IRC log of wam on 2008-09-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:03:54 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wam

11:03:54 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-wam-irc

11:03:55 [marcos]

zakim, ??p6 is me!

11:03:55 [Zakim]

+me!; got it

11:04:12 [Zakim]

+ +47.23.69.aaaa

11:04:18 [arve]

Zakim, aaaa is me

11:04:18 [Zakim]

+arve; got it

11:04:21 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, call Mike-Mobile

11:04:21 [Zakim]

ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made

11:04:22 [Zakim]

+Mike

11:04:36 [ArtB]

Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

11:04:44 [ArtB]

Date: 11 September 2008

11:04:59 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0617.html

11:05:04 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

11:05:05 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

11:05:09 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

11:05:21 [ArtB]

Regrets: Claudio, Bryan, Thomas

11:05:25 [Zakim]

-Mike

11:05:28 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, call Mike-Mobile

11:05:28 [Zakim]

ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made

11:05:30 [Zakim]

+Mike

11:06:17 [ArtB]

Topic: Agenda Review

11:06:25 [ArtB]

AB: agenda posted yesterday: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0617.html

11:07:10 [ArtB]

AB: regarding V2/NG features for Widgets, Claudio won't be here today and asked me to postpone the discussion until next week

11:07:19 [ArtB]

AB: any problems with that?

11:07:22 [ArtB]

ABe: no

11:07:24 [ArtB]

MC: no

11:07:52 [Zakim]

+Caroline

11:08:09 [ArtB]

zakim, Caroline is Benoit

11:08:09 [Zakim]

+Benoit; got it

11:08:37 [ArtB]

Present: Art, Arve, Marcos, Mike, Benoit

11:09:06 [ArtB]

Topic: Announcements

11:09:26 [ArtB]

AB: I was hoping for a BONDI Widgets update but Marcos said they are meeting this week

11:09:36 [ArtB]

... I'll add that to next week's agenda

11:10:18 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos was contacted by the Mobile Web Test Suites WG regarding Widgets test suite

11:10:42 [ArtB]

MC: MWTS WG would like to help other WGs with their test suites

11:10:52 [ArtB]

... they have identified Widgets as a potential candidate

11:11:07 [ArtB]

... Discussions are still preliminary

11:11:32 [ArtB]

... For the first step, I've asked Dom to look at the spec from a "test-ability" viewpoint

11:11:54 [ArtB]

... If there is anything we can do in the spec itself to facilitate testing, we want to know that now and reflect it in the spec

11:12:00 [ArtB]

AB: this is great Marcos

11:12:54 [ArtB]

... I told Dom we are very interested in engaging MWTS WG

11:13:23 [ArtB]

MC: Arve, how does this sound to you?

11:13:44 [ArtB]

ABe: it would be best if I was able to get someone from our QA team involved

11:13:52 [ArtB]

AB: I'll do the same

11:14:19 [ArtB]

Topic: Requirement Document

11:14:38 [ArtB]

AB: what is the status on the LC comments, Marcos?

11:14:56 [ArtB]

MC: waiting for confirmation from Kryztof

11:15:00 [ArtB]

... also Josh

11:15:12 [ArtB]

... also I18N WG

11:15:22 [ArtB]

... also Bryan and MWBP WG

11:15:40 [ArtB]

AB: so that is quite a few loops to close

11:16:11 [ArtB]

MC: I gave the MWBP WG a deadline (think it was end of this week)

11:16:41 [ArtB]

AB: Bryan submitted some comments about the Closing of Issue #17

11:17:04 [ArtB]

... To me, proxy support could be a candidate for the V2/NG feature list

11:18:27 [ArtB]

... Would that make sense?

11:19:04 [ArtB]

MC: yes that would make sense to me, especially if it will keep the doc from being blocked

11:19:50 [MikeSmith]

q+ to weigh in on V2 feature-list idea

11:20:55 [ArtB]

AB: in general, I don't want to re-open Closed Issues unless there is large consensus among the people that closed the issue that new input/evidence suggests we re-open

11:21:02 [MikeSmith]

(I agree about not re-opening closed issues.. it's one of the worst things that a WG can decide to do.)

11:21:45 [ArtB]

MS: I agree with Art's comment about not re-opening Closed Issues

11:22:05 [ArtB]

... it has caused large problems for some WGs

11:22:40 [ArtB]

... Re-opening issues will delay our specs and hence implementations

11:23:28 [ArtB]

... This inevitably will result in some people not being happy.

11:23:50 [ArtB]

... Unfortuantely that will happen but we also need to be cognizant about schedule.

11:24:12 [ArtB]

... That said, we do need to keep track of all feature requests

11:24:23 [ArtB]

... and such requests to the V2/NG list.

11:24:39 [MikeSmith]

ack MikeSmith

11:24:39 [Zakim]

MikeSmith, you wanted to weigh in on V2 feature-list idea

11:24:54 [ArtB]

MC: I agree with what Mike said

11:25:08 [ArtB]

... in the case of the proxy, I don't view it as a feature.

