See also: IRC log
<marcos> there he is, trusty Zakim
<MikeSmith> trackbot-ng, status
<MikeSmith> trackbot-ng, start meeting
<MikeSmith> hell with it
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<MikeSmith> Scribenick: ArtB
AB: Mike made a request to talk
about I18N
... any objections?
[None]
AB: add it between #4 and #5
AB: anything to report Mike?
MS: I expect the Charter to be
sent to the AC soon
... I will notify this WG when that has been done
AB: next week I being a 5-wk
period where I'll be traveling all or part of 4 weeks
... cancel VCs on April 17 and 24
... April 10 is "iffy" now
<MikeSmith> [MikeSmith will also be in Beijing for AC meeting and WWW2008, April 19 to 26]
AB: this would mean the next VC
is May 1
... any concerns?
MC: I'm OK as long as today we record an OK to publish our docs
CV: this is in-line with the moratorium, right?
AB: yes
AB: status of reqs doc, Marcos?
MC: it is ready but waiting for an input on the security model
ABe: I now have approval to publish it and may be able to send it to the list today
AB: Marcos, you may want to reflect some of Arve's input in the reqs doc?
MC: yes
AB: we need a 1-week review
period after the spec is "ready for review"
... tentative plan for Reqs is to start review on April 4 and
end on April 11
... if no objections or major problems raised, we will consider
the doc ready for publishing
AB: Marcos, what is its status?
MC: need to make some changes re
Yahoo! engine
... I can be done by tomorrow though
AB: so we can start a 1-week review period on April 4?
MC: yes
AB: I propose that if no major
issues are identified in the April 4 ED of the Landscape doc,
that we request FPWD
... any objections?
[None]
RESOLUTION: if no major issues are identified in the April 4 ED of the Landscape do, we will request FPWD
AB: Marcos, we do we stand?
MC: I've done some more work on
the Proc Model
... I am also in the process of implementing the ProcMod
... in Java using Xerces
... will be ready to review on April 4
AB: I'd like to get a new version
published
... any objections to starting a review on April 4 and if no
major issues identified then we request formal pub on April
14?
[None]
MC: I responded to Hal's
comments
... I also asked the XML Security Maint WG for comments
... I've written a Java impl and it seems to work
AB: I propose that if no major
issues are identified in the April 4 ED of the Signatures doc
then after a 1-week review period we request publication.
... Any objections?
[None]
RESOLUTION: if no major issues are identified in the April 4 ED of the Signatures doc, after a 1-week review period we will request FPWD
AB: what is the status?
MC: no change
... it will not be ready to publish
AB: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/17
... status Marcos?
MC: I created a separate
document
... not many changes since Oslo meeting (Aug 2007)
... I think it is very useful and I am in favor of continuing
the spec
ABe: why is it included in the base spec?
AB: a key question is dependencies
<Benoit> I believe it was taken out to make sure the widget spec could go through just in case... but if finalized it should be put back in
AB: e.g. would one need to implement Updates to implement P&C?
MC: no, not yet
BS: we can either state how the revision numbers work and the platform uses the data; otherwise we can define end-to-end
<Benoit> btw I've spoken with Access to see if they are insteressted in joining the group, and they will see if they can, but it seems they are interested in this specific item.
AB: I think it is useful but I don't want the P&C spec have a dependency on the Updates
ABe: in the mobile space, updates is complicated because different OTA mechanisms are used
MC: I can investigate the various deployed models in the next rev of the Landscape
BS: would it make sense to say udpates is in the level two specs
<marcos> <update url = "dddddd" >
MC: update spec could include a
new element that would need to be in the P&C spec
... the spec is written such that unknown elements are
ignored
... would like to have a decent model by June
ABe: if we can't get a good proposal by then, it should be considered level two
AB: so we could close this and say that without a good solid model, updates will be level 2
MC: ok
ABe: ok
BS: maybe the spec needs
clarification on the version
... could provide a link to it
MC: we discussed this a while ago
with Ian Hickson; I'll track down that e-mail
... Ultimately, I think the simple comparison model is good
enough
BS: I'm more concerned about being able to process the updates at some point; need to know if the figures are Higher or Lower
MC: the current model is just about "is the version Different"
BS: in our widget system we have
some additional requirements
... we have different scenarios
ABe: I think your last scenario
is about widget revocation
... and I don't think that should be part of Updates
CV: we do need some mechanism for
Updates
... and we don't have a strong preference for how it is
done
AB: I think we should leave this Issue open
<Benoit> 3 scenarios:
MC: we need to discuss this at the f2f
<Benoit> 1- enw version but does not need to change the widget
<Benoit> 2- new version that allows the user to upgrade
<Benoit> 3- new version the requires the user to change and revoque the earlier versions
RESOLUTION: Issue #17 will remain OPEN for now
MS: Felix, Team contact for the
I18N group raised an issue related to Widget localization
... see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Apr/0002.html
... there isn't any info at all about how to localize a
Widget
... they think something is needed, even if Optional
<Benoit> can they join the f2F?
<marcos> Model for i18n.
<marcos> If no config file is found in src (via content element) assume i18n mode.
<marcos> use widget.locale (in RFC3086)
MS: they are also willing to help; at least submit comments and provide guidance
<marcos> search for folders that match window.locale at the mount point.
<marcos> if match, match the start file in the i18n folder.
BS: will this be a declarative model?
MC: no, it's an automatic model
BS: with Vista, can have multiple config dirs
MC: correct
MS: Felix won't be in Dublin but
maybe some others will be there because of XTech; we can also
use a VC bridge
... Yahoo's Addison is the Chair of the I18N WG
... I wonder if the model Marcos proposed is consistent with
Y!'s model
... it would be good if Marcos could propose a model
MC: there's some stuff in the Landscape doc
AB: I'm tempted to create an
Issue
... any objections?
[None]
ISSUE: what is the Localization model for Widgets
AB: I'll notify everyone by April
7 if we will have a call on April 10
... If it appears there will be an urgent need for a call April
10 and I cannot make, Mike can you Chair?
MS: tentatively yes
AB: I encourage everyone to
review the 4 docs that will start formal review on April
4
... meeting adjourned
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 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 Mike Claudio Benoit Arve Marcos WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Apr/0000.html Got date from IRC log name: 03 Apr 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-waf-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]