13:00:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:00:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-wam-irc
13:00:46 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
13:00:48 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
13:00:50 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0124.html
13:00:51 <ArtB> Chair: Art
13:00:53 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:00:54 <ArtB> Regrets: Marcos, Bryan
13:01:25 <ArtB> Present: Art, Josh
13:01:30 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
13:01:30 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
13:01:33 <Zakim> +Steven
13:01:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:01:40 <fjh> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
13:01:40 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
13:01:42 <ArtB> Present+ StevenP
13:01:48 <ArtB> Present+ Frederick
13:01:51 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
13:04:13 <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:04:19 <ArtB> AB: the draft agenda was submitted yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0124.html ). Any requests for changes?
13:04:36 <ArtB> [ None ]
13:04:42 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
13:04:50 <ArtB> AB: I have two; first is that Widget Updates WD was published April 13 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-updates-20100413/ )
13:05:12 <ArtB> AB: 2nd is that Digital Signatures for Widgets LC will be published today; May 6 is deadline for comments
13:05:37 <ArtB> AB: any other annoucements?
13:07:03 <ArtB> Topic: View Modes Media Features spec
13:07:11 <ArtB> AB: Robin has responded to all of the pre-LC comments and updated the ED accordingly ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/ ). As such, I think the spec is ready for LC publication. Any comments?
13:08:16 <ArtB> AB: proposed RESOLUTION: the group agrees the View Modes Media Features spec is ready for LC publication
13:08:38 <ArtB> AB: any comments or objections?
13:08:47 <ArtB> AB: any voices of support?
13:09:02 <ArtB> AB: I support this spec moving to LC
13:09:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:09:09 <ArtB> Present+ Robin
13:09:23 <ArtB> RB: I support this
13:09:26 <darobin> Zakim, [IPCaller] is me
13:09:26 <Zakim> +darobin; got it
13:10:00 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the group agrees the View Modes Media Features spec is ready for LC publication
13:10:30 <ArtB> AB: Marcos told me offline that he support LC of this spec
13:10:38 <ArtB> AB: re which WGs we should ask to review, are there any groups other than CSS WG?
13:11:16 <ArtB> AB: does anyone know about BONDI?
13:11:18 <arve> arve has joined #wam
13:11:24 <ArtB> RB: don't know but we can ask
13:11:48 <ArtB> AB: I will include BONDI in the list of review groups
13:11:56 <ArtB> AB: re the review period length, the minimum is 3 weeks but since this is the first LC and we want review from others, I think 4 weeks would be the minimum. 
13:12:10 <darobin> +1
13:12:11 <Steven> q+
13:12:28 <ArtB> SP: this is an HCG area
13:12:42 <ArtB> ... should ask them and adjust the time accordingly
13:13:07 <ArtB> AB: I'm OK but don't want it to be too openended
13:13:20 <ArtB> SP: right, so ask them something like "is 4 weeks OK?"
13:13:27 <ArtB> AB: that's OK with me
13:13:50 <Steven> How many pages is it?
13:13:51 <ArtB> ... is 4 a good number or do we need it longer
13:14:12 <ArtB> RB: I think 4 is fine since it is a smallish spec and CSS WG already reviewed it once
13:14:17 <ArtB> AB: good points
13:14:30 <ArtB> ... I'll use 4 weeks in my proposal to HCG
13:14:42 <Zakim> +arve
13:14:55 <arve> arve has joined #wam
13:14:56 <Steven> In that case 4 weeks will be fine
13:14:59 <ArtB> RB: it's about 5 pages including all of the boilerplate stuff
13:15:04 <ArtB> Present+ Arve
13:15:54 <ArtB> ACTION: berjon notify Art when the VMMF LC is ready for a publication request
13:15:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-524 - Notify Art when the VMMF LC is ready for a publication request [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-04-22].
13:16:14 <ArtB> RB: OK, but we need agreement on the short name
13:16:18 <ArtB> AB: good point
13:16:27 <ArtB> AB: so now it is widgets-vmmf?
