IRC log of wam on 2010-01-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:38 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wam
14:00:38 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-irc
14:00:52 [ArtB]: ScribeNick: ArtB
14:00:54 [ArtB]: Scribe: Art
14:00:55 [ArtB]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0217.html
14:00:57 [ArtB]: Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
14:00:59 [ArtB]: Date: 21 January 2010
14:01:01 [ArtB]: Chair: Art
14:01:03 [ArtB]: Regrets: Frederick_Hirsch, Marcos_Caceres
14:01:06 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make log public
14:01:43 [Zakim]: +Art_Barstow
14:02:29 [marcin]: marcin has joined #wam
14:02:38 [Zakim]: + +49.208.829.0.aaaa
14:02:48 [ArtB]: zakim, aaaa is Marcin
14:02:48 [Zakim]: +Marcin; got it
14:02:51 [marcin]: Zakim, aaaa is marcin
14:02:51 [Zakim]: sorry, marcin, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
14:02:57 [marcin]: ups :)
14:03:07 [timeless_mbp]: Zakim: who is on?
14:03:08 [marcin]: Present+ Marcin_Hanclik
14:03:10 [Zakim]: +??P2
14:04:57 [ArtB]: Present: Art_Barstow, Marcin_Hanclik, Steve_Jolly, Josh_Soref
14:05:15 [ArtB]: Regrets+ Robin_Berjon
14:05:49 [ArtB]: Topic: Review and tweak agenda
14:06:08 [ArtB]: AB: the agenda was submitted on January 20 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0217.html ). Any change requests?
14:06:27 [ArtB]: AB: without Robin here, we will need to make some modifications
14:06:34 [ArtB]: Topic: Announcements
14:06:40 [ArtB]: AB: does anyone have any short announcements? The only one I have is that we will not have a call on January 27.
14:06:41 [Zakim]: + +47.66.99.aabb
14:06:45 [arve]: zakim, aabb is me
14:06:45 [Zakim]: +arve; got it
14:07:01 [ArtB]: Present+ Arve
14:07:52 [ArtB]: Topic: WARP spec: LC comments
14:07:58 [Zakim]: -??P11
14:07:59 [ArtB]: AB: the WARP LC ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20091208/ ) comment period ended 13 January ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-access-20091208/ ). I believe we only received 2 comments, from Marcos and Dom.
14:08:25 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos (Dec 21, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1472.html ) and Dom (Dec 10, http://www.w3.org/mid/1260460310.3355.2561.camel@localhost ).
14:08:45 [ArtB]: AB: we can't proceed to CR until we have done the necessary round-tripping with the Commentors
14:08:56 [ArtB]: ACTION: Robin process the LC comments for the WARP LC
14:08:56 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-478 - Process the LC comments for the WARP LC [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-01-28].
14:09:16 [ArtB]: AB: everyone else in the WG is also encouraged to respond to the LC comments
14:09:38 [ArtB]: AB: anything else on WARP LC?
14:11:36 [Steven-cwi]: zakim, dial steven-work
14:11:36 [Zakim]: ok, Steven-cwi; the call is being made
14:11:38 [Zakim]: +Steven
14:11:50 [Steven-cwi]: Apologies for lateness
14:11:59 [ArtB]: ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list
14:11:59 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-479 - Make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-01-28].
14:12:11 [ArtB]: Present+ StevenP
14:13:19 [Zakim]: +Josh_Soref
14:15:02 [ArtB]: Topic: WARP spec: extending access to local network resources
14:15:11 [ArtB]: AB: on January 14 StephenJ (SJ) started a thread ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0173.html ) re extending the <access> element to support local network resources.
14:15:29 [ArtB]: AB: Arve and Stephen continued that thread today. What's the status (I haven't yet caught up on today's e-mails)?
14:16:15 [ArtB]: SJ: I sent my proposal
14:16:20 [ArtB]: ... it is a starting point
14:16:27 [ArtB]: ... want to consider the local net
14:16:40 [ArtB]: ... want developers to be able to specify them as accessible
14:16:46 [ArtB]: ... Arve asked some questions
14:16:58 [ArtB]: ... I think it makes sense to create some UCs and I'll do that
14:17:11 [ArtB]: ... if people have other comments, that's good too
14:17:37 [ArtB]: Arve: for our impl at Opera, developers have been not understood very well the diff between local and non-local
14:17:53 [ArtB]: ... and have just given permission to everything because of the confusion
14:17:58 [ArtB]: ... so that is something to consider
14:18:19 [ArtB]: SJ: needs to be at least one good UX to accept or reject local access
14:18:48 [ArtB]: ... could be a number of networks available, especially in a mobile network (wifi, operator net, etc.)
