IRC log of webapps on 2008-06-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:03:32 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webapps
11:03:33 [RRSAgent]
logging to
11:04:32 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
11:04:36 [ArtB]
Date: 19 June 2008
11:04:39 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
11:04:44 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
11:04:48 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
11:05:01 [ArtB]
11:06:08 [ArtB]
Present: Arve, ArtB, Marcos
11:07:39 [ArtB]
Topic: Agenda Review
11:07:47 [ArtB]
AB: I'd like to add IRC logging
11:07:57 [ArtB]
AB: any other requests?
11:08:37 [ArtB]
AB: I'd also like to briefly touch on vaca plans for those of us in the Northern hemisphere
11:08:54 [ArtB]
Topic: Join the new WebApps WG
11:09:04 [ArtB]
AB: remind people to join the new WG
11:09:22 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, your IE application is in progress, right?
11:09:34 [ArtB]
MC: yes; it will take some more time
11:10:04 [ArtB]
ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG
11:10:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-8 - Chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-06-26].
11:10:15 [ArtB]
Topic: IRC logging
11:10:45 [ArtB]
AB: Anne sent a proposal:
11:11:01 [ArtB]
AB: I am strong supporter of openness among the WGs
11:11:06 [ArtB]
MC: I think it is a great idea
11:11:32 [ArtB]
ABe: agree with Marcos but think it would be good to poll the group to see if there is consensus
11:11:48 [ArtB]
... think Doug raises a valid point re Member-confidentiall comments
11:12:20 [ArtB]
AB: I think the Member-confidentiality issue is something we can't take lightly
11:13:26 [ArtB]
... if a non-Member joins the group and someone enters something confidential, its too late, the info is disclosed to the Public
11:14:28 [ArtB]
ABe: if one needs to discuss a member confidential topic, it should be done in a different confidential channel
11:14:36 [ArtB]
AB: I agree
11:14:54 [shepazu]
it's worth noting that forcing "openness" often drives useful conversation further into the shadows
11:14:56 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #webapps
11:15:45 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, code?
11:15:45 [Zakim]
sorry, MikeSmith, I don't know what conference this is
11:16:02 [ArtB]
AB: if we used a Member channel for all meetings we'd be OK and then make the minutes Public later
11:16:38 [ArtB]
ABe: if we need to discuss confidential topics, I would prefer them to be in separate meetings
11:17:04 [ArtB]
... and keep as little as possible private
11:17:09 [shepazu]
and the option for hiding comments isn't something I encourage, but it's good to provide the option
11:18:19 [ArtB]
AB: so then in practical terms for a meeting like this one, the agenda would only contain topics that could be discussed in Public
11:18:57 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, who's on the phone??
11:18:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, MikeSmith.
11:19:00 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
11:19:00 [Zakim]
has not yet started, MikeSmith
11:19:01 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MikeSmith, RRSAgent, marcos, Zakim, ArtB, tlr, Lachy, harryl, heycam, arve, deane, anne, trackbot, Dashiva, gDashiva, hober, krijnh, shepazu, inimino, Hixie
11:19:04 [ArtB]
... and if there were any Member-confidentiall topics, they would not be on this meeting's agenda but handled separately on the member-list
11:19:12 [ArtB]
Present+ Mike
11:20:51 [Lachy]
I'm here, but IRC only.
11:21:21 [ArtB]
Present+ Lachy(IRC)
11:21:35 [Lachy]
FWIW, I'm glad we now have IRC logs.
11:21:54 [ArtB]
AB: any other IRC logging comments?
11:21:56 [Lachy]
But I'm not so thrilled about people being able to hide certain comments
11:22:24 [ArtB]
Topic: Widgets Requirements Last Call
11:22:57 [MikeSmith]
q+ to talk about status of feedback from i18n WG
11:22:57 [ArtB]
AB: last week I told the group that on June 19 we wanted to make a decsion regarding advancing the Reqs doc to LC
11:23:20 [ArtB]
11:23:38 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, any followup?
11:23:58 [ArtB]
MC: I updated a couple of requirements based on feedback from the f2f meeting in May
11:24:16 [MikeSmith]
timeless is a dude
11:24:20 [ArtB]
... I got some comments from "timeless"
11:24:23 [marcos]
go timeless!