13:16:30 <ArtB> RB: right
13:17:04 <ArtB> AB: one option is vmmf, another is view-mode
13:17:07 <darobin> Zakim, pick shortname
13:17:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pick shortname', darobin
13:17:20 <ArtB> ... I am mostly indifferent
13:17:49 <ArtB> SP: something that is readable is good
13:17:59 <ArtB> AB: how about view-mode?
13:18:02 <ArtB> RB: OK
13:18:03 <darobin> view-modes
13:18:10 <ArtB> RB: use view-modes
13:18:30 <ArtB> ... no, make that "view-mode"
13:18:44 <ArtB> AB: any objections to "view-mode"
13:18:47 <timeless> what's the reason for singular?
13:19:12 <ArtB> RB: want singular because media feature in CSS is singular
13:19:19 <ArtB> JS: OK
13:19:31 <ArtB> AB: let's consider that agreed "view-mode"
13:19:50 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow submit TransReq for VMMF LC and ask groups to review it; use "view-mode" as new shortname
13:19:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-525 - Submit TransReq for VMMF LC and ask groups to review it; use "view-mode" as new shortname [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-04-22].
13:20:02 <ArtB> Topic: View Modes Interfaces spec
13:20:10 <ArtB> AB: earlier this week Anne van Kestern (the Editor of the CSSOM spec) asked us for "use case example" for the CSSOM spec (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0105.html ). Consider this a request for *everyone* to submit use case examples.
13:20:58 <ArtB> AB: this is a reasonable request and we should submit use cases as soon as we can
13:21:07 <ArtB> AB: one process related issue here is the mail list to use: www-style, public-webapps or cross-post. I generally don't like cross-posting but think that's appropriate ATM since currently there isn't yet agreement on the work split with the CSS WG.
13:22:39 <ArtB> AB: going forward www-style will be used for CSSOM discussions since the precedence is already set
13:22:51 <ArtB> AB: Marcos made a proposal re CSSOM's stlyeMedia.matchMedium usage ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0071.html ). There has been some follow-up.
13:23:32 <ArtB> AB: anything today on this?
13:23:41 <ArtB> RB: think we should continue to hash this out on the list
13:23:51 <ArtB> AB: I agree with that
13:24:48 <darobin> +1
13:25:14 <ArtB> AB: we do loose some control if our use cases are addressed by a CSS WG spec
13:25:27 <ArtB> ... but they have the right expertise so I think this is good
13:25:31 <ArtB> ... any concerns?
13:25:43 <ArtB> [ No concerns raised ]
13:26:10 <ArtB> AB: this gives us all the continued action to work with AvK and the CSS WG
13:26:28 <ArtB> AB: anything else on VM Interfaces for today?
13:26:49 <ArtB> AB: I don't know if we will have anything left in the VM-I spec 
13:26:51 <ArtB> RB: that's good
13:26:55 <ArtB> AB: agree
13:27:04 <ArtB> Topic: AoB
13:27:10 <ArtB> AB: anything else for today?
13:27:30 <ArtB> AB: thanks Robin for following up on the URI scheme disussions
13:27:42 <ArtB> RB: sure; hopefully we can close that soon
13:28:02 <ArtB> AB: next call is April 22; there will not be a call on April 29
13:28:22 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
13:28:32 <Zakim> -arve
13:28:33 <Zakim> -fjh
13:28:34 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
13:28:35 <Zakim> -Steven
13:28:36 <Zakim> -darobin
13:28:42 <ArtB> rrsagent, make minutes
13:28:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-wam-minutes.html ArtB
13:29:47 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
13:32:00 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
13:32:01 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
13:32:03 <Zakim> Attendees were Josh_Soref, Art_Barstow, Steven, fjh, darobin, arve
13:32:21 <Steven> Steven has left #wam
13:35:19 <ArtB> zakim, bye
13:35:20 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wam
13:35:24 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
13:35:24 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-wam-actions.rdf :
13:35:24 <RRSAgent> ACTION: berjon notify Art when the VMMF LC is ready for a publication request [1]
13:35:24 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-wam-irc#T13-15-54
13:35:24 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow submit TransReq for VMMF LC and ask groups to review it; use "view-mode" as new shortname [2]
13:35:24 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-wam-irc#T13-19-50