14:19:13 [ArtB]: ... there is lots of more data that may be available
14:19:27 [ArtB]: Arve: I'm not sure how much we need to standardize
14:21:13 [ArtB]: SJ: how much info is needed for these UCs?
14:21:24 [ArtB]: AB: we don't have any template
14:21:35 [ArtB]: Arve: I don't expect a whole lot of details
14:21:46 [ArtB]: ... if you respond to the email, that should be sufficient
14:21:53 [ArtB]: SJ: ok, no problem
14:22:39 [ArtB]: ACTION: jolly submit a UC for the local network access proposal
14:22:39 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-480 - Submit a UC for the local network access proposal [on Stephen Jolly - due 2010-01-28].
14:22:56 [ArtB]: AB: is there anything else on this topic for today?
14:22:57 [ArtB]: [ No ]
14:23:33 [ArtB]: Topic: URI Scheme spec: LC comments
14:23:42 [ArtB]: AB: the LC comment tracker ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/doc/ ) indicates 7 of the 9 comments are still in the "tocheck" status.
14:24:20 [ArtB]: AB: my take on Larry Masinter's 18-Dec-2009 reply ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1455.html ) is the two main issues are: 1) he doesn't think we have showed "Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility" per RFC4395; and 2) "The description of the mapping must be complete", in particular authority. Links to the authority thread are included in the draft agenda.
14:25:23 [ArtB]: AB: without Robin, I'm not sure it makes sense to do a deep dive on this
14:25:57 [ArtB]: ... when we get Robin on a call, we will need to discuss these issues
14:26:08 [ArtB]: MH: think we should first discuss on the mail list
14:26:24 [ArtB]: AB: yes, I agree we should discuss as much as possible on the mail list
14:26:42 [ArtB]: AB: One thing LM asks for is a Use Case that clearly demonstrates "New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already registered URI schemes." [ RFC4395 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395 ]. LM asserts the thismessage scheme [ RFC2557 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557 ] should be reused or modified to meet our requirements.
14:27:51 [ArtB]: AB: I fully agree that if some existing scheme meets 100% of our reqs, we should re use it
14:28:05 [ArtB]: ... but that doesn't appear to be the case with any of the schemes we looked at
14:28:19 [ArtB]: AB: we have some a wiki page of schemes we have evaluated ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme ). Perhaps it would be helpful to analyze this again (RB did last June http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0972.html ) but there was no reply by LM.
14:29:10 [Steven-cwi]: OK
14:29:28 [ArtB]: AB: I think this is an area where getting some advice and guidance from the Team would be helpful
14:29:51 [ArtB]: AB: anything else on this topic for today?
14:29:53 [ArtB]: [ No ]
14:30:10 [ArtB]: Topic: View Modes Media Features spec
14:30:39 [ArtB]: AB: Marcin on Jan 14 sent questions to the list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0170.html
14:30:51 [ArtB]: ... and there has been no response, correct?
14:30:56 [ArtB]: MH: right, no response yet
14:31:11 [ArtB]: MH: I have added the comments from VF (as agreed previously)
14:31:31 [ArtB]: ... I have some questions to discuss
14:32:08 [ArtB]: ... re interactivity, I proposed a solution in the ED
14:32:18 [ArtB]: ... mini says content is not interactive
14:32:30 [ArtB]: ... need to know if that affects HTMLInputElement
14:32:43 [ArtB]: ... I assume answers in the ED
14:32:52 [ArtB]: ... but some of my answers may be controversial
14:33:15 [ArtB]: AB: Arve, any follow-up from you on this?
14:33:37 [ArtB]: Arve: re mini, in what way would that affect HTMLInputElement?
14:33:51 [ArtB]: MH: disabled atrribute
14:34:05 [ArtB]: Arve: no, this would not affect that attribute
14:34:30 [ArtB]: ... in mini mode one can still have a distinction between enabled and disabled
14:34:45 [ArtB]: MH: does this need to be specified?
14:35:06 [ArtB]: Arve: no; take a look at print media type in CSS and see what happens there
14:35:26 [ArtB]: MH: so, you think we should handle this like print media?
