: WebM is video container format
14:00:33 <ArtB> ... not sure it is relevant for packaging web apps
14:00:38 <darobin> s/carolseling/carouselling/
14:01:04 <darobin> [and I meant interleaving more than carouselling actually]
14:02:59 <ArtB> AB: want to stop this discussion for today
14:03:08 <ArtB> ... but we can resume June 17
14:03:52 <ArtB> Arve: want to propose a resolution ...
14:04:11 <ArtB> ... to repackage P&C into packaging and config spec
14:04:31 <ArtB> JS: I'm OK but not sure if our charter permits it
14:04:59 <Steven> I think that the *content* is chartered, so splitting should be trivial, since there is good reason
14:05:21 <ArtB> AB: so is the proposal, after P&C PR is published, you want to split P&C into two separate specs?
14:05:23 <ArtB> Arve: yes
14:05:57 <ArtB> RB: I don't want to delay REC
14:06:19 <ArtB> Arve: what about WDs?
14:06:26 <ArtB> MC: I need to evaluate the spec
14:06:41 <ArtB> ... it could be viewed as Editorial
14:07:05 <ArtB> ... there could be some different ways to address the issue
14:07:31 <ArtB> ... e.g. make it clear a different packaing format could be used
14:08:14 <ArtB> AB: I am reluctant to record a resolution now
14:08:19 <ArtB> ... I need to think about it
14:08:27 <ArtB> MC: yes, we need to think this through first
14:08:39 <darobin> [I would be happy with a resolution to do that right after Rec, for a no-change 1.1]
14:08:46 <ArtB> SP: if one could argue there would be no change in technical content, it would be safe
14:08:56 <darobin> [if we have guarantees from W3M that we can safely split, then fine]
14:08:59 <ArtB> Arve: so safe to split the spec into two?
14:09:02 <ArtB> SP: yes
14:09:56 <darobin> [additional consideration: if we split well enough, it's not widget-specific anymore]
14:10:08 <ArtB> AB: I agree that if we split the spec, it would not require a charter review
14:10:45 <darobin> [we have Simple Web Packaging, Widget Configuration, Widget: Media Type and File Extension]
14:10:56 <ArtB> ... it could be this split would be a natural outcome of the Widget Embedding deliverable that has been proposed
14:11:17 <darobin> [then we just add Streamable Web Packagin]
14:11:39 <arve> [streaming web packages may very well be a core requirement of embedded widgets]
14:11:50 <darobin> [I think it ought to be]
14:12:19 <darobin> [without it, loading files directly will feel faster than the compressed, packaged version :)]
14:12:32 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
14:12:37 <ArtB> AB: does anyone have anything to discuss?
14:13:05 <darobin> http://www.w3.org/2010/api-privacy-ws/
14:13:30 <ArtB> AB: no call on June 10; next call is June 17
14:13:55 <ArtB> RB: don't forget about the Privacy Workshop!
14:14:10 <ArtB> JS: where?
14:14:13 <ArtB> RB: London
14:14:23 <ArtB> ... mid July
14:14:37 <ArtB> ... before DAP f2f meeting
14:14:48 <ArtB> ... it is open to the Public
14:15:05 <Zakim> -Steven
14:15:34 <ArtB> Arve: one must submit a Position Paper to attend
14:15:38 <ArtB> JS: how long?
14:15:54 <ArtB> RB: length isn't important - cogent ideas are
14:16:08 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
14:16:24 <ArtB> RSSAgent, make minutes
14:16:53 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
14:16:54 <Zakim> - +1.479.524.aaaa
14:16:55 <Zakim> -darobin
14:17:10 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:17:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:19:30 <arve> Marcos: are you attempting to speak?
14:19:38 <arve> in that case, you're muted
14:19:39 <Marcos> nope
14:20:19 <Marcos> zakim, who is here? 
14:20:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see arve, Josh_Soref
14:20:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see arve, Marcos, RRSAgent, Zakim, darobin, Steven, fjh, timeless_mbp, ArtB, tlr, shepazu, kenneth, steve, timeless, trackbot
14:20:35 <Marcos> arve: you want me to dial in?
14:25:00 <arve> Marcos: no, I just thought you were talking to us
14:36:29 <arve> http://simonwillison.net/
14:36:55 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
14:36:56 <Zakim> -arve
14:36:56 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:36:58 <Zakim> Attendees were fjh, Art_Barstow, +1.479.524.aaaa, Steven, darobin, +47.23.69.aabb, arve, Josh_Soref
14:55:47 <Marcos> argh
14:55:57 <Marcos> did we agree on a pub date for Viewmodes?
14:59:16 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #wam
15:48:42 <ArtB> marcos, yes, let's shoot for June 22 pub for both CRs: DigSig and VMMF
15:49:51 <Marcos> ok, great. I have updated the referenced to reflect that
15:50:14 <Marcos> ArtB: will we publish the test suite?
15:50:34 <Marcos> nah
15:50:39 <Marcos> lets just leave it in dev
15:50:46 <Marcos> that way, it is easier to fix, add to, etc
15:51:14 <Marcos> good thinking! thanks!
15:51:42 <Marcos> :)
15:51:45 <ArtB> marcos, please add a ptr to DigSig's ImplReport :)
15:51:51 <ArtB> damn you're smart :)
15:52:05 <Marcos> heh
15:52:48 <ArtB> the ImplReprt can be stub for now. OK?
15:53:23 <Marcos> yep
15:53:26 <ArtB> marcos, the CR will be: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/  right? (And not a new doc?)
15:58:12 <Marcos> RB is obviously doing it wrong
15:58:14 <Marcos> :)
16:03:46 <ArtB> oh, no -> the ImpReport for DigSig points the P&C's Impl Report!
16:04:51 <Marcos> heh
16:04:56 <Marcos> fixed
16:05:37 <Marcos> should have kept it that way... that way I don't have to make the f'ing tests :( 
16:06:27 <Marcos> "oh yeah, they pass everything, Tim... no no, it's the right name, just the report is wrongly named... that's all... tell me more about the Semantic Web and linked data "
16:06:39 <Marcos> :D
16:06:47 <Marcos> the perfect plan
16:07:12 <Marcos> Or... "We used RDF to make this implementation report... " (Instant REC!)
16:08:11 <ArtB> fyi, the imp report "stalls" on me but it's good enuf for now
16:08:15 <ArtB> zakim, bye
16:08:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wam
16:08:18 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
16:08:18 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-actions.rdf :
16:08:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: macros notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated [1]
16:08:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-irc#T13-13-06
16:08:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: marcos notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated [2]
16:08:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-irc#T13-13-28
16:08:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow submit a TransReq for P&C PR [3]
16:08:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-irc#T13-25-02