See also: IRC log
trackbot, associate this channel with #webapps
<trackbot> Associating this channel with #webapps...
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 18 June 2009
<abraun> me/ nope I was aaaa
AB: I submitted the draft agenda on June 17 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1028.html). Any change requests?
AB: On June 12 the W3C legal
staff announced a Public call for prior art on Widgets 1.0
Updates spec (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0937.html).
Please read this announcement and respond accordingly.
... also, today, the First Public Working Drafts of both
Widgets Access Requests Policy and Widgets URI Scheme will be
published.
<timeless_mbp> So, I need to send off a final set of comments
AB: last announcement from me is
reminder June 19 is the deadline for comments for the P&C
LCWD
... any other announcements?
[ None ]
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow send reminder re Widgets Updates Call for Prior Art to public-webapps [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/18-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-368 - Send reminder re Widgets Updates Call for Prior Art to public-webapps [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-06-25].
<abraun> me is using chrome for today IRC session
MS: I need to move the FPWD to
the right place today
... and then get the Web Master to create the appropriate
link
AB: what is the ETA, Mike?
MS: I can make the move during
this call
... and then ping Web Master to make the link
AB: great; I appreciate that
MS: the DigSig CR annoncement must get done today and OK'ed by PLH; should be no issues
AB: thanks for doing that Mike!
AB: on June 12, Dom submitted
comments (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0936.html
). We won't cover discuss his Editorial comment on June 15 (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0971.html
) since MC already fixed it.
... MC has not responded to this set of comments. Any
feedback?
... ideally, responses to Dom should be sent to the mail
list
Marcin: I reported the same probs
against the ABNF
... and I think they are now fixed
AB: ok; good
... they appear to be non-substantive i.e. bugs that need to be
fixed
... any other feedback on Dom's June 12 comments?
[ None ]
AB: On June 14, Francois
submitted some new comments (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0962.html
). There are three comments. Marcos has not responded to this
set of comments. Any feedback?
... comment #2 identifies a bug that needs to be fixed before
publishing a Candidate spec.
... comment #3 appears to be a suggestion for an optimization
we should consider
... any comments or feedback re Francois' comments?
[ None ]
AB: On June 15, Marcos submitted
another set of comments from Opera (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0975.html
), these from Martin Nilsson. Marcos has not responded to this
set of comments. Any feedback?
... again, responding on public-webapps is encouraged
... these look like more bugs we need to fix before publishing
a Candidate.
<timeless_mbp> oh, as a note... i ended up w/ one comment which is substantive
AB: any comments on Martin's email?
<timeless_mbp> it'll probably break us :(
AB: on June 17, Dom submitted
some more comments (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1021.html
). Marcos has not responded to this set of comments. Any
feedback?
... this set of comments is from an assertion extraction
exercise Dom did
... any comments on Dom's June 17 feedback?
... these appear to be Editorial and Bug Fixes
... any feedback on Dom's June 17 email?
[ None ]
JS: I've been discussing an issue
with Marcos
... when a widget is requested, expect a single
negotiation
... and can state which lang-based version I want
... and thus just get a single application i.e. widget
... don't want the UI to mix langs in the presentation
... its too easy for the author to make mistakes
... once en-us is decided, don't want fallbacks e.g. to
fr
... must avoid a bunch of mixed strings
AB: I think we need Josh to send the UC and issues to the mail list
JS: I will send an email to the list that describes this issue
AB: any comments or feedback for
Josh?
... without seeing the details, it appears Josh has identified
at least one bug
JS: I just sent some emails
AB: any other comments or questions about the P+C LCWD?
[ None ]
DR: how does this proceed with tests and P+C?
AB: we will start the test cases after we publish the CR
DR: Kai has done some work
AB: yes, we need to review that
DR: what about time scales?
AB: my expectation is that
Candidate phase will last at least 3 months
... if anyone has reason to believe we can create a
comprehensive test suite in less time, I'd like to hear
it
... any other questions about testing?
[ None ]
AB: I want to identify those groups we should explicitly ask for comments re the WARP spec. Naturally, the proposed DAP community is one target i.e. public-device-apis@w3.org. Are there any other groups?
RB: BONDI?
AB: Robin, do you want me to
explicitly ask BONDI for comments?
... give me the mail list address
DR: the request would go thru me
<darobin> RB: not necessarily, but they've asked for this feature
<darobin> RB: I can do it
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow ask David to ask BONDI to review the FPWD of WARP spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/18-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-369 - Ask David to ask BONDI to review the FPWD of WARP spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-06-25].
AB: are there any other
groups?
... public-webapps will of course be added
DR: does the DAP mail list include all of the Dec 2008 workshop attendees?
AB: yes, I think that is true
DR: good; lots of diverse people then will see the annoucement
AB: I agree
... any other feedback?
[ None ]
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow send FPWD annoucement to DAP WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/18-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-370 - Send FPWD annoucement to DAP WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-06-25].
AB: I want to identify those
groups we should explicitly ask for comments re the Widget URI
Scheme spec. Naturally, the TAG (www-tag@w3.org) and
public-pkg-uri-scheme@w3.org. Are there any other groups?
... of course public-webapps will be annonced too
RB: I can talk to the TAG
AB: that's good to hear
RB: pk-uri may not be appropriate
AB: good point but I'd rather err
on the side of over exposure
... any additional group?
[ None ]
AB: I don't have any discussion
points
... does anyone?
... Meeting Ajourned
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow send FPWD announcement of URI Scheme spec to TAG, PKG-URI and WebApps [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/18-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-371 - Send FPWD announcement of URI Scheme spec to TAG, PKG-URI and WebApps [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-06-25].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 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 Default Present: Art_Barstow, Josh_Soref, +1.919.536.aaaa, Mike, +1.920.840.aabb, +45.29.aacc, benoit, +2, [IPcaller], abraun Present: Art Josh Marcin AndyB Benoit Mike David Robin Regrets: Marcos Thomas Frederick AndySledd Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1028.html Found Date: 18 Jun 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/18-wam-minutes.html People with action items: annoucement announcement ask barstow david fpwd of scheme send spec uri[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]