Widgets Voice Conference

19 Jun 2008


See also: IRC log


Arve, ArtB, Marcos, Mike, Lachy(IRC)



Date: 19 June 2008

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

Agenda Review

AB: I'd like to add IRC logging
... any other requests?
... I'd also like to briefly touch on vaca plans for those of us in the Northern hemisphere

Join the new WebApps WG

AB: remind people to join the new WG
... Marcos, your IE application is in progress, right?

MC: yes; it will take some more time

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-06-26].

IRC logging

AB: Anne sent a proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0222.html
... I am strong supporter of openness among the WGs

MC: I think it is a great idea

ABe: agree with Marcos but think it would be good to poll the group to see if there is consensus
... think Doug raises a valid point re Member-confidentiall comments

AB: I think the Member-confidentiality issue is something we can't take lightly
... if a non-Member joins the group and someone enters something confidential, its too late, the info is disclosed to the Public

ABe: if one needs to discuss a member confidential topic, it should be done in a different confidential channel

AB: I agree

<shepazu> it's worth noting that forcing "openness" often drives useful conversation further into the shadows

AB: if we used a Member channel for all meetings we'd be OK and then make the minutes Public later

ABe: if we need to discuss confidential topics, I would prefer them to be in separate meetings
... and keep as little as possible private

<shepazu> and the option for hiding comments isn't something I encourage, but it's good to provide the option

AB: so then in practical terms for a meeting like this one, the agenda would only contain topics that could be discussed in Public
... and if there were any Member-confidentiall topics, they would not be on this meeting's agenda but handled separately on the member-list

<Lachy> I'm here, but IRC only.

<Lachy> FWIW, I'm glad we now have IRC logs.

AB: any other IRC logging comments?

<Lachy> But I'm not so thrilled about people being able to hide certain comments

Widgets Requirements Last Call

AB: last week I told the group that on June 19 we wanted to make a decsion regarding advancing the Reqs doc to LC
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0076.html
... Marcos, any followup?

MC: I updated a couple of requirements based on feedback from the f2f meeting in May

<MikeSmith> timeless is a dude

MC: I got some comments from "timeless"

<marcos> go timeless!

<MikeSmith> he's a Mozilla developer

MC: I responded to timeless and fixed the editorial issues he raised

MS: we have a blocking issue
... we are waiting on some information from the I18N WG

MC: does this affect the publication of the reqs doc?

MS: just to clarify, this is NOT a blocking issue for the Reqs doc but it is for the Packaging spec

MC: what happens during LC?

MS: must track every comment
... must respond to every comment
... must record how each comment is "handled"
... we can give every comment an ID if we want
... if necessary, we can split up the comments among the WG members
... In the best case, we only get Editorial comments but that's not likely
... If any substanative changes are made, we need to go back to YA LC or perhaps back to normal WD

MC: how long is the review period?

MS: the minimum is three weeks
... typically it is longer
... I suggest 4 weeks

MC: I suggest August 1

MS: the main thing is to make sure we get wide review from all of the right communities

MC: I want to get thorough review

AB: when I submit the LC request to the Chairs list, I need to identify any WGs we want to review
... which W3C WGs?


AB: XML Security
... what about WSC?

MC: yes

AB: what about HTML?

MC: I think TAG may be appropriate

MS: TAG isn't generally approrpriate
... this probably wouldn't be a high priority for them

AB: agree with Mike

MC: what about the MWI?

MS: yes, that's probably a good idea
... there is fairly good overlap in membership
... so MWBP is OK

AB: summarize: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP

<marcos> MC: I would also like review from Accessibility, Internationalization

AB: what about I18N WG?

MS: yes

AB: which A11Y WG would be appropriate?
... the P&F WG?

MS: yes, they are the most approriate WG

AB: so new list is: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP, I18N, P&F
... any other comments?
... I propose we publish the Reqs LC as is
... any objections?

MC: support as is

MS: support as is

ABe: support as is

<marcos> lachy?

<Lachy> support as is

<marcos> :D

RESOLUTION: we will request a LC publication of the Requirements document as it is today

Icon Text

AB: Marcos proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0216

<Lachy> what's the use case you're trying to address with the icon text?

ABe: this is mostly about A11Y, right?

MC: not necessarily

<Lachy> But a widget icon is analogous to an application icon on the desktop, isn't it?

MC: want to be able to use the widgets in non-graphical contexts

<Lachy> isn't the widget name sufficient?

ABe: agree it's also about displaying alterntive content when the widget cannot be displayed
... could also be used to dispaly additional info about a widget

<Lachy> It would be similar to <link rel=icon ...> for web pages, is it not? We don't have alt text for that.

ABe: For example, sometimes it may not be possible to display a Widget's icon

<Lachy> Or am I just totally misunderstanding something?

ABe: I don't think #3 is worth doing
... re #2, I don't think label will make sense all of the time
... we use Window.status in Opera

AB: only diff between #1 and #2 is the name of the attribute
... Benoit likes #1

<Lachy> #1, using alt="", is an acceptable solution. I'm just not convinced of its utility

ABe: I prefer #1 as well

MC: me too

AB: I want to re-use existing and best practices
... would that favor #1 or #2

MC: it would favor #1

AB: so is #1 the consenus?

ABe: yes

MC: yes

RESOULTION: proposal #1 for Icon Text will be used (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0216)

<marcos> Lachy, maybe you should have alt for rel=icon :)

Widget Updates

<Lachy> I don't think so. The page <title> is enough

AB: I still have not completed my related actions; sorry about it
... any status to report?

MC: I would like to publish something by the first week of July

AB: you want a FPWD by July 1

MC: yes, that's right

AB: what will you need from us?

MC: need people to respond to the issues I raised at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jun/0028
... in particular input re HTTP caching

ABe: I'm not sure that's the right model we want to use
... could use something like WAP Push
... or XMPP
... or feeds

AB: another potentially relevant technology is the Device Management stuff being done at OMA (replaces SynchML)

MC: agree we need to look at the other technologies and balance our needs
... our requirements for auto updates are pretty general
... We may need to tighten the requirements

ABe: are there any requirements regarding Widget revocation?

MC: not currently

ABe: we (=Opera) has this as a requirement
... perhaps we need a related requirement

AB: perhaps we should stop this discussion now and plan to make this the main topic next week. WDYT?

MC: OK with me

Vacation Plans for July and August

ABe: I will be out week #26

AB: I will be out week #27
... There will not be a meeting on July 3

MC: If Arve can't be here next week then we could focus on Signatures
... In particular I'd like to know if multiple signatures can be handeled on mobile phones

<arve> I am off until July 14th

MC: that is one of the last big issues for the DigSig spec
... I think we need to revisit Vodafone's input from the May f2f meeting

ABe: I will be out June 23 until July 14; back on July 15

MS: I will be out (or mostly out) July 28-August 7

<MikeSmith> MikeSmith: I'll be in Denver with family from July 28 to Aug 07, but working from there

<marcos> MC: gone from the 12-28 July (at Oxford, but should still be able to join)

AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet joined WebApps WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/06/19 12:07:07 $

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: Arve ArtB Marcos Mike Lachy(IRC)
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008AprJun/0005.html
Found Date: 19 Jun 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]