- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:30:59 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the June 12 Widgets voice conference are available
at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before June 19; otherwise the
minutes will be considered approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conference
12 Jun 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/
2008AprJun/0003.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Arve, Claudio, Marcos, Mike
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
ArtB
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda Review
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Requirements Last Call
4. [8]User Agent Conformance
5. [9]Turin F2F
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<Hixie> any chance we can merge
[11]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/webapi/ into
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/ ?
[11] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/webapi/
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/
<shepazu> yes, I think that's possible
<shepazu> question is, what to also do with the WAF tracker?
<shepazu> do we want to move them over with exactly the same
issue/action numbers, or is the content alone enough?
<Hixie> no idea
hmmm; Marcos, where art thou?
<arve> having trouble calling in
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 12 June 2008
Agenda Review
AB: any change requests?
[None]
Announcements
AB: transition to WebApps WG is complete
MC: I'm glad this finally happened!
AB: any concerns or issues?
MC: I'm a bit concerned about the volume of email
... perhaps we should split up the specs into different mail lists
ABe: if you were subscribed to both waf and webapi the change should
be zero
MC: agree but I wasn't subscribed to webapi
AB: agree with Marcos concern
... but would prefer to wait and see
MS: I also have the same concern
... agree we should take a wait and see for now
... an extreme is a list per spec
... but that creates a different set of probs
CV: I also agree with the mail list issue
... we are especially interested in Widgets and we do not want to
see that disrupted
MS: I can take an action to monitor the lists for one month and then
make a recommendation
<scribe> ACTION: Smith monitor the webapps mail list for one month
and then make a recommendation about the number of lists to use
[recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Monitor the webapps mail list for one
month and then make a recommendation about the number of lists to
use [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2008-06-19].
<MikeSmith> ACTION-3 due July 12
<trackbot> ACTION-3 Monitor the webapps mail list for one month and
then make a recommendation about the number of lists to use due date
now July 12
AB: make sure everyone joins the new WG
... what is your status?
MC: I am working with Mike to become an Invited Expert
AB: I'd be happy to provide input to support this; just let me know
MS: I don't anticipate any probs
Requirements Last Call
AB: Marcos would like to discuss the Requirements Last Call
MC: the document has mostly settled down
... few changes recently
... we've had plenty of internal review
... want to get more Public review
AB: any comments?
ABe: I think that would be the right move
CV: I agree the doc is ready for LC
MS: I support requesting LC
AB: I have a few editorial requests but I support moving to LC
... first, I want to say I think this document has been an excellent
way for us to communicate the scope and what we are trying to do.
... the Status of the Doc needs to reflect the change to WebApps WG
MC: yes, I'll make those changes
<marcos_> ACTION: Marcos to update the Requirements document to
reflect WebApps WG [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Marcos
<marcos_> ACTION: Caceres to update the Requirements document to
reflect WebApps WG [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Caceres
AB: there is a related change that needs to be made in Section 2
<marcos_> Ah, not a member yet
<marcos_> :P
AB: one question about paragraph #2 in Section 2
... can you clarify what is being said
... <[16]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#conformance>
[16] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#conformance%3E
MC: this is about an input from some company
... for example an input on security model should be based on one or
more of the requirements
AB: I would prefer to delete the second sentence
... any other opinions?
... based on Marcos' description, I can live with this
MC: OK
CV: I think this sentence says Widgets can be re-specified but if
they are, they should reflect these requirements
AB: the doc used to say something like "not all of these reqs will
necessarily be specified by the W3C". Is this disclaimer still in
there?
MC: yes, by the use of Keywords
... I will add a comment
CV: regarding the Abstract, we are a bit weak regarding device
capabilities
... req #29 is the only related requirement
MC: good point
AB: what do you think we should do?
... or was this more of an observation?
CV: we could add a pointer to the UWA WG's work
MC: but we don't want create any device API specs
AB: does the Rational of req 29 address your concern?
CV: yes, now that I read the Rational I think that addresses the
issue
MC: and I can remove some of the device-specific use cases/examples
from the Abstract
... I prefer to leave the text as is
ABe: the reality is widgets will have to deal with vendor-specific
and device-specifc APIs
... but I don't think doing such is in our scope
... it could be some abstract bindings would be helpful
MC: need a generic means to tie into device and vendor specific APIs
ABe: we could then refer to them as "3rd-party" APIs
AB: are you going to do a major rework of #29?
MC: yes
AB: I would like to give the WG a 1-week review period
... if we want to target June 19 as the Decision Day, we would need
a revised version within the next day or so
... Marcos, is that doable?
MC: yes
AB: working assumption: Marcos will make his changes and then notify
the WG that we want to make a decsion on June 19 regarding LC so WG
members should submit any comments by June 18 at the latest
... any objections?
[None]
User Agent Conformance
AB: comments from FT's Fabrice
MC: I've answered that
Turin F2F
CV: I will miss the next couple of calls
... all of the arrangements are made
... in mid to late July I will send out some hotel info
AB: the hotel info would be good to get earlier
ABe: yes, I also would like to get the hotel info earlier
CV: Turin usually is not that busy in August
... I will try to send something by the end of today
AB: you have some comments on the format?
MC: want to be in a position to close issues
... so we can be in a position to get to LC in October
ABe: could be helpful to spit into groups for the editorial type
stuff
MC: in small groups we could also do some implementations
... I've found that useful
AB: agree, but not sure that some of the people that attend the
meeting have the right skill set for implementations
ABe: we could set up an implemenation area on the W3C's CVS
repository
CV: we are trying to implement something
... perhaps we can get those people involved
MC: we could have some people doing Editorial work and some doing
Impl work
... I can do some research on how to most effectively make use of
people's time
... I thought Hixie's un-conf approach for HTML went well
... (at the TPAC in November 2007)
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow work with Marcos et al. on the Turin agenda
that maximizes the use of people's time [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Work with Marcos et al. on the Turin
agenda that maximizes the use of people's time [on Arthur Barstow -
due 2008-06-19].
AB: Meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow work with Marcos et al. on the Turin agenda
that maximizes the use of people's time [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Caceres to update the Requirements document to reflect
WebApps WG [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos to update the Requirements document to reflect
WebApps WG [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Smith monitor the webapps mail list for one month and
then make a recommendation about the number of lists to use
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-webapps-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 12:31:52 UTC