<Marcos> zakin, ??P14 is I

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 19 February 2009

Review and tweak agenda

AB: Agenda posted Feb 18: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0487.html
... any change requests?

FH: want to add DigSig

AB: any other agenda change requests?

MP: want feedback on localization issues

Announcements

AB: some people that have implementation experience with our Widget specs will join us on Feb 26 (Scott Wilson and others)
... any other announcements?

FH: XML Sec WG FPWD for XML Sig 1.1 is planned for next week

Review Feb 24-26 f2f agenda

AB: I have been tweaking our f2f agenda
... http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda
... I will likely make some additional tweaks based on
... Format is the same we've used in the past
... i.e. only two topics currently have specific time slots
... 1. Widgets DigSig Feb 25 @13:30; (this may get moved to 14:00 depending on Frederick's availability)
... 2. EU widget implementation presentation Feb 26 @ 13:30
... Given a relatively large number of remote participants, we will need to juggle the agenda to accommodate them. For example, Frederick and Thomas for DigSig, Josh for widget scheme, Jere for I18N/L10N, etc.
... Regarding my expectations for the P&C spec: by the end of the f2f we will have agreed on a plan to resolve all open issues and be ready to publish a new document in March (another LCWD seems likely)
... For the DigSig spec: by the end of the f2f we will have agreed on a plan to publish a new WD in March
... any comments on the f2f agenda?

FH: 14:00 on the 25th is better
... we may not need the entire 3 hour slot

AB: I will change the agend to 14:00 Feb 25 for DigSig

Open Actions

AB: Open Actions for widgets: <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8>
... Some of the open actions are more critical than others
... Let's briefly discuss the status of the more important ones.
... Action #224 - Work with Marcos to flesh out the details of the processing model for multiple signatures; Mark and Marcos; http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/224
... where do we stand on this?

MC: it depends on DigSig spec
... the DigSig spec needs to return a value
... after we work that out we can update the P&C spec
... about 90% of the model is in place
... There is a bug but we can work that out

MP: I agree with MC
... we may be able to separate the depedency
... I will share that proposal on the list today or tomorrow

MC: that would be good; looking forward to seeing the proposal

AB: it would be good if we can cut that dependency

MP: I'll provide the explanation

AB: skip 273 since TLR isn't here

Action #275 - What is our lifecycle, revocation model?; Mark; http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/275

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #275

AB: Mark proposed this be closed http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0495.html
... Any comments?

MC: I need to review it
... and respond on the list

Action #276 - Submit a short set of requirements re extended permissions and parameters and a proposal to address those requirements (to public-webapps); Mark; http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/276

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #276

AB: Mark proposed this be closed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0495.html
... Any comments?

MC: I need to review that too and will reply to MP's proposal

MP: the action was to submit a proposal
... we've agreed the feature element and other stuff in the P&C is sufficient
... thus we don't need to add anything else

MC: OK; then I'm OK with closing this

AB: I'll close 276

Action #283 - Include how to deal with <script src="http://..."> in a signed widget in one of the specs; Marcos; http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/283

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #283

MC: I need some more info from MP

MP: if a signed widget includes a script need to be careful
... ties into the access element and network attribute
... I will submit a proposal for that and it will address #283

MC: can this be assigned to Mark?

MP: this can be combined with a proposal for the access element

AB: OK; I will close #283 and add a ref to it to the other actioin
... skip #290 since Arve isn't here

Action #293 - Add the tag: scheme to the scheme pros and cons document; Marcos; http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/293

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #293

MC: I've got the text but got an error when I tried to cut and paste it into the wiki
... I'll have it done by tonight and then I'll close the action

Digital Signatures

AB: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda#Digital_Signature_spec

FH: want to talk about properties
... Mark made an offlist proposal
... I want to add that proposal to the Editor's Draft
... Want Mark to put his proposal on the public mail list

MC: I need to review it

FH: If I do the editing first, then people can understand the context

MP: OK with me; I'll send my proposal to the mail list
... will send it today

I18N and L10N

AB: Mark, was there something you wanted to discuss?

<fjh> I will update widgets signature draft and send update this week.

MP: I see this is on the Paris agenda
... there appear to be some diffs between my proposal and Josh's proposal
... would be interested in hearing MC's view on this

MC: I haven't read all of the relevant emails yet
... there may be some runtime dependencies that make this complicated

MP: I was looking at things from the author's perspective

MC: we may to add some additional notes
... but I must first read the proposals
... I'm a bit behind

AB: I18N and L10N are major agenda items for next week
... as are Window modes

FH: two questions

1. Re XML Sig FPWD, not sure that should be public

2. P&C and sig processing - can that be moved to DigSig spec

MC: we're going to work that out in Paris
... Think we can move stuff out of P&C and put it directly in DigSig

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#step-4-locate-digital-signatures-for-the-widget

MP: re the processing steps and DigSig
... As I mentioned earlier today, I've got a proposal that I will send to the list

FH: great; I'll wait for that

JK: re the runtime localization model ...
... I won't be available at all next week (not even on line)
... A concern fall shorts about saying what is done at runtime
... Not all of the resources need to be localized (re Josh's input)
... Must have a well-defined fallback mechanism
... BCP47 permits subtags
... A question is if those subtags are considered in the fallback mechanism
... Does this apply to resources as well?

MC: we could do that
... My concern is about the complexity
... It would be more rich of course
... But not sure if it is necessary

JK: if have subtags may want to distinguish different resources

AB: are there any existing widget systems that support fallback on sub-tags

JK: there are some other systems that support such a fallback
... JavaME provides some support for this

MC: does your email, Jere, address this?

JK: yes it covers this issue

MC: OK; I'll look at tit

JK: again, I will not be able to attend the meeting

MC: I will also seek feedback from I18N Core WG

AOB

AB: I don't have anything for today but I've added some AOB topics to the end of the f2f agenda
... anyone have something?

<JereK> not JavaME as such but JSR 238

AB: meeting adjourned

RRRSAgent, make 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 ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Present: Art Marcos Frederick Jere Mark Claudio Mike Benoit
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0487.html
Found Date: 19 Feb 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: