IRC log of wam on 2010-02-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:42 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wam

13:57:42 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/02/25-wam-irc

13:57:57 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make log public

13:57:59 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

13:58:00 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

13:58:02 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0707.html

13:58:04 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

13:58:05 [ArtB]

Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

13:58:07 [ArtB]

Date: 25 February 2010

13:58:10 [Zakim]

IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has now started

13:58:16 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

13:58:31 [Zakim]

+Art_Barstow

13:58:47 [Zakim]

+??P15

13:58:54 [arve]

Zakim, [IPcaller] is me

13:58:54 [Zakim]

+arve; got it

13:58:59 [fjh]

zakim, ??P15 is fjh

13:58:59 [Zakim]

+fjh; got it

13:59:03 [ArtB]

Present: Art, Arve, Frederick

13:59:25 [ArtB]

Regrets: Marcin

13:59:37 [Zakim]

+Marcos

13:59:45 [ArtB]

Present+ Marcos

14:00:04 [fsasaki]

fsasaki has joined #wam

14:00:24 [Zakim]

+aphillip

14:00:48 [arve]

Zakim: calling in?

14:00:54 [ArtB]

Present+ Addison

14:00:58 [arve]

Marcos: ^ calling in soon?

14:02:54 [r12a]

r12a has joined #wam

14:02:59 [r12a]

zakim, dial richard please

14:03:02 [Zakim]

ok, r12a; the call is being made

14:03:03 [Zakim]

+Richard

14:03:14 [ArtB]

Present+ Richard

14:03:16 [Zakim]

+??P9

14:03:22 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:03:25 [ArtB]

Present+ Felix

14:03:31 [ArtB]

Present+ Robin

14:03:45 [r12a]

zakim, who's here ?

14:03:48 [Zakim]

On the phone I see arve, Art_Barstow, fjh, Marcos, aphillip, Richard, felix (muted), [IPcaller]

14:03:54 [Zakim]

On IRC I see r12a, fsasaki, RRSAgent, arve, Zakim, aphillip, MikeSmith, Steven, ArtB, Marcos, darobin, tlr, shepazu, chaals, fjh, anne, trackbot, steve

14:04:15 [ArtB]

Topic: Review and tweak agenda

14:04:20 [ArtB]

AB: the agenda was posted on Feb 24 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0707.html ). Given some guests are here today, we will move Announcements to the AOB part of the agenda. Any other change requests?

14:04:46 [ArtB]

[ none ]

14:04:48 [ArtB]

Topic: P&C spec: ITS

14:04:56 [ArtB]

AB: an issue with the P&C spec is what to do about the Optional ITS support. On February 22 Marcos sent a proposal to WebApps and I18N Core WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0681.html ).

14:05:03 [Bryan]

Bryan has joined #wam

14:05:17 [ArtB]

AB: to help us all get on the same page here, let's start with Marcos - what's the problem?

14:05:31 [Zakim]

+Bryan_Sullivan

14:05:40 [ArtB]

Present+ Bryan

14:05:53 [ArtB]

MC: the config doc permits pieces of metadata

14:06:05 [Steven]

zakim, dial steven-work

14:06:05 [Zakim]

ok, Steven; the call is being made

14:06:07 [Zakim]

+Steven

14:06:10 [ArtB]

... some of that metadata could be marked up with ITS elements

14:06:35 [ArtB]

... not sure what the UA is supposed to do

14:06:40 [r12a]

q+

14:06:47 [ArtB]

... We have one partial impl of ITS

14:07:03 [ArtB]

... so we are concerned about how to move the spec forward

14:07:56 [ArtB]

RI: there are a couple of things here

14:08:02 [ArtB]

... one issue is bi-di support

14:08:18 [ArtB]

... the other has to do with how the markup is used

14:08:37 [ArtB]

MC: yes, I agree

14:08:38 [darobin]

+1

14:08:39 [fsasaki]

q+

14:08:44 [ArtB]

... we don't want to remove the capability

14:08:47 [darobin]

ack r12a

14:09:07 [ArtB]

RI: then we should talk about bi-di support versus ITS support

14:09:45 [ArtB]

RI: do you now have a dir tag without an its prefix?