14:35:36 [ArtB]: Arve: we probably shouldn't reference HTML at all
14:36:10 [ArtB]: MH: OK, I'll look at that; this could affect the User Experience
14:36:25 [ArtB]: ... then we can discuss over email
14:37:01 [ArtB]: AB: what's the issue with the opacity property?
14:37:41 [ArtB]: MH: not sure how this applies for some of the modes
14:38:14 [ArtB]: ... need to explain this e.g. with body element?
14:38:24 [ArtB]: Arve: no, I don't think we should do that
14:38:35 [ArtB]: ... don't want to tie this to body element
14:40:14 [ArtB]: MH: we have 4 view modes now
14:40:24 [Zakim]: + +47.23.69.aacc
14:40:28 [Zakim]: -arve
14:40:29 [ArtB]: ... transparency depends on UA
14:40:34 [arve]: zakim, aacc is me
14:40:34 [Zakim]: +arve; got it
14:40:54 [ArtB]: ... widget developer may not be able to detect if viewport is transparent or not
14:41:24 [Steven-cwi]: zakim, who is noisy?
14:41:27 [ArtB]: ... don't necessarily want to add more properties and exponentially increase the property/view mode table
14:41:36 [Zakim]: Steven-cwi, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Marcin (82%), Art_Barstow (3%)
14:41:51 [Steven-cwi]: zakim, who is noisy?
14:42:07 [Zakim]: Steven-cwi, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Marcin (9%), arve (59%), Art_Barstow (19%)
14:42:19 [Steven-cwi]: zakim, mute arve temporarily
14:42:19 [Zakim]: arve should now be muted
14:42:20 [arve]: I'm back in, but speaking is difficult
14:42:29 [arve]: landline = flat battery
14:42:35 [Zakim]: arve should now be unmuted again
14:42:49 [ArtB]: MH: want to continue opacity discussion
14:43:14 [ArtB]: ... want author to require opaque viewport but now that can't be done - it is up to the UA
14:43:33 [ArtB]: ... In my email I said "I would like to have the widget behave like fullscreen or mini, but the transparency could depend on the content"
14:43:43 [arve]: [We should do that by making opacity attribute separate from view mode]
14:44:17 [ArtB]: MH: yes, I'm fine with that
14:44:26 [ArtB]: ... but not sure where that would be specified
14:44:30 [arve]: [config.xml, probably]
14:44:34 [ArtB]: ... config.xml? CSS?
14:44:48 [ArtB]: MH: ok, config.xml
14:45:21 [ArtB]: AB: let's please continue this discussion on the mail list
14:45:32 [arve]: CSS is for adjust certain aspects of presentation in web-type documents, while this is about the window type the widget is to be rendered in
14:45:41 [ArtB]: AB: anything else on the VM-MF spec for today?
14:46:07 [ArtB]: MH: I'm a bit behind on the VM-I spec but will try to get something done by the next call
14:46:15 [ArtB]: ... they are closely related
14:46:20 [ArtB]: AB: ok; understood
14:46:38 [ArtB]: Topic: AOB
14:46:50 [ArtB]: AB: Next call: No call on January 27; next call is Feb 4.
14:47:21 [ArtB]: AB: anything else for today?
14:47:39 [ArtB]: JS: regrets for Feb 4
14:47:47 [ArtB]: AB: meeting adjourned
14:47:56 [Steven-cwi]: Jan 28th you meant?
14:48:26 [ArtB]: AB: oops - I meant no call on Jan 28! - next call is Feb 4
14:48:30 [Zakim]: -Art_Barstow
14:48:31 [Zakim]: -Marcin
14:48:32 [Zakim]: -??P2
14:48:35 [Zakim]: -Steven
14:48:35 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:48:35 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:48:41 [Zakim]: -arve
14:49:18 [Zakim]: -Josh_Soref
14:49:19 [Zakim]: IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:49:20 [Zakim]: Attendees were Art_Barstow, +49.208.829.0.aaaa, Marcin, +47.66.99.aabb, arve, Steven, Josh_Soref, +47.23.69.aacc
14:50:27 [ArtB]: zakim, bye
14:50:27 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #wam
14:51:24 [arve]: arve has left #wam
14:53:36 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, bye
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]: I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-actions.rdf :
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Robin process the LC comments for the WARP LC [1]
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-irc#T14-08-56
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list [2]
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-irc#T14-11-59
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: jolly submit a UC for the local network access proposal [3]
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-irc#T14-22-39