- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:09:10 -0400
- To: public-appformats@w3.org
All - The minutes from the WAF WG's March 13 VoiceConf on Widgets are available at the following and copied below: <http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html> WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-appformats mail list before March 20; otherwise the minutes will be considered approved. Regards, Art Barstow --- [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - WAF WG Widget's Voice Conf 13 Mar 2008 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/ 2008Mar/0006.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-irc Attendees Present Art, Marcos, Claudio, BenW Regrets Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Agenda Review 2. [6]Announcements 3. [7]Icon Element 4. [8]Section 6 5. [9]Section 6.1 6. [10]Section 6.2 7. [11]Section 6.3 8. [12]Section 6.4 9. [13]Section 6.5 10. [14]Section 6.6 (author element) 11. [15]Section 6.7 (license element) 12. [16]Section 6.8 (icon element) 13. [17]AOB * [18]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ Date: 13 March 2008 <scribe> Scribe: Art <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB Agenda Review AB: where do we start on the P&C spec? MC: we should talk about Icon element (6.8) ... talk about all of sect 6 AB: skip section 5? MC: yes, we've already discussed that Announcements AB: #1 Charter update ... Mike Smith is not here again :-( ... #2 f2f headcount ... Dublin May 5-6 is now confirmend MC: yes, confirmed BenW: yes, confirmed CV: I cannot make the meeting because of other commitments; will try to get someone else from TI that can represent us AB: #3 No VC next week March 20; I'm traveling and won't be available ... next VC will be March 27 MC: Richard Rogers and Paul Watson will attend the f2f Icon Element AB: Benoit started a thread regarding the icon element and a role attribute MC: the spec today just has one icon element ... some people want multiple icons ... can go so far as to making it dynamic HTML ... I prefer simplicity i.e. just one AB: what does Opera widget support? MC: I believe just one AB: what about Dashboard? MC: I think just one icon as well BenW: Yahoo has a separate XML doc to describe the icon ... I'm torn between keeping it simple and adding some richness MC: not sure we can define a dynamic icon for this spec but something to consider for Level 2 BenW: yes, tend to agree MC: the number of icon elements is a separate issue from dynamic icons as is the issue of adding a role attribute ... things such as big and small don't say anything about usage AB: currently we don't define the role attribute, right? MC: yes ... only Y! defines something like role for the icon CV: there is a tradeoff between Level1 and flexibility; nothing to say in particular; just one icon is OK for now and then consider dynamic icons for next level AB: I tend to agree with the concerns about complexity for Level 1 ... It would be good to know if Benoit thinks this is critical for level 1 MC: Microsoft allows icons for different sizes and the engine then decides which to use e.g. based on screen resolution AB: I think then we should continue discussions to see if we can get some convergence for our 1st version Section 6 MC: without Arve here, I think we should skip this section Section 6.1 MC: any questions or issues? [none] Section 6.2 MC: any issues or questions for 6.2? AB: are these definitions copied from HTML5? MC: yes AB: could we reference it then? MC: don't want to build a dependency on that spec AB: yes, agree ... any other comments on 6.2? BenW: none from me MC: I'll move the minimum config stuff to section 6.0 Section 6.3 AB: regarding the id attribute, we have a related Issue: [19]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/14 ... perhaps we can close this [19] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/14 MC: I think Arve is OK with this AB: I will follow-up with Arve to see if we can close issue #14 MC: some widget systems use UUID ... Joost uses URIs AB: what does Dashboard use? MC: they use an arbitrary string; pref to use reverse domain (com.apple.*.*) AB: I'm OK with a URI BenW: makes sense to me CV: I would like to understand what Dashboard does MC: they use a reverse domain name BenW: yes that's true and it is also what the S60 Widgets use CV: URI is OK with us AB: think we should leave as is unless someone provides new Use Case to have us revisit the decison ... any other questions / issues on 6.3? [none] Section 6.4 AB: any questions? [none] Section 6.5 AB: any questions or issues? [none] Section 6.6 (author element) MC: Benoit just submitted some comments: <[20]http://www.w3.org/mid/C3FC202B.BCC6%25benoit.suzanne@orange-ftg roup.com> [20] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3FC202B.BCC6% 25benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com%3E AB: the metadata to be included in the author element could indeed be quite large ... now we just have two attributes e-mail and url <marcos> MC: we could maybe merge url and email ( url= "mailto:s@somewhere.com") MC: I'm OK with the current spec ... could even merge those two attributes AB: I think the URL provides a reasonable compromise between simplicity and richness in that it provides more details if needed ... thus I tend to favor the current model BenW: I think the current model is fine as is CV: agree the current model is fine as is Section 6.7 (license element) AB: any questions or issues? MC: some raised an issue in my blog about this ... they wanted an attribute for the license type e.g. GPLv2, GPLv3 ... I think it's better to include the full license ... It did have an href attribute once but I removed it for simplicity ... Don't really want the terms at the URI to change. AB: I think the current model is good enough Section 6.8 (icon element) MC: if anyone has any comments on the current model, send them to the list by the end of next week i.e. March 21 <marcos> MC: issue is to only allow 1 icon or more. AOB AB: Marcos, what are your thoughts on schedule? <marcos> [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ MC: I'm hoping Thomas will review it AB: I can certainly ask the XML Security Maintentace WG to do a review MC: would appreciate a pre-publication review AB: I'm OK with that ... but have some concerns about people reviewing stuff that isn't yet ready for /TR/ publication ... I can ask the XMLSec Chair to do the review but we need a deadline for comments BenW: I've passed it on to our security guys AB: try to get comments by March 27 ... thus at that meeting we should be ready to decide on FPWD MC: sounds good <scribe> ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a Signature review by March 27 [recorded in [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-174 - Ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a Signature review by March 27 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-03-20]. MC: still want to be ready for publishing by the first week of April ... don't think we'll be ready to publish the API doc by then AB: because of the events stuff being undefined? MC: no, Arve can't work on it until mid-April AB: and the Requirements and Landscape doc will be ready to publish then? MC: yes, that's my plan AB: Awesome Marcos! ... Meeting adjourned Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a Signature review by March 27 [recorded in [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html#action01] [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 13:11:35 UTC