14:09:56 [ArtB]

MC: there is some confusion about the syntax

14:10:13 [ArtB]

... we don't define dir in the widget ns

14:10:46 [ArtB]

... some confusion from the author's point of view

14:11:01 [ArtB]

RI: from our PoV, very imp to support bi-di

14:11:10 [ArtB]

... but dont think you need dir: before span

14:11:32 [ArtB]

... spec says you can use your own tag

14:11:34 [darobin]

s/you need dir: before span/you need its: before dir or span/

14:11:57 [ArtB]

MC: that's what we want

14:12:04 [ArtB]

... don't want to add another namespace

14:12:08 [ArtB]

AP: that's OK with us

14:12:21 [ArtB]

... there are lots of grammars that have span elements and dir attrs

14:12:33 [ArtB]

... import the functionailty into your own spec

14:12:49 [fsasaki]

felix: agree with what Richard said

14:13:00 [fsasaki]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2010JanMar/0041.html

14:13:01 [darobin]

ack fsasaki

14:13:07 [ArtB]

FS: want to second what RI and AP said

14:13:31 [darobin]

s/http:/-> http:/

14:13:37 [ArtB]

... follow the above link

14:13:51 [ArtB]

... to see an example you could follow

14:14:19 [ArtB]

RB: so if we add span and dir to our namespace

14:14:27 [ArtB]

... do we then add an ITS rule?

14:14:41 [ArtB]

FS: I think it would be useful

14:14:51 [ArtB]

... need to support the bi-di feature

14:15:08 [ArtB]

RI: let me summarize

14:15:33 [darobin]

s/do we then add an ITS rule/do we then add an ITS rule to that specification so that it can be plugged into ITS-supporting software easily and capture the intent clearly/

14:15:45 [fsasaki]

s/need to support the bi-di feature/but most important aspect is to support the bi-di feature, as richard said/

14:15:59 [ArtB]

... ITS spec: tells the set of features needed including bidi; gives advice for translators; provides a mech one can follow to define the tags needed

14:16:14 [ArtB]

... and Felix's example illustrates that

14:16:34 [Marcos]

+q

14:16:54 [ArtB]

MC: hearing good use cases

14:17:09 [ArtB]

... would be good to expand on how to use ITS functions

14:17:10 [darobin]

ack Marcos

14:17:20 [ArtB]

... think we should put that in a separate spec

14:17:29 [ArtB]

AP: I'm a little hesitant to separate it

14:17:50 [ArtB]

... by splitting, it tends to invite people not to implement it

14:17:59 [ArtB]

RI: yes, I tend to agree

14:18:09 [ArtB]

... something like bi-di really needs to be there

14:18:25 [ArtB]

MC: so if we introduce span and dir, then we would need to make it mandatory

14:18:27 [darobin]

q+ to ask about unicode-based directionality

14:18:31 [ArtB]

... currently, it is optional

14:18:48 [Steven]

Is there a link to the place where it says ITS is optional?

14:18:56 [ArtB]

AP: providing proper bidi markup is very importatnt

14:19:18 [ArtB]

... the way you implement it is up to you

14:20:25 [ArtB]

... it is key to have the right syntax

14:20:28 [fsasaki]

q+ to provide an example from svg tiny http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/i18n.html#SVGi18nl10nmarkup

14:20:33 [ArtB]

... and provide enuf info for implementors

14:20:36 [darobin]

ack m

14:20:39 [darobin]

ack darobin

14:20:39 [Zakim]

darobin, you wanted to ask about unicode-based directionality

14:20:50 [ArtB]

RB: 3 small things ...

14:21:03 [ArtB]

... I think there is a strong consensus to support bidi

14:21:14 [ArtB]

... but we have lots of pressure to release the spec now

14:21:42 [ArtB]

... we have made promises to proceed from CR to REC as soon as possible

14:22:10 [ArtB]

... I have a question about how to express the value of bidi markup versus using unicode markers for directionality

14:22:26 [ArtB]

... Unicode chars can be used so not clear we need anything else

14:22:59 [ArtB]

... 3rd, re API, we return a string that may contain the span element. How is that handled?

14:24:04 [ArtB]

RI: we are discussion bidi in the context of HTML

14:24:20 [ArtB]

... they are pushing for markup rather than the Unicode chars

14:24:28 [ArtB]

... authors can't see them

14:24:41 [ArtB]

... very difficult with paragraph endings

14:24:46 [ArtB]

... also inheritance probs

14:24:55 [ArtB]

... so markup is cleaner

14:25:28 [ArtB]

AP: RI hit the main points

14:25:40 [ArtB]

... dir attr does have a certain amount of scope

14:25:52 [ArtB]

... if have structure element, can set base directionality

14:26:10 [ArtB]

... [ missed stuff about blocks of stuf ... ]

14:26:30 [ArtB]

... e.g. can say widget name is LtoR or RtoL

14:27:07 [ArtB]

... The unicode markers are more relevant for paragraphs

14:27:43 [r12a]

actually unicode markers are only inline indicators

14:27:59 [ArtB]

... adding markers for LtoR langs can be a pain for authors

14:28:12 [r12a]

(which makes for much more work on the authors part to support them too)

14:28:21 [ArtB]

RB: so markup is better for authoring

14:28:49 [darobin]

... and structure

14:29:03 [ArtB]

RI: inheritance is also important

14:29:23 [ArtB]

... if writing a config file, want to put dir at the top and then not have to do it again

14:29:35 [ArtB]

... if use markers, it's a lot more work for the author

14:29:48 [ArtB]

... inheritance via markup is much more workable for authors

14:30:06 [Marcos]

+q

14:30:07 [darobin]

API example: <name>Foo <span dir='rtl'>esrever</span> Bar</name> when that value is retrieved with var nameString = widget.name;

14:30:18 [darobin]

ack Marcos

14:30:22 [darobin]

ack fsasaki

14:30:22 [Zakim]

fsasaki, you wanted to provide an example from svg tiny http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/i18n.html#SVGi18nl10nmarkup

14:30:39 [ArtB]

MC: question about this when xml:lang is used

14:30:50 [ArtB]

... does the lang give a hint about dir?

14:31:07 [ArtB]

AP: xml:lang can be a hint about what content will follow

14:31:14 [ArtB]

... but it does not define directionality

14:31:32 [ArtB]

... we discouage using xml:lang as an indicator for directionality

14:32:41 [ArtB]

... we have some examples

14:33:01 [ArtB]

RI: the function of lang and dir are fundamentally different

14:33:07 [ArtB]

MC: ok, thanks for clarifying

14:33:17 [fsasaki]

felix: the svg tiny example http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/i18n.html#SVGi18nl10nmarkup demonstrates how ITS markup is integrated into a language (SVG) *without changing the behavior of svg* - but the markup is still important for applications which process svg, e.g. translation tools. So adding the markup does not mean IMO that you need to go back in the w3c process. Also, regarding "re API,...

14:33:19 [fsasaki]

...we return a string that may contain the span element. How is that handled?": not sure if there is a need to keep the span element in the DOM, since it is not relevant for widget processing.

14:33:28 [ArtB]

FS: I just entered what I wanted to say

14:34:52 [ArtB]

... don't think the P&C spec should need to define how to process text bidi marked text

14:35:16 [ArtB]

RB: it's not so much about the DOM

14:35:26 [darobin]

<name>Foo <span dir='rtl'>esrever</span> Bar</name> when that value is retrieved with var nameString = widget.name;

14:35:32 [ArtB]

... the algorithm ignores stuff it doesn't understand

14:36:15 [ArtB]

... re the example I entered above, not sure how to expose the string so it can be displayed properly later on

14:36:22 [ArtB]

... don't want the info to be lost

14:36:52 [ArtB]

AP: the API would need to preserve directionality

14:37:24 [ArtB]

RB: so if the API returns a human readable string, what do we return?

14:37:31 [fsasaki]

felix: agree with directionality - only no need to preserver any other ITS information derived from the markup (e.g. the "translate" flag)

14:38:04 [ArtB]

RI: if using JS, then could use markers

14:38:09 [ArtB]

... and then do the conversions

14:38:43 [ArtB]

AP: would expect name element to have the dir attr

14:39:11 [ArtB]

... can then have an api to get the dir

14:40:26 [ArtB]

MC: do we insert the unicode control points or not?

14:40:26 [darobin]

RB: the issue is indeed for JS APIs, for instance for the generation of About boxes — the JS does not have access to the original XML, just the API on top of it

14:40:47 [ArtB]

AP: if you have other markup, then want to turn the markup to a string

14:41:04 [ArtB]

... need to be careful; don't want to loose info

14:41:15 [ArtB]

... and don't want the API to be too difficult

14:41:24 [ArtB]

... need to work thru the main use cases

14:41:33 [ArtB]

... to determine what soln to use

14:41:43 [ArtB]

MC: our case is mainly human readable text

14:42:17 [ArtB]

AP: may need a separate API to get directionality

14:42:43 [darobin]

ACTION Robin to produce examples of API retrieval of human-readable text with directional information

14:42:43 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-495 - Produce examples of API retrieval of human-readable text with directional information [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-03-04].

14:43:00 [arve]

WTF?

14:43:04 [Zakim]

-arve

14:43:29 [ArtB]

MC: don't want to loose directionality of the span

14:43:39 [ArtB]

s/MC: don't/AP: don't/

14:43:42 [Zakim]

+arve

14:43:56 [ArtB]

RB: I'll need to look into this API problem

14:44:05 [ArtB]

... I will then send it to you for review

14:44:12 [ArtB]

... if that sounds OK

14:44:17 [ArtB]

RI: sound good

14:44:24 [ArtB]

AP: yes

14:44:29 [ArtB]

MC: I'll help with the examples

14:44:39 [Marcos]

proposal http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-bidi/

14:45:14 [ArtB]

AB: what is this Marcos?

14:45:33 [ArtB]

MC: it's a separate spec for widget directionality

14:45:50 [ArtB]

... need to clearly define what needs to be done with bidi

14:46:10 [ArtB]

... already think this proposal needs to have some changes based on today's discussion

14:46:37 [ArtB]

... Based on the examples, will be able to update the API

14:46:52 [ArtB]

RI: may have a similar issue with lang

14:47:09 [ArtB]

... it can be on spans, and other places

14:47:20 [ArtB]

MC: yes, we need to look at the various cases

14:48:07 [ArtB]

RI: there are no unicode markers for lang

14:49:28 [ArtB]

AB: so if we were to move the ITS functionality to a separate spec, would that be objectionably?

14:49:46 [ArtB]

AP: yes, I think the I18N Core WG would find that objectionable

14:50:03 [ArtB]

... concerns about it not getting implemented and others I mentioned ealier

14:50:28 [ArtB]

MC: yes, understand; we have very little support for it now from implementors

14:51:07 [ArtB]

RB: it is much easier for us to tell people to implement a small separate spec then it is to implement an Optional part of a spec

14:51:21 [ArtB]

AP: the attributes are not optional

14:51:31 [ArtB]

... the effect they have is sometimes not optional

14:51:37 [ArtB]

... there is a right thing to do

14:52:41 [ArtB]

MC: we could do this in a seperate spec and in P&C spec, say this the Widget BiDi spec SHOULD/MUST be implemented

14:52:48 [ArtB]

... want to finish P&C

14:53:17 [ArtB]

... we have a good test suite and we can add some ITS tests

14:53:38 [ArtB]

... I think that would address the concerns you expressed

14:53:55 [ArtB]

... then we can add additonal use cases as needed

14:54:32 [ArtB]

RI: if put span and dir in the grammar in P&C and then specify them in a separate spec

14:54:41 [ArtB]

MC: yes, we can do that

14:55:52 [ArtB]

RI: are you saying that in the P&C spec, define the span and dir as mandatory and then specing them separately?