11:25:32 [ArtB]

... I don't think we can spec the proxy input as Bryan proposed it.

11:26:00 [timelyx]

timelyx has joined #wam

11:26:07 [timelyx]

"oops"

11:26:56 [ArtB]

AB: other than chasing the commentors, is there any other work that needs to be done?

11:27:12 [ArtB]

MC: no; I think the document is ready for a new publication

11:27:48 [ArtB]

Topic: is next publication of the Requirements doc another Last Call or a _plain_ WD?

11:28:44 [ArtB]

MC: I want to go straight to another LC

11:29:14 [marcos]

zakim, passcode?

11:29:14 [Zakim]

the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), marcos

11:29:32 [Zakim]

+Josh_Soref

11:29:37 [ArtB]

AB: my take on the Process Document is we need to publish another WD before a LC doc

11:29:39 [ArtB]

... http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-to-wg

11:30:01 [ArtB]

BS: what are the major diffs?

11:30:39 [ArtB]

... between the 1st LC and what we now have in the latest ED

11:31:02 [ArtB]

MC: the changes are "pretty significant"

11:31:38 [ArtB]

... we could do another WD and then a LC but I don't think we'll get much feedback during that time frame

11:31:50 [ArtB]

... People won't submit comments until another LC is published

11:31:54 [ArtB]

BS: I agree

11:32:17 [ArtB]

AB: I agree as well but I wonder if the process people will raise an objection

11:32:24 [ArtB]

Present+ Josh

11:32:37 [ArtB]

JS: could we just have a short review period for the WD?

11:32:49 [ArtB]

BS: yes, I think we can do that

11:33:00 [ArtB]

... Is there a minimum review period?

11:33:09 [ArtB]

MS: I don't think so but 2-3 weeks is typical

11:34:07 [ArtB]

... most people wait until the last day

11:34:12 [ArtB]

... to submit comments

11:34:26 [ArtB]

... It is very important to stick to the deadline for comments

11:35:19 [ArtB]

MC: what if we publish a new WD ASAP and have just a 2-3 week review period

11:35:29 [ArtB]

... and then on October 2, publish the LC

11:37:53 [ArtB]

BS: so a WD would have just a 2-week review period

11:38:19 [ArtB]

AB: In Turin we said we wanted the LC to end on Oct 13

11:38:54 [ArtB]

... If the LC has a 3-wk review period it would then have to published on Sept 22

11:39:22 [ArtB]

... That would then mean we could ony have a 1-week review period for the WD, assuming it was published on Sep 15

11:39:44 [ArtB]

AB: having a 1-wk review period seems a bit odd

11:40:21 [ArtB]

BS: agree, but I think Marcos has done a good job of answering all questions

11:40:53 [Benoit]

Benoit has joined #wam

11:40:58 [marcos]

:)

11:41:04 [ArtB]

AB: Mike, what do you think?

11:41:22 [ArtB]

MS: I think this plan is OK

11:41:58 [ArtB]

... We should do whatever it takes to make the Mandelieu f2f meeting as productive as possible

11:42:39 [ArtB]

MC: what is the point of the 2nd Last Call?

11:43:00 [ArtB]

BS: I assume those that submitted comments

11:43:28 [ArtB]

MC: but they have already received confirmation from them that we have addressed their comments

11:44:07 [ArtB]

AB: another proposal would be to just have no _plain_ WD and a LC with a 4-week review period

11:44:20 [ArtB]

AB: Mike, can we do that?

11:44:48 [ArtB]

MS: we would need to provide some rationale

11:45:30 [ArtB]

AB: the PD says "In the case of substantive changes, the Working Group MUST republish the technical report as a Working Draft."

11:45:53 [ArtB]

... in section 7.4.6 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-to-wg

11:47:51 [ArtB]

MC: we want to be as productive as possible

11:48:14 [ArtB]

AB: Mike what do you recommend?

11:49:10 [marcos]

"A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

11:49:10 [marcos]

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working Draft;

11:49:10 [marcos]

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups;

11:49:10 [marcos]

* other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied.

11:49:11 [marcos]

"

11:49:15 [ArtB]

MS: we can review the PD here as a guide and not be overly restrictive

11:49:53 [ArtB]

... I think we can just publish a new 2nd LC WD

11:50:04 [ArtB]

... without a new _plain_ WD

11:50:26 [ArtB]

... But we must make sure the LC addresses all of the comments that were submitted by the dealine for LC #1

11:51:33 [ArtB]

s/dealine for/deadline for/

11:52:30 [ArtB]

AB: propose we do not publish a _plain_ WD and make the next publication the 2nd LC

11:52:34 [ArtB]

AB: any objections?

11:52:36 [ArtB]

BS: no

11:52:39 [ArtB]

MC: no

11:52:42 [ArtB]

ABe: no

11:52:44 [ArtB]

MS: no

11:53:01 [ArtB]

JS: no

11:53:56 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: we will not publish a _plain_ WD; our next publication will be LC #2

11:54:17 [ArtB]

MC: what date are we shooting for?

