RE: [widgets] Agenda for 19 February 2009 Voice Conference

Hi Art,

>c. Action #275 - What is our lifecycle, revocation model?; Mark
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/275

I think this action can be closed - I believe we have agreed that the
Widget 1.0: Digital Signatures spec will only cover the format,
generation and processing of a digital signatures. Any link to security
policy, and therefore lifecycle/revocation models, will now be out of
scope (at least for the current specs - might need to be discussed again
in the context of the security spec). 

>d. Action #276 - Submit a short set of requirements re 
>extended permissions and parameters and a proposal to address 
>those requirements (to public-webapps); Mark
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/276

I believe this action can also be closed. The initial discussion was
around whether the feature element was good enough to represent the
types of security sensitive operation that a widget could be expected to
carry out. After further discussion, we think that the feature element
is good enough - at least in 1.0.

Thanks,

Mark

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-webapps-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
>Sent: 18 February 2009 14:00
>To: public-webapps
>Subject: [widgets] Agenda for 19 February 2009 Voice Conference
>
>Below is the draft agenda for the February 19 Widgets Voice 
>Conference (VC).
>
>Inputs and discussion on all of the agenda topics before the 
>meeting is encouraged.
>
>Logistics:
>
>  Time: 23:00 Tokyo; 16:00 Helsinki; 15:00 Paris; 14:00 
>London; 09:00 Boston; 06:00 Seattle
>  Duration = 60 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. Review Feb 24-26 f2f agenda
>
>  <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda>
>
>4. Open Actions: please close those Actions that have been 
>completed, particularly those that will block the progress of 
>a spec or are needed for next week's f2f discussions:
>
>  <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8>
>
>a. Action #224 - Work with Marcos to flesh out the details of 
>the processing model for multiple signatures; Mark and Marcos
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/224
>
>b. Action #273 - Do you object to the removal of the 
>WidgetSignatureInfo element?; Thomas
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/273
>
>c. Action #275 - What is our lifecycle, revocation model?; Mark
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/275
>
>d. Action #276 - Submit a short set of requirements re 
>extended permissions and parameters and a proposal to address 
>those requirements (to public-webapps); Mark
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/276
>
>e. Action #283 - Include how to deal with <script 
>src="http://..."> in a signed widget in one of the specs; Marcos
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/283
>
>f. Action #290 - Review changes to HTML5 that may affect API 
>and Events spec and propose a way forward; Arve
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/290
>
>g. Action #293 - Add the tag: scheme to the scheme pros and 
>cons document; Marcos
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/293
>
>4. AOB
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 11:07:51 UTC