W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > March 2008

[widgets] Minutes from 13 March 2008 Widgets Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:09:10 -0400
Message-Id: <A3E3A96C-6821-4AB3-B431-70D4000E3BDE@nokia.com>
To: public-appformats@w3.org

All - The minutes from the WAF WG's March 13 VoiceConf on Widgets are  
available at the following and copied below:

    <http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html>

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please  
send  them to the public-appformats mail list before March 20;  
otherwise the minutes will be considered approved.

Regards, Art Barstow
---

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                       WAF WG Widget's Voice Conf

13 Mar 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/ 
2008Mar/0006.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Marcos, Claudio, BenW

    Regrets
    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda Review
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Icon Element
          4. [8]Section 6
          5. [9]Section 6.1
          6. [10]Section 6.2
          7. [11]Section 6.3
          8. [12]Section 6.4
          9. [13]Section 6.5
         10. [14]Section 6.6 (author element)
         11. [15]Section 6.7 (license element)
         12. [16]Section 6.8 (icon element)
         13. [17]AOB
      * [18]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________


    Date: 13 March 2008

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

Agenda Review

    AB: where do we start on the P&C spec?

    MC: we should talk about Icon element (6.8)
    ... talk about all of sect 6

    AB: skip section 5?

    MC: yes, we've already discussed that

Announcements

    AB: #1 Charter update
    ... Mike Smith is not here again :-(
    ... #2 f2f headcount
    ... Dublin May 5-6 is now confirmend

    MC: yes, confirmed

    BenW: yes, confirmed

    CV: I cannot make the meeting because of other commitments; will try
    to get someone else from TI that can represent us

    AB: #3 No VC next week March 20; I'm traveling and won't be
    available
    ... next VC will be March 27

    MC: Richard Rogers and Paul Watson will attend the f2f

Icon Element

    AB: Benoit started a thread regarding the icon element and a role
    attribute

    MC: the spec today just has one icon element
    ... some people want multiple icons
    ... can go so far as to making it dynamic HTML
    ... I prefer simplicity i.e. just one

    AB: what does Opera widget support?

    MC: I believe just one

    AB: what about Dashboard?

    MC: I think just one icon as well

    BenW: Yahoo has a separate XML doc to describe the icon
    ... I'm torn between keeping it simple and adding some richness

    MC: not sure we can define a dynamic icon for this spec but
    something to consider for Level 2

    BenW: yes, tend to agree

    MC: the number of icon elements is a separate issue from dynamic
    icons as is the issue of adding a role attribute
    ... things such as big and small don't say anything about usage

    AB: currently we don't define the role attribute, right?

    MC: yes
    ... only Y! defines something like role for the icon

    CV: there is a tradeoff between Level1 and flexibility; nothing to
    say in particular; just one icon is OK for now and then consider
    dynamic icons for next level

    AB: I tend to agree with the concerns about complexity for Level 1
    ... It would be good to know if Benoit thinks this is critical for
    level 1

    MC: Microsoft allows icons for different sizes and the engine then
    decides which to use e.g. based on screen resolution

    AB: I think then we should continue discussions to see if we can get
    some convergence for our 1st version

Section 6

    MC: without Arve here, I think we should skip this section

Section 6.1

    MC: any questions or issues?

    [none]

Section 6.2

    MC: any issues or questions for 6.2?

    AB: are these definitions copied from HTML5?

    MC: yes

    AB: could we reference it then?

    MC: don't want to build a dependency on that spec

    AB: yes, agree
    ... any other comments on 6.2?

    BenW: none from me

    MC: I'll move the minimum config stuff to section 6.0

Section 6.3

    AB: regarding the id attribute, we have a related Issue:
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/14
    ... perhaps we can close this

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/14

    MC: I think Arve is OK with this

    AB: I will follow-up with Arve to see if we can close issue #14

    MC: some widget systems use UUID
    ... Joost uses URIs

    AB: what does Dashboard use?

    MC: they use an arbitrary string; pref to use reverse domain
    (com.apple.*.*)

    AB: I'm OK with a URI

    BenW: makes sense to me

    CV: I would like to understand what Dashboard does

    MC: they use a reverse domain name

    BenW: yes that's true and it is also what the S60 Widgets use

    CV: URI is OK with us

    AB: think we should leave as is unless someone provides new Use Case
    to have us revisit the decison
    ... any other questions / issues on 6.3?

    [none]

Section 6.4

    AB: any questions?

    [none]

Section 6.5

    AB: any questions or issues?

    [none]

Section 6.6 (author element)

    MC: Benoit just submitted some comments:
    <[20]http://www.w3.org/mid/C3FC202B.BCC6%25benoit.suzanne@orange-ftg
    roup.com>

      [20] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3FC202B.BCC6% 
25benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com%3E

    AB: the metadata to be included in the author element could indeed
    be quite large
    ... now we just have two attributes e-mail and url

    <marcos> MC: we could maybe merge url and email ( url=
    "mailto:s@somewhere.com")

    MC: I'm OK with the current spec
    ... could even merge those two attributes

    AB: I think the URL provides a reasonable compromise between
    simplicity and richness in that it provides more details if needed
    ... thus I tend to favor the current model

    BenW: I think the current model is fine as is

    CV: agree the current model is fine as is

Section 6.7 (license element)

    AB: any questions or issues?

    MC: some raised an issue in my blog about this
    ... they wanted an attribute for the license type e.g. GPLv2, GPLv3
    ... I think it's better to include the full license
    ... It did have an href attribute once but I removed it for
    simplicity
    ... Don't really want the terms at the URI to change.

    AB: I think the current model is good enough

Section 6.8 (icon element)

    MC: if anyone has any comments on the current model, send them to
    the list by the end of next week i.e. March 21

    <marcos> MC: issue is to only allow 1 icon or more.

AOB

    AB: Marcos, what are your thoughts on schedule?

    <marcos> [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/

      [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/

    MC: I'm hoping Thomas will review it

    AB: I can certainly ask the XML Security Maintentace WG to do a
    review

    MC: would appreciate a pre-publication review

    AB: I'm OK with that
    ... but have some concerns about people reviewing stuff that isn't
    yet ready for /TR/ publication
    ... I can ask the XMLSec Chair to do the review but we need a
    deadline for comments

    BenW: I've passed it on to our security guys

    AB: try to get comments by March 27
    ... thus at that meeting we should be ready to decide on FPWD

    MC: sounds good

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a
    Signature review by March 27 [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-174 - Ask Chair of XML Security Maint
    WG to do a Signature review by March 27 [on Arthur Barstow - due
    2008-03-20].

    MC: still want to be ready for publishing by the first week of April
    ... don't think we'll be ready to publish the API doc by then

    AB: because of the events stuff being undefined?

    MC: no, Arve can't work on it until mid-April

    AB: and the Requirements and Landscape doc will be ready to publish
    then?

    MC: yes, that's my plan

    AB: Awesome Marcos!
    ... Meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a
    Signature review by March 27 [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 13:11:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 March 2008 13:11:35 GMT