11:54:25 [ArtB]

s/MC: what/AB: what/

11:54:30 [ArtB]

MC: September 15

11:54:50 [MikeSmith]

(ideally, anybody who submitted comments on the LC draft should be directly contacted -- with a CC to the list -- that we have published an updated draft)

11:55:01 [ArtB]

AB: actually, I will neded to send a notification to the Chairs list

11:55:47 [ArtB]

Topic: Core API and Events spec

11:55:51 [ArtB]

AB: what's the status

11:56:08 [ArtB]

ABe: I think the Sep 15 deadline I provided in Turin is still mostly do-able

11:56:09 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, mute Mike

11:56:09 [Zakim]

Mike should now be muted

11:56:29 [ArtB]

... I am adding some input

11:58:09 [ArtB]

ABe: have a question about all of the properties

11:58:32 [ArtB]

MC: I am wondering if rather than a list of props we use some type of Get and Set methods

12:03:12 [ArtB]

ABe: regarding the Window interface, we have an open issue

12:03:24 [marcos]

MC: I will spec that linkage between the default properties and the Widget interface (hence bridging the two specs so that the correct properties from the correct config doc are loaded).

12:03:51 [Zakim]

-Mike

12:04:33 [ArtB]

ABe: using Web IDL, I don't know how to associate the relationship between the Window interface and the Widget interface

12:05:15 [arve]

I'm not seeing any way in WebIDL where I can express that WindoWidget extends the Window interface, rather than replacing it

12:06:06 [ArtB]

MC: does Web IDL have a notion of extends?

12:06:16 [ArtB]

ABe: not really

12:06:20 [marcos]

interface WindowWidget extends Window{ .... }

12:06:30 [ArtB]

... for the purposes of what we need

12:06:48 [ArtB]

ABe: I will contact Cam about this

12:07:14 [ArtB]

JS: do we really need to clearly specify this?

12:07:25 [ArtB]

... could prose be sufficient?

12:07:39 [ArtB]

ABe: we could do that

12:07:45 [tlr]

tlr has joined #wam

12:08:01 [ArtB]

... but in practice, I think it should be more explicit, especially for impelemtors

12:08:16 [ArtB]

s/impelemtors/implementors/

12:09:17 [ArtB]

AB: how do we get consenus here?

12:10:56 [timelyx]

I think we don't want interface declarations to bind an interface to a specific other interface

12:11:11 [timelyx]

because it excludes the ability to bind it to some other interface

12:11:24 [timelyx]

what we should want is an independent declarative statement:

12:11:39 [timelyx]

Window supports WindowWidget;

12:11:47 [timelyx]

so that someone elsewhere could write:

12:11:58 [timelyx]

MyObject supports WindowWidget;

12:12:33 [timelyx]

and this is really independent of the definition of WindowWidget, enabling others to later make similar statements for other objects.

12:12:53 [ArtB]

ABe: this is probably good

12:13:05 [ArtB]

... but should we ask Cam to express this in Web IDL

12:13:48 [ArtB]

... It would be better to express this in Web IDL than in prose

12:14:08 [ArtB]

... I will follow-up with Cam

12:14:22 [ArtB]

Topic: Automatic Update Status

12:14:35 [ArtB]

AB: what's the pub plan?

12:14:51 [ArtB]

MC: I want to publish this ASAP

12:15:27 [ArtB]

AB: propose we publish FPWD of the Automatic Update spec as soon as it is pub ready

12:15:32 [ArtB]

AB: any objections?

12:16:05 [ArtB]

ABe: I have plenty of issues with the doc but no objections to publishing it as is as the FPWD

12:16:15 [ArtB]

BS: no

12:16:25 [Zakim]

-Benoit

12:16:38 [ArtB]

JS: no objections to FPWD

12:16:55 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: we approve the FPWD of the Automatic Updates spec as is

12:18:22 [ArtB]

ABe: when is the publication moratorium?

12:18:30 [Zakim]

-arve

12:18:31 [ArtB]

AB: not sure but I'll let you know

12:18:35 [ArtB]

AB: Meeting Adjourned

12:18:38 [Zakim]

-me!

12:18:39 [Zakim]

-Josh_Soref

12:18:44 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make log Public

12:18:53 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

12:18:53 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-wam-minutes.html ArtB

12:19:03 [Zakim]

-Art_Barstow

12:19:04 [Zakim]

IA_WebApps(Widgets)7:00AM has ended

12:19:06 [Zakim]

Attendees were Art_Barstow, me!, +47.23.69.aaaa, arve, Mike, Benoit, Josh_Soref

12:19:29 [timelyx]

ArtB: can you teach Zakim about that +47 ?

12:19:56 [timelyx]

was that marcos?

12:20:26 [ArtB]

timlelyx, I don't know how to do that

12:20:40 [timelyx]

ask MikeSmith? :)

12:20:44 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, bye

12:20:44 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items