03 Apr 2008


See also: IRC log


Art, Mike, Claudio, Benoit, Arve, Marcos




<marcos> there he is, trusty Zakim

<MikeSmith> trackbot-ng, status

<MikeSmith> trackbot-ng, start meeting

<MikeSmith> hell with it

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Review Agenda

<MikeSmith> Scribenick: ArtB

AB: Mike made a request to talk about I18N
... any objections?


AB: add it between #4 and #5

Charter update

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

VC schedule for April

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

Publication status and plans

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

Landscape document

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?


RESOLUTION: if no major issues are identified in the April 4 ED of the Landscape do, we will request FPWD

P&C status

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?


Signatures doc

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?


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

API and Events

AB: what is the status?

MC: no change
... it will not be ready to publish

Issue #17 - Widgets: should Automatic Updates be included in v1.0?

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?


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

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/04/03 12:07:00 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]