- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:48:06 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the May 21 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 28 May 2009 (the next
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered
Approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conference
21 May 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0557.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
AndyB, Art, Marcos, Mark, David
Regrets
Thomas, Frederick, Arve, Jere, Robin
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]P&C: Status of completing L10N model
4. [8]P&C spec: proposal to move the <feature> element to a
separate spec.
5. [9]P&C: Status of completing L10N model
6. [10]P&C spec: proposal to publish LC#2 on May 26
7. [11]A&E spec: Status of Red Block Issues
8. [12]Access Request spec
9. [13]AOB
* [14]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 21 May 2009
Review and tweak agenda
AB: the agenda was submitted on 19 May
([15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
557.html). One addition proposed by Robin
([16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
566.html), is to add the Widgets Access Request to the agenda and we
will do that. Any other change requests?
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0557.html).
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0566.html)
[ None ]
Announcements
AB: I don't have any announcements. Any one?
[ None ]
P&C: Status of completing L10N model
P&C spec: proposal to move the <feature> element to a separate spec.
AB: on May 19 we agreed to move the <access> element from to a
separate spec ([17]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/19-wam-minutes.html).
This raises the question if the <feature> element
([18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-feature-element) should
also be moved to a separate spec. Marcos submitted a related email
on May 19
([19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
553.html).
... let's first start with comments on Marcos' feature proposal
([20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
553.html). Then let's discuss moving <feature> out of P&C.
... any comments about Marcos' proposal?
[17] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/19-wam-minutes.html).
[18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-feature-element)
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0553.html).
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0553.html).
MC: the proposal is to not treat them as generic URI but rather
opaque strings
... this has a cascade effect
... affects mildly the A+E spec
... but impl is simplified
AB: I think that is a fine proposal
MP: I think this is a good change
AB: anyone else?
[ No ]
AB: question about moving <feature> out of P+C
MC: I received feedback that is a bad idea
... the associated text is in
... I recommend we leave it
AB: any other comments?
DR: we agree with Marcos
... BONDI is using <feature>
... if it is taken out that could cause problems
... surprised it wasn't fixed earlier
<mpriestl> +1 from Vodafone on keeping <feature> in P&C
MC: nothing was broken with feature
... the proposal was to move it out because it was related to access
element
AB: I am fine with leaving it in
... Robin voiced support for leaving it in
... propose a resolution: the <feature> element will be left in the
P+C spec
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: <feature> element will remain in the P+C spec
P&C: Status of completing L10N model
AB: Marcos, what is the status of the L10N model
([21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/)?
[21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/)?
MC: the folder-based model is done
... the element-based model is almost done
... just needs a few tweaks re edge cases
... effectively it is 99% done
AB: is there any need for us to block LC publication while you
complete the remaining 1 %?
MC: no
AB: other comments on l10n model?
[ None ]
P&C spec: proposal to publish LC#2 on May 26
AB: the Team only publishes docs on tue and thurs thus next date is
May 26
... I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns
regarding getting review by WebApps' widgets people. We need much
broader review and will only get that by formally publishing a new
LC.
... my proposal is we agree to publish LC#2 on May 26
... comments?
... any objections?
MC: I prefer May 28
<abraun> seems reasonable
MP: how does this fit with WebApps schedule?
AB: what "schedule"?
... I told BONDI I wanted a LC published in April and Candidate in
June
... we missed the LC but Candidate in June is still theoretically
possible
MP: we support getting LC out soon
... we think Marcos has done an exceptional job
... we also want Candidate to be published as soon as possible
DR: we have a deadline for our pubs
... our intention is to publish very shortly
... would like to ref the current LC of P+C
... we will have to ref the December version
... but we want to refernce LC #2
... thus want LC#2 published as soon as possible
... but don't want shortcuts taken
... we hope we can issue a minor rev to our spec to ref LC#2
AB: that would seem to favor a May 26 pub if at all possible
MP: agree but if things need to fixed then they should be
MC: the doc would be published without any additional review
... by the group
AB: understood but we also know we will have at least a 3-week
review of the LC doc
MC: really do prefer May 28
AB: propose a resolution: we agree to publish P+C LC #2 on May 28
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: we agree to publish LCWD #2 of the P+C spec on May 28
AB: thanks very much Marcos for the good work!
DR: agree; thanks very much Marcos; and the other WG members too
A&E spec: Status of Red Block Issues
AB: the A&E spec still has some Red Block issues
([22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/). During the 14 May
call we discussed these issues
([23]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-wam-minutes.html#item07). What is
the status?
... any movement at all on the A+E spec in the last week
[22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/).
[23] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-wam-minutes.html#item07).
MC: no, don't think so
AB: action for everyone to look at A+E spec and submit inputs
... that's the next priority for LC
... anything else on A+E?
[ No ]
Access Request spec
AB: Robin has done some good work on moving the WAR spec
([24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/) forward. A question
is whether or not it is ready for a FPWD
([25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
566.html)? Comments on that?
[24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/)
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0566.html)?
MC: Robin has addressed some questions I had in the ED
... I think it needs some editorial tweaks
<mpriestl> +1 from Vodafone to go FPWD as soon as possible
DR: we haven't had enough time to review it
AB: missing key use case(s) information. Requirements are a bit too
thin. I would prefer a 1-week input period for UCs and Reqs so we
can make a decision to publish a FPWD during our May 28 call.
... I can also schedule some additional calls for this
Andy: I think that would be useful and support additional review
time
MP: I think we can live with a week for review
... but encourage people to submit comments within a week
AB: yes, I don't think we need a wide open input period
... if there are no inputs on UCs and Reqs within 1 week then we
make a decision on May 28 without those inputs
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow make an explicit call for inputs for the
WAR doc's UCs and Requirements [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - Make an explicit call for inputs for
the WAR doc's UCs and Requirements [on Arthur Barstow - due
2009-05-28].
AB: anything else about the WAR doc?
[ No ]
AOB
AB: I don't have anything
... anyone?
... I'll start fine-tuning the agenda for our June 9-11 agenda
... Meeting Ajourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow make an explicit call for inputs for the WAR
doc's UCs and Requirements [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 13:49:02 UTC