- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:52:27 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Below is the draft agenda for the April 2 Widgets Voice Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the meeting on all of the agenda topics  
via public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened  
meeting).
Logistics: *** NOTE TIME CHANGE FOR non-US PARTICIPANTS ***
    Time: 22:00 Tokyo; 16:00 Helsinki; 15:00 Paris; 14:00 London;  
09:00 Boston; 06:00 Seattle
    Duration = 90 minutes
    Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 9231 ("WAF1")
    IRC channel = #wam; irc.w3.org:6665
    Confidentiality of minutes = Public
Agenda:
1. Review and tweak agenda
2. Announcements
3. Widget publication plan for 2Q-09:
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/ 
0005.html>
4. DigSig spec
  <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/>
a. Getting review of 31-Mar-2009 WD: who besides XML Sec WG and  
BONDI; announce on public-webapps?
b. Issues inventory and actions:
  <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8>
5. P&C spec
  <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/>
a. Simple approach for <access>; see Robin's proposal
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/ 
0943.html>
b. <access> and URI equivalence; see thread started by Thomas:
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/ 
0935.html>
c. Move <update> element to the Updates spec? The P&C spec defines  
the <update> element but defers the processing model to the Updates  
spec. Discuss the pros and cons of moving the definition of the  
<update> element to the Updates spec and thus P&C would contain no  
reference(s) to the Updates spec.
6. A&E spec
  <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/>
a. Plan to get inputs on the Red Block issues
7. URI scheme: what dependency(s) do other specs have on this scheme;  
plans
8. AOB
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 12:53:35 UTC