- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:52:27 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Below is the draft agenda for the April 2 Widgets Voice Conference (VC). Inputs and discussion before the meeting on all of the agenda topics via public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting). Logistics: *** NOTE TIME CHANGE FOR non-US PARTICIPANTS *** Time: 22:00 Tokyo; 16:00 Helsinki; 15:00 Paris; 14:00 London; 09:00 Boston; 06:00 Seattle Duration = 90 minutes Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 9231 ("WAF1") IRC channel = #wam; irc.w3.org:6665 Confidentiality of minutes = Public Agenda: 1. Review and tweak agenda 2. Announcements 3. Widget publication plan for 2Q-09: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/ 0005.html> 4. DigSig spec <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/> a. Getting review of 31-Mar-2009 WD: who besides XML Sec WG and BONDI; announce on public-webapps? b. Issues inventory and actions: <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8> 5. P&C spec <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/> a. Simple approach for <access>; see Robin's proposal <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/ 0943.html> b. <access> and URI equivalence; see thread started by Thomas: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/ 0935.html> c. Move <update> element to the Updates spec? The P&C spec defines the <update> element but defers the processing model to the Updates spec. Discuss the pros and cons of moving the definition of the <update> element to the Updates spec and thus P&C would contain no reference(s) to the Updates spec. 6. A&E spec <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/> a. Plan to get inputs on the Red Block issues 7. URI scheme: what dependency(s) do other specs have on this scheme; plans 8. AOB
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 12:53:35 UTC