W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

[widgets] Minutes from 12 June 2008 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:30:59 -0400
Message-Id: <02D538E7-123F-4B9A-B904-8ED3825A249F@nokia.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:25 GMT