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:

      <http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-minutes.html>

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
Approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

21 May 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009AprJun/0557.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

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

Attendees

    Present
           AndyB, Art, Marcos, Mark, David

    Regrets
           Thomas, Frederick, Arve, Jere, Robin

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [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
    ([15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
    557.html). One addition proposed by Robin
    ([16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
    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/ 
2009AprJun/0557.html).
      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009AprJun/0566.html)

    [ None ]

Announcements

    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
    ([19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
    553.html).
    ... let's first start with comments on Marcos' feature proposal
    ([20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
    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/ 
2009AprJun/0553.html).
      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009AprJun/0553.html).

    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
    element

    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/)?

      [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
    LC.
    ... 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
    June
    ... we missed the LC but Candidate in June is still theoretically
    possible

    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
    ([25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
    566.html)? Comments on that?

      [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/)
      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009AprJun/0566.html)?

    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
    time

    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
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - Make an explicit call for inputs for
    the WAR doc's UCs and Requirements [on Arthur Barstow - due
    2009-05-28].

    AB: anything else about the WAR doc?

    [ No ]

AOB

    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
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT