- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:04:09 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the June 19 Widgets voice conference are available
at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before June 26; otherwise the
minutes will be considered approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conference
19 Jun 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/
2008AprJun/0005.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-irc
Attendees
Present
Arve, ArtB, Marcos, Mike, Lachy(IRC)
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda Review
2. [6]Join the new WebApps WG
3. [7]IRC logging
4. [8]Widgets Requirements Last Call
5. [9]Icon Text
6. [10]Widget Updates
7. [11]Vacation Plans for July and August
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Date: 19 June 2008
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Agenda Review
AB: I'd like to add IRC logging
... any other requests?
... I'd also like to briefly touch on vaca plans for those of us in
the Northern hemisphere
Join the new WebApps WG
AB: remind people to join the new WG
... Marcos, your IE application is in progress, right?
MC: yes; it will take some more time
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet
joined WebApps WG [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Chase all WAF WG members that have not
yet joined WebApps WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-06-26].
IRC logging
AB: Anne sent a proposal:
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/02
22.html
... I am strong supporter of openness among the WGs
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008AprJun/0222.html
MC: I think it is a great idea
ABe: agree with Marcos but think it would be good to poll the group
to see if there is consensus
... think Doug raises a valid point re Member-confidentiall comments
AB: I think the Member-confidentiality issue is something we can't
take lightly
... if a non-Member joins the group and someone enters something
confidential, its too late, the info is disclosed to the Public
ABe: if one needs to discuss a member confidential topic, it should
be done in a different confidential channel
AB: I agree
<shepazu> it's worth noting that forcing "openness" often drives
useful conversation further into the shadows
AB: if we used a Member channel for all meetings we'd be OK and then
make the minutes Public later
ABe: if we need to discuss confidential topics, I would prefer them
to be in separate meetings
... and keep as little as possible private
<shepazu> and the option for hiding comments isn't something I
encourage, but it's good to provide the option
AB: so then in practical terms for a meeting like this one, the
agenda would only contain topics that could be discussed in Public
... and if there were any Member-confidentiall topics, they would
not be on this meeting's agenda but handled separately on the
member-list
<Lachy> I'm here, but IRC only.
<Lachy> FWIW, I'm glad we now have IRC logs.
AB: any other IRC logging comments?
<Lachy> But I'm not so thrilled about people being able to hide
certain comments
Widgets Requirements Last Call
AB: last week I told the group that on June 19 we wanted to make a
decsion regarding advancing the Reqs doc to LC
...
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/00
76.html
... Marcos, any followup?
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008AprJun/0076.html
MC: I updated a couple of requirements based on feedback from the
f2f meeting in May
<MikeSmith> timeless is a dude
MC: I got some comments from "timeless"
<marcos> go timeless!
<MikeSmith> he's a Mozilla developer
MC: I responded to timeless and fixed the editorial issues he raised
MS: we have a blocking issue
... we are waiting on some information from the I18N WG
MC: does this affect the publication of the reqs doc?
MS: just to clarify, this is NOT a blocking issue for the Reqs doc
but it is for the Packaging spec
MC: what happens during LC?
MS: must track every comment
... must respond to every comment
... must record how each comment is "handled"
... we can give every comment an ID if we want
... if necessary, we can split up the comments among the WG members
... In the best case, we only get Editorial comments but that's not
likely
... If any substanative changes are made, we need to go back to YA
LC or perhaps back to normal WD
MC: how long is the review period?
MS: the minimum is three weeks
... typically it is longer
... I suggest 4 weeks
MC: I suggest August 1
MS: the main thing is to make sure we get wide review from all of
the right communities
MC: I want to get thorough review
AB: when I submit the LC request to the Chairs list, I need to
identify any WGs we want to review
... which W3C WGs?
MC: UWA,
AB: XML Security
... what about WSC?
MC: yes
AB: what about HTML?
MC: I think TAG may be appropriate
MS: TAG isn't generally approrpriate
... this probably wouldn't be a high priority for them
AB: agree with Mike
MC: what about the MWI?
MS: yes, that's probably a good idea
... there is fairly good overlap in membership
... so MWBP is OK
AB: summarize: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP
<marcos> MC: I would also like review from Accessibility,
Internationalization
AB: what about I18N WG?
MS: yes
AB: which A11Y WG would be appropriate?
... the P&F WG?
MS: yes, they are the most approriate WG
AB: so new list is: UWA, XML Security, WSC, MWBP, I18N, P&F
... any other comments?
... I propose we publish the Reqs LC as is
... any objections?
MC: support as is
MS: support as is
ABe: support as is
<marcos> lachy?
<Lachy> support as is
<marcos> :D
RESOLUTION: we will request a LC publication of the Requirements
document as it is today
Icon Text
AB: Marcos proposal:
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/02
16
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008AprJun/0216
<Lachy> what's the use case you're trying to address with the icon
text?
ABe: this is mostly about A11Y, right?
MC: not necessarily
<Lachy> But a widget icon is analogous to an application icon on the
desktop, isn't it?
MC: want to be able to use the widgets in non-graphical contexts
<Lachy> isn't the widget name sufficient?
ABe: agree it's also about displaying alterntive content when the
widget cannot be displayed
... could also be used to dispaly additional info about a widget
<Lachy> It would be similar to <link rel=icon ...> for web pages, is
it not? We don't have alt text for that.
ABe: For example, sometimes it may not be possible to display a
Widget's icon
<Lachy> Or am I just totally misunderstanding something?
ABe: I don't think #3 is worth doing
... re #2, I don't think label will make sense all of the time
... we use Window.status in Opera
AB: only diff between #1 and #2 is the name of the attribute
... Benoit likes #1
<Lachy> #1, using alt="", is an acceptable solution. I'm just not
convinced of its utility
ABe: I prefer #1 as well
MC: me too
AB: I want to re-use existing and best practices
... would that favor #1 or #2
MC: it would favor #1
AB: so is #1 the consenus?
ABe: yes
MC: yes
RESOULTION: proposal #1 for Icon Text will be used
([17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0
216)
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008AprJun/0216)
<marcos> Lachy, maybe you should have alt for rel=icon :)
Widget Updates
<Lachy> I don't think so. The page <title> is enough
AB: I still have not completed my related actions; sorry about it
... any status to report?
MC: I would like to publish something by the first week of July
AB: you want a FPWD by July 1
MC: yes, that's right
AB: what will you need from us?
MC: need people to respond to the issues I raised at:
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jun/00
28
... in particular input re HTTP caching
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/
2008Jun/0028
ABe: I'm not sure that's the right model we want to use
... could use something like WAP Push
... or XMPP
... or feeds
AB: another potentially relevant technology is the Device Management
stuff being done at OMA (replaces SynchML)
MC: agree we need to look at the other technologies and balance our
needs
... our requirements for auto updates are pretty general
... We may need to tighten the requirements
ABe: are there any requirements regarding Widget revocation?
MC: not currently
ABe: we (=Opera) has this as a requirement
... perhaps we need a related requirement
AB: perhaps we should stop this discussion now and plan to make this
the main topic next week. WDYT?
MC: OK with me
Vacation Plans for July and August
ABe: I will be out week #26
AB: I will be out week #27
... There will not be a meeting on July 3
MC: If Arve can't be here next week then we could focus on
Signatures
... In particular I'd like to know if multiple signatures can be
handeled on mobile phones
<arve> I am off until July 14th
MC: that is one of the last big issues for the DigSig spec
... I think we need to revisit Vodafone's input from the May f2f
meeting
ABe: I will be out June 23 until July 14; back on July 15
MS: I will be out (or mostly out) July 28-August 7
<MikeSmith> MikeSmith: I'll be in Denver with family from July 28 to
Aug 07, but working from there
<marcos> MC: gone from the 12-28 July (at Oxford, but should still
be able to join)
AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow chase all WAF WG members that have not yet
joined WebApps WG [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 14:05:27 UTC