[widgets] Minutes from 3 April 2008 Widgets Voice Conference

The minutes from the WAF WG's April 3 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

  <hhttp://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-waf-minutes.html>

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-appformats mail list before April 10; otherwise  
the minutes will be considered approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow


    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                            SV_MEETING_TITLE

03 Apr 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/ 
2008Apr/0000.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-waf-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Mike, Claudio, Benoit, Arve, Marcos

    Regrets
    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review Agenda
          2. [6]Charter update
          3. [7]VC schedule for April
          4. [8]Publication status and plans
          5. [9]Landscape document
          6. [10]P&C status
          7. [11]Signatures doc
          8. [12]API and Events
          9. [13]Issue #17 - Widgets: should Automatic Updates be
             included in v1.0?
         10. [14]I18N
         11. [15]AOB
      * [16]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <marcos> there he is, trusty Zakim

    <MikeSmith> trackbot-ng, status

    <MikeSmith> trackbot-ng, start meeting

    <MikeSmith> hell with it

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

Review Agenda

    <MikeSmith> Scribenick: ArtB

    AB: Mike made a request to talk about I18N
    ... any objections?

    [None]

    AB: add it between #4 and #5

Charter update

    AB: anything to report Mike?

    MS: I expect the Charter to be sent to the AC soon
    ... I will notify this WG when that has been done

VC schedule for April

    AB: next week I being a 5-wk period where I'll be traveling all or
    part of 4 weeks
    ... cancel VCs on April 17 and 24
    ... April 10 is "iffy" now

    <MikeSmith> [MikeSmith will also be in Beijing for AC meeting and
    WWW2008, April 19 to 26]

    AB: this would mean the next VC is May 1
    ... any concerns?

    MC: I'm OK as long as today we record an OK to publish our docs

    CV: this is in-line with the moratorium, right?

    AB: yes

Publication status and plans

    AB: status of reqs doc, Marcos?

    MC: it is ready but waiting for an input on the security model

    ABe: I now have approval to publish it and may be able to send it to
    the list today

    AB: Marcos, you may want to reflect some of Arve's input in the reqs
    doc?

    MC: yes

    AB: we need a 1-week review period after the spec is "ready for
    review"
    ... tentative plan for Reqs is to start review on April 4 and end on
    April 11
    ... if no objections or major problems raised, we will consider the
    doc ready for publishing

Landscape document

    AB: Marcos, what is its status?

    MC: need to make some changes re Yahoo! engine
    ... I can be done by tomorrow though

    AB: so we can start a 1-week review period on April 4?

    MC: yes

    AB: I propose that if no major issues are identified in the April 4
    ED of the Landscape doc, that we request FPWD
    ... any objections?

    [None]

    RESOLUTION: if no major issues are identified in the April 4 ED of
    the Landscape do, we will request FPWD

P&C status

    AB: Marcos, we do we stand?

    MC: I've done some more work on the Proc Model
    ... I am also in the process of implementing the ProcMod
    ... in Java using Xerces
    ... will be ready to review on April 4

    AB: I'd like to get a new version published
    ... any objections to starting a review on April 4 and if no major
    issues identified then we request formal pub on April 14?

    [None]

Signatures doc

    MC: I responded to Hal's comments
    ... I also asked the XML Security Maint WG for comments
    ... I've written a Java impl and it seems to work

    AB: I propose that if no major issues are identified in the April 4
    ED of the Signatures doc then after a 1-week review period we
    request publication.
    ... Any objections?

    [None]

    RESOLUTION: if no major issues are identified in the April 4 ED of
    the Signatures doc, after a 1-week review period we will request
    FPWD

API and Events

    AB: what is the status?

    MC: no change
    ... it will not be ready to publish

Issue #17 - Widgets: should Automatic Updates be included in v1.0?

    AB: [17]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/17
    ... status Marcos?

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/17

    MC: I created a separate document
    ... not many changes since Oslo meeting (Aug 2007)
    ... I think it is very useful and I am in favor of continuing the
    spec

    ABe: why is it included in the base spec?

    AB: a key question is dependencies

    <Benoit> I believe it was taken out to make sure the widget spec
    could go through just in case... but if finalized it should be put
    back in

    AB: e.g. would one need to implement Updates to implement P&C?

    MC: no, not yet

    BS: we can either state how the revision numbers work and the
    platform uses the data; otherwise we can define end-to-end

    <Benoit> btw I've spoken with Access to see if they are insteressted
    in joining the group, and they will see if they can, but it seems
    they are interested in this specific item.

    AB: I think it is useful but I don't want the P&C spec have a
    dependency on the Updates

    ABe: in the mobile space, updates is complicated because different
    OTA mechanisms are used

    MC: I can investigate the various deployed models in the next rev of
    the Landscape

    BS: would it make sense to say udpates is in the level two specs

    <marcos> <update url = "dddddd" >

    MC: update spec could include a new element that would need to be in
    the P&C spec
    ... the spec is written such that unknown elements are ignored
    ... would like to have a decent model by June

    ABe: if we can't get a good proposal by then, it should be
    considered level two

    AB: so we could close this and say that without a good solid model,
    updates will be level 2

    MC: ok

    ABe: ok

    BS: maybe the spec needs clarification on the version
    ... could provide a link to it

    MC: we discussed this a while ago with Ian Hickson; I'll track down
    that e-mail
    ... Ultimately, I think the simple comparison model is good enough

    BS: I'm more concerned about being able to process the updates at
    some point; need to know if the figures are Higher or Lower

    MC: the current model is just about "is the version Different"

    BS: in our widget system we have some additional requirements
    ... we have different scenarios

    ABe: I think your last scenario is about widget revocation
    ... and I don't think that should be part of Updates

    CV: we do need some mechanism for Updates
    ... and we don't have a strong preference for how it is done

    AB: I think we should leave this Issue open

    <Benoit> 3 scenarios:

    MC: we need to discuss this at the f2f

    <Benoit> 1- enw version but does not need to change the widget

    <Benoit> 2- new version that allows the user to upgrade

    <Benoit> 3- new version the requires the user to change and revoque
    the earlier versions

    RESOLUTION: Issue #17 will remain OPEN for now

I18N

    MS: Felix, Team contact for the I18N group raised an issue related
    to Widget localization
    ... see
    [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Apr/00
    02.html
    ... there isn't any info at all about how to localize a Widget
    ... they think something is needed, even if Optional

      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/ 
2008Apr/0002.html

    <Benoit> can they join the f2F?

    <marcos> Model for i18n.

    <marcos> If no config file is found in src (via content element)
    assume i18n mode.

    <marcos> use widget.locale (in RFC3086)

    MS: they are also willing to help; at least submit comments and
    provide guidance

    <marcos> search for folders that match window.locale at the mount
    point.

    <marcos> if match, match the start file in the i18n folder.

    BS: will this be a declarative model?

    MC: no, it's an automatic model

    BS: with Vista, can have multiple config dirs

    MC: correct

    MS: Felix won't be in Dublin but maybe some others will be there
    because of XTech; we can also use a VC bridge
    ... Yahoo's Addison is the Chair of the I18N WG
    ... I wonder if the model Marcos proposed is consistent with Y!'s
    model
    ... it would be good if Marcos could propose a model

    MC: there's some stuff in the Landscape doc

    AB: I'm tempted to create an Issue
    ... any objections?

    [None]

    ISSUE: what is the Localization model for Widgets

AOB

    AB: I'll notify everyone by April 7 if we will have a call on April
    10
    ... If it appears there will be an urgent need for a call April 10
    and I cannot make, Mike can you Chair?

    MS: tentatively yes

    AB: I encourage everyone to review the 4 docs that will start formal
    review on April 4
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 12:48:11 UTC