[widgets] Minutes of 19 June 2008 Voice Conference

The minutes from the June 19 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 June 26; otherwise the  
minutes will be considered approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

19 Jun 2008


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/ 

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-webapps-irc


           Arve, ArtB, Marcos, Mike, Lachy(IRC)




      * [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

    <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:
    ... I am strong supporter of openness among the WGs

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

    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

    <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
    ... Marcos, any followup?

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

    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
    ... 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,

    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/ 

    <Lachy> what's the use case you're trying to address with the icon

    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/ 

    <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:
    ... in particular input re HTTP caching

      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/ 

    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
    ... 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
    ... 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

    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

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 14:05:27 UTC