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