11:24:23 [MikeSmith]
he's a Mozilla developer
11:24:41 [ArtB]
MC: I responded to timeless and fixed the editorial issues he raised
11:25:04 [ArtB]
MS: we have a blocking issue
11:25:56 [ArtB]
... we are waiting on some information from the I18N WG
11:26:12 [ArtB]
MC: does this affect the publication of the reqs doc?
11:26:48 [ArtB]
MS: just to clarify, this is NOT a blocking issue for the Reqs doc but it is for the Packaging spec
11:27:40 [ArtB]
MC: what happens during LC?
11:27:47 [ArtB]
MS: must track every comment
11:28:00 [ArtB]
... must respond to every comment
11:28:15 [ArtB]
... must record how each comment is "handled"
11:28:25 [ArtB]
... we can give every comment an ID if we want
11:28:44 [ArtB]
... if necessary, we can split up the comments among the WG members
11:28:59 [ArtB]
... In the best case, we only get Editorial comments but that's not likely
11:29:23 [ArtB]
... If any substanative changes are made, we need to go back to YA LC or perhaps back to normal WD
11:29:57 [ArtB]
MC: how long is the review period?
11:30:06 [ArtB]
MS: the minimum is three weeks
11:30:15 [ArtB]
... typically it is longer
11:30:38 [ArtB]
... I suggest 4 weeks
11:31:09 [ArtB]
MC: I suggest August 1
11:32:07 [ArtB]
MS: the main thing is to make sure we get wide review from all of the right communities
11:32:46 [ArtB]
MC: I want to get thorough review
11:34:00 [ArtB]
AB: when I submit the LC request to the Chairs list, I need to identify any WGs we want to review
11:34:14 [ArtB]
AB: which W3C WGs?
11:34:21 [ArtB]
11:34:30 [ArtB]
AB: XML Security
11:34:43 [ArtB]
AB: what about WSC?
11:34:49 [ArtB]
MC: yes
11:34:58 [ArtB]
AB: what about HTML?
11:35:13 [ArtB]
MC: I think TAG may be appropriate
11:35:30 [ArtB]
MS: TAG isn't generally approrpriate
11:35:42 [ArtB]
... this probably wouldn't be a high priority for them
11:36:12 [ArtB]
AB: agree with Mike
11:36:19 [ArtB]
MC: what about the MWI?
11:36:46 [ArtB]
MS: yes, that's probably a good idea
11:36:59 [ArtB]
... there is fairly good overlap in membership
11:37:05 [ArtB]
... so MWBP is OK
11:37:25 [ArtB]
AB: summarize: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP
11:38:06 [marcos]
MC: I would also like review from Accessibility, Internationalization
11:38:12 [ArtB]
AB: what about I18N WG?
11:38:14 [ArtB]
MS: yes
11:39:06 [ArtB]
AB: which A11Y WG would be appropriate?
11:39:11 [ArtB]
... the P&F WG?
11:39:23 [ArtB]
MS: yes, they are the most approriate WG
11:39:50 [ArtB]
AB: so new list is: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP, I18N, P&F
11:40:16 [ArtB]
AB: any other comments?
11:40:27 [ArtB]
AB: I propose we publish the Reqs LC as is
11:40:31 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
11:40:46 [ArtB]
MC: support as is
11:40:50 [ArtB]
MS: support as is
11:41:00 [ArtB]
ABe: support as is
11:41:05 [marcos]
11:41:16 [Lachy]
support as is
11:41:27 [marcos]
11:41:38 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: we will request a LC publication of the Requirements document as it is today
11:42:05 [ArtB]
Topic: Icon Text
11:42:30 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos proposal:
11:43:00 [Lachy]
what's the use case you're trying to address with the icon text?
11:43:10 [ArtB]
ABe: this is mostly about A11Y, right?
11:43:17 [ArtB]
MC: not necessarily
11:43:28 [Lachy]
But a widget icon is analogous to an application icon on the desktop, isn't it?
11:43:32 [ArtB]
... want to be able to use the widgets in non-graphical contexts
11:43:34 [Lachy]
isn't the widget name sufficient?
11:44:30 [ArtB]
ABe: agree it's also about displaying alterntive content when the widget cannot be displayed
11:44:42 [ArtB]
... could also be used to dispaly additional info about a widget
11:45:09 [Lachy]
It would be similar to <link rel=icon ...> for web pages, is it not? We don't have alt text for that.
