W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

[widgets] Draft Minutes from 21 May 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:48:06 -0400
Message-Id: <0D99F18C-709A-4936-9848-32A6D0137B6A@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the May 21 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 28 May 2009 (the next
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

21 May 2009


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-irc


           AndyB, Art, Marcos, Mark, David

           Thomas, Frederick, Arve, Jere, Robin




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]P&C: Status of completing L10N model
          4. [8]P&C spec: proposal to move the <feature> element to a
             separate spec.
          5. [9]P&C: Status of completing L10N model
          6. [10]P&C spec: proposal to publish LC#2 on May 26
          7. [11]A&E spec: Status of Red Block Issues
          8. [12]Access Request spec
          9. [13]AOB
      * [14]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 21 May 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: the agenda was submitted on 19 May
    557.html). One addition proposed by Robin
    566.html), is to add the Widgets Access Request to the agenda and we
    will do that. Any other change requests?

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    [ None ]


    AB: I don't have any announcements. Any one?

    [ None ]

P&C: Status of completing L10N model

P&C spec: proposal to move the <feature> element to a separate spec.

    AB: on May 19 we agreed to move the <access> element from to a
    separate spec ([17]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/19-wam-minutes.html).
    This raises the question if the <feature> element
    ([18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-feature-element) should
    also be moved to a separate spec. Marcos submitted a related email
    on May 19
    ... let's first start with comments on Marcos' feature proposal
    553.html). Then let's discuss moving <feature> out of P&C.
    ... any comments about Marcos' proposal?

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/19-wam-minutes.html).
      [18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-feature-element)
      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: the proposal is to not treat them as generic URI but rather
    opaque strings
    ... this has a cascade effect
    ... affects mildly the A+E spec
    ... but impl is simplified

    AB: I think that is a fine proposal

    MP: I think this is a good change

    AB: anyone else?

    [ No ]

    AB: question about moving <feature> out of P+C

    MC: I received feedback that is a bad idea
    ... the associated text is in
    ... I recommend we leave it

    AB: any other comments?

    DR: we agree with Marcos
    ... BONDI is using <feature>
    ... if it is taken out that could cause problems
    ... surprised it wasn't fixed earlier

    <mpriestl> +1 from Vodafone on keeping <feature> in P&C

    MC: nothing was broken with feature
    ... the proposal was to move it out because it was related to access

    AB: I am fine with leaving it in
    ... Robin voiced support for leaving it in
    ... propose a resolution: the <feature> element will be left in the
    P+C spec
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: <feature> element will remain in the P+C spec

P&C: Status of completing L10N model

    AB: Marcos, what is the status of the L10N model

      [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/)?

    MC: the folder-based model is done
    ... the element-based model is almost done
    ... just needs a few tweaks re edge cases
    ... effectively it is 99% done

    AB: is there any need for us to block LC publication while you
    complete the remaining 1 %?

    MC: no

    AB: other comments on l10n model?

    [ None ]

P&C spec: proposal to publish LC#2 on May 26

    AB: the Team only publishes docs on tue and thurs thus next date is
    May 26
    ... I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns
    regarding getting review by WebApps' widgets people. We need much
    broader review and will only get that by formally publishing a new
    ... my proposal is we agree to publish LC#2 on May 26
    ... comments?
    ... any objections?

    MC: I prefer May 28

    <abraun> seems reasonable

    MP: how does this fit with WebApps schedule?

    AB: what "schedule"?
    ... I told BONDI I wanted a LC published in April and Candidate in
    ... we missed the LC but Candidate in June is still theoretically

    MP: we support getting LC out soon
    ... we think Marcos has done an exceptional job
    ... we also want Candidate to be published as soon as possible

    DR: we have a deadline for our pubs
    ... our intention is to publish very shortly
    ... would like to ref the current LC of P+C
    ... we will have to ref the December version
    ... but we want to refernce LC #2
    ... thus want LC#2 published as soon as possible
    ... but don't want shortcuts taken
    ... we hope we can issue a minor rev to our spec to ref LC#2

    AB: that would seem to favor a May 26 pub if at all possible

    MP: agree but if things need to fixed then they should be

    MC: the doc would be published without any additional review
    ... by the group

    AB: understood but we also know we will have at least a 3-week
    review of the LC doc

    MC: really do prefer May 28

    AB: propose a resolution: we agree to publish P+C LC #2 on May 28
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: we agree to publish LCWD #2 of the P+C spec on May 28

    AB: thanks very much Marcos for the good work!

    DR: agree; thanks very much Marcos; and the other WG members too

A&E spec: Status of Red Block Issues

    AB: the A&E spec still has some Red Block issues
    ([22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/). During the 14 May
    call we discussed these issues
    ([23]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-wam-minutes.html#item07). What is
    the status?
    ... any movement at all on the A+E spec in the last week

      [22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/).
      [23] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-wam-minutes.html#item07).

    MC: no, don't think so

    AB: action for everyone to look at A+E spec and submit inputs
    ... that's the next priority for LC
    ... anything else on A+E?

    [ No ]

Access Request spec

    AB: Robin has done some good work on moving the WAR spec
    ([24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/) forward. A question
    is whether or not it is ready for a FPWD
    566.html)? Comments on that?

      [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/)
      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: Robin has addressed some questions I had in the ED
    ... I think it needs some editorial tweaks

    <mpriestl> +1 from Vodafone to go FPWD as soon as possible

    DR: we haven't had enough time to review it

    AB: missing key use case(s) information. Requirements are a bit too
    thin. I would prefer a 1-week input period for UCs and Reqs so we
    can make a decision to publish a FPWD during our May 28 call.
    ... I can also schedule some additional calls for this

    Andy: I think that would be useful and support additional review

    MP: I think we can live with a week for review
    ... but encourage people to submit comments within a week

    AB: yes, I don't think we need a wide open input period
    ... if there are no inputs on UCs and Reqs within 1 week then we
    make a decision on May 28 without those inputs

    <scribe> ACTION: Barstow make an explicit call for inputs for the
    WAR doc's UCs and Requirements [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - Make an explicit call for inputs for
    the WAR doc's UCs and Requirements [on Arthur Barstow - due

    AB: anything else about the WAR doc?

    [ No ]


    AB: I don't have anything
    ... anyone?
    ... I'll start fine-tuning the agenda for our June 9-11 agenda
    ... Meeting Ajourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Barstow make an explicit call for inputs for the WAR
    doc's UCs and Requirements [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
      [33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 13:49:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 13:55:26 UTC