14:55:53 [ArtB]

MC: yes

14:55:59 [ArtB]

RB: I think that would be OK

14:56:13 [ArtB]

RI: I think we would say that isn't the preferred plan

14:56:31 [ArtB]

RB: I agree it's not our preferred plan either but we need to ship the spec

14:56:38 [Steven]

Which argues against a three week LC by the way

14:56:41 [fsasaki]

felix: agree with that plan - not preferred, but still ok

14:57:06 [ArtB]

AP: will be painful if you take it away and then try to add it later

14:57:48 [ArtB]

AB: then this plan wouldn't be ideal but would meet the I Can Live With It Test

14:58:22 [ArtB]

RI: the examples we've seen today aren't real convincing and I can supply others

14:58:25 [ArtB]

RB: that would be great

14:58:45 [darobin]

ACTION Marcos to email I18N to ask for better examples, edit P+C to match decision

14:58:45 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-496 - Email I18N to ask for better examples, edit P+C to match decision [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-03-04].

14:59:10 [ArtB]

SP: wasn't clear on the Core feedback loop

14:59:30 [ArtB]

RB: we got some feedback to use markers

14:59:42 [ArtB]

... but we we want to keep moving the spec forward

14:59:59 [darobin]

.... we should have done the i18n tests first

15:00:05 [fsasaki]

zakim, unmute Felix

15:00:06 [Zakim]

felix should no longer be muted

15:00:15 [ArtB]

Topic: DigSig spec: C14N

15:00:16 [Zakim]

-aphillip

15:00:18 [Zakim]

-Richard

15:00:20 [Zakim]

-felix

15:00:22 [Zakim]

-Steven

15:00:32 [fsasaki]

fsasaki has left #wam

15:00:35 [ArtB]

AB: on Feb 12, Marcos started a thread related to the Canonical XML spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0595.html ). There was a related follow-up by Henri Sivonen ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0679.html ) and Andreas Kühne again mentioned his company's service ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0596.h

15:00:36 [ArtB]

t

15:00:38 [ArtB]

ml ).

15:01:18 [ArtB]

AB: I don't think any new information has been added to the discussion about using using XML Signature for widget signing.

15:01:49 [ArtB]

AB: do we have an issue to discuss?

15:01:58 [fjh]

I saw nothing new in the discussion

15:02:01 [ArtB]

MC: no I don't think so

15:02:23 [fjh]

q+

15:02:58 [fjh]

q-

15:03:13 [r12a]

r12a has left #wam

15:03:49 [ArtB]

MC: I talked to our guys but we are OK with proceeding as already agreed

15:04:26 [ArtB]

AB: proposed resolution: we continue as previously agreed with Dig Sig spec

15:04:32 [ArtB]

AB: any objections?

15:04:36 [ArtB]

[ None ]

15:04:52 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: we will continue as previously agreed with Dig Sig spec

15:05:08 [ArtB]

Topic: Interface spec: openURL security considerations

15:05:14 [ArtB]

AB: on Feb 18, Marcos asked for input on openURL security considerations ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0659.html ). What's the status?

15:06:08 [ArtB]

MC: I expect Opera will provide some input and I will reflect other comments

15:06:30 [ArtB]

... there are some issues with this method so we need to be cautious

15:06:55 [ArtB]

AB: will addressing the issue require normative changes to the spec?

15:07:00 [ArtB]

MC: no, I don't think so

15:07:11 [ArtB]

... we need to provide some more guidance for implementors

15:07:34 [ArtB]

AB: I think we're OK here

15:07:43 [ArtB]

MC: yes, I'll refine the informative text

15:07:54 [ArtB]

Topic: Interface spec: resolution of relative URIs

15:08:42 [ArtB]

AB: on Feb 24, Arve asked a question in IRC re how relative URIs are resolved ( http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20100223 ).