11:45:15 [ArtB]
... For example, sometimes it may not be possible to display a Widget's icon
11:45:21 [Lachy]
Or am I just totally misunderstanding something?
11:45:35 [ArtB]
ABe: I don't think #3 is worth doing
11:45:55 [ArtB]
... re #2, I don't think label will make sense all of the time
11:46:56 [ArtB]
... we use Window.status in Opera
11:47:36 [ArtB]
AB: only diff between #1 and #2 is the name of the attribute
11:47:49 [ArtB]
... Benoit likes #1
11:47:53 [Lachy]
#1, using alt="", is an acceptable solution. I'm just not convinced of its utility
11:47:56 [ArtB]
ABe: I prefer #1 as well
11:47:59 [ArtB]
MC: me too
11:48:22 [ArtB]
AB: I want to re-use existing and best practices
11:48:35 [ArtB]
... would that favor #1 or #2
11:48:42 [ArtB]
MC: it would favor #1
11:48:57 [ArtB]
AB: so is #1 the consenus?
11:49:01 [ArtB]
ABe: yes
11:49:03 [ArtB]
MC: yes
11:49:30 [ArtB]
RESOULTION: proposal #1 for Icon Text will be used (
11:49:33 [marcos]
Lachy, maybe you should have alt for rel=icon :)
11:49:43 [ArtB]
Topic: Widget Updates
11:49:45 [Lachy]
I don't think so. The page <title> is enough
11:50:01 [ArtB]
AB: I still have not completed my related actions; sorry about it
11:51:07 [ArtB]
AB: any status to report?
11:51:39 [ArtB]
MC: I would like to publish something by the first week of July
11:52:03 [ArtB]
AB: you want a FPWD by July 1
11:52:12 [ArtB]
MC: yes, that's right
11:52:19 [ArtB]
AB: what will you need from us?
11:52:55 [ArtB]
MC: need people to respond to the issues I raised at:
11:53:06 [ArtB]
... in particular input re HTTP caching
11:53:18 [ArtB]
ABe: I'm not sure that's the right model we want to use
11:53:45 [ArtB]
... could use something like WAP Push
11:53:49 [ArtB]
... or XMPP
11:53:53 [ArtB]
... or feeds
11:54:41 [ArtB]
AB: another potentially relevant technology is the Device Management stuff being done at OMA (replaces SynchML)
11:55:06 [ArtB]
MC: agree we need to look at the other technologies and balance our needs
11:55:40 [ArtB]
... our requirements for auto updates are pretty general
11:55:52 [ArtB]
... We may need to tighten the requirements
11:56:18 [ArtB]
ABe: are there any requirements regarding Widget revocation?
11:56:24 [ArtB]
MC: not currently
11:56:39 [ArtB]
ABe: we (=Opera) has this as a requirement
11:56:57 [ArtB]
... perhaps we need a related requirement
11:58:07 [ArtB]
AB: perhaps we should stop this discussion now and plan to make this the main topic next week. WDYT?
11:58:11 [ArtB]
MC: OK with me
11:58:46 [ArtB]
Topic: Vacation Plans for July and August
11:59:05 [ArtB]
ABe: I will be out week #26
11:59:21 [ArtB]
AB: I will be out week #27
11:59:46 [ArtB]
... There will not be a meeting on July 3
12:00:55 [ArtB]
MC: If Arve can't be here next week then we could focus on Signatures
12:01:20 [ArtB]
... In particular I'd like to know if multiple signatures can be handeled on mobile phones
12:01:34 [arve]
I am off until July 14th
12:01:35 [ArtB]
... that is one of the last big issues for the DigSig spec
12:02:02 [ArtB]
MC: I think we need to revisit Vodafone's input from the May f2f meeting
12:02:50 [ArtB]
ABe: I will be out June 23 until July 14; back on July 15
12:03:23 [smaug]
smaug has joined #webapps
12:04:13 [ArtB]
MS: I will be out (or mostly out) July 28-August 7
12:04:18 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith: I'll be in Denver with family from July 28 to Aug 07, but working from there
12:04:34 [marcos]
MC: gone from the 12-28 July (at Oxford, but should still be able to join)
12:05:35 [ArtB]
AB: meeting adjourned
12:06:40 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:07:01 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
12:07:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
12:21:39 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
12:21:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webapps
12:21:55 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
12:21:55 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
12:21:55 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG [1]
12:21:55 [RRSAgent]
recorded in