15:09:45 [ArtB]

Arve: the spec has some text about relative URIs

15:10:45 [ArtB]

... may have a conflict between openURL and similar APIs like window.open

15:11:49 [ArtB]

... [ Arve make a proposal that is not minuted ... ]

15:12:01 [ArtB]

... must look at the resolved URI and not the string

15:12:11 [ArtB]

MC: yes, that makes sense; I can work with Arve on this

15:12:24 [ArtB]

... that change would simplify some things as well

15:13:47 [ArtB]

AB: is this going to be editorial change or something more substantial?

15:13:58 [ArtB]

MC: I think this is more of an editorial change

15:14:14 [ArtB]

... but after I am done editing we can decide if the change is more substantial

15:14:22 [ArtB]

Arve: I agre this is more editorial

15:14:59 [ArtB]

Topic: View Modes Media Feature spec: LC ToDo list

15:15:08 [ArtB]

AB: on Jan 14, Marcin posted a list of 4 open issues for the VMMF spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0170.html ). We discussed this list on Jan 21 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#item06 ).

15:15:42 [ArtB]

AB: Since then were no follow-ups, want to go thru the list and get an understanding about what needs to be done to address the issues.

15:15:53 [ArtB]

AB: note for the record that Marcin sent regrets for today

15:16:37 [Marcos]

zakim, who is making noise?

15:16:48 [Zakim]

Marcos, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: arve (8%), Art_Barstow (18%), [IPcaller] (42%), Marcos (35%)

15:17:40 [fjh]

zakim, who is here?

15:17:42 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Art_Barstow, fjh, Marcos, [IPcaller], Bryan_Sullivan, arve

15:17:48 [Zakim]

On IRC I see Bryan, RRSAgent, arve, Zakim, MikeSmith, Steven, ArtB, Marcos, darobin, tlr, shepazu, chaals, fjh, anne, trackbot, steve

15:18:05 [ArtB]

AB: what is the priority of this spec?

15:18:18 [ArtB]

RB: I can take a look at this?

15:18:33 [darobin]

... it's a question of what the WG's priorities are

15:18:36 [ArtB]

s/look at this?/look at this/

15:19:13 [Marcos]

darobin to view modes!

15:19:32 [ArtB]

AB: if this spec is getting implemented, we need to freeze it

15:19:45 [ArtB]

MC: we need someone to take editorial control

15:19:59 [ArtB]

... my priority is Update spec at the moment

15:20:34 [arve]

zakim, unmute me

15:20:34 [Zakim]

arve should no longer be muted

15:21:59 [ArtB]

ACTION: barstow find someone to help drive the View Modes Media Feature spec to LC

15:21:59 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-497 - Find someone to help drive the View Modes Media Feature spec to LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-03-04].

15:22:26 [ArtB]

Arve: I can look inside

15:22:30 [ArtB]

AB: I'll do the same

15:22:36 [darobin]

RobinCopter

15:22:44 [ArtB]

Topic: AOB & Announcements

15:22:49 [ArtB]

AB: any short announcements for today?

15:23:12 [ArtB]

RB: I sent the URI scheme registration request

15:23:18 [ArtB]

AB: yes, saw that; thanks!

15:23:38 [ArtB]

AB: next call is March 4; no call on March 11; meeting adjourned

15:23:58 [Zakim]

-Art_Barstow

15:24:01 [Zakim]

-[IPcaller]

15:24:04 [Zakim]

-arve

15:24:05 [Zakim]

-fjh

15:24:07 [Zakim]

-Bryan_Sullivan

15:24:09 [darobin]

we should have a Mr Barstow song

15:24:30 [Zakim]

-Marcos

15:24:31 [Zakim]

IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended

15:24:33 [Zakim]

Attendees were Art_Barstow, arve, fjh, Marcos, aphillip, Richard, [IPcaller], felix, Bryan_Sullivan, Steven

15:24:39 [arve]

arve has left #wam

15:25:58 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

15:25:58 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/02/25-wam-minutes.html ArtB

15:28:54 [ArtB]

zakim, bye

15:28:54 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wam

15:30:53 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, bye

15:30:53 [RRSAgent]

I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/25-wam-actions.rdf :

15:30:53 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow find someone to help drive the View Modes Media Feature spec to LC [1]

15:30:53 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/25-wam-irc#T15-21-59