[widgets] Minutes from 19 February 2009 Voice Conference

The minutes from the February 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 5 March 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

19 Feb 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-wam-irc


           Art, Marcos, Frederick, Jere, Mark, Claudio, Mike, Benoit




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Review Feb 24-26 f2f agenda
          4. [8]Open Actions
          5. [9]Digital Signatures
          6. [10]I18N and L10N
          7. [11]AOB
      * [12]Summary of Action Items

    <Marcos> zakin, ??P14 is I

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 19 February 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: Agenda posted Feb 18:
    ... any change requests?

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

    FH: want to add DigSig

    AB: any other agenda change requests?

    MP: want feedback on localization issues


    AB: some people that have implementation experience with our Widget
    specs will join us on Feb 26 (Scott Wilson and others)
    ... any other announcements?

    FH: XML Sec WG FPWD for XML Sig 1.1 is planned for next week

Review Feb 24-26 f2f agenda

    AB: I have been tweaking our f2f agenda
    ... [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda
    ... I will likely make some additional tweaks based on
    ... Format is the same we've used in the past
    ... i.e. only two topics currently have specific time slots
    ... 1. Widgets DigSig Feb 25 @13:30; (this may get moved to 14:00
    depending on Frederick's availability)
    ... 2. EU widget implementation presentation Feb 26 @ 13:30
    ... Given a relatively large number of remote participants, we will
    need to juggle the agenda to accommodate them. For example,
    Frederick and Thomas for DigSig, Josh for widget scheme, Jere for
    I18N/L10N, etc.
    ... Regarding my expectations for the P&C spec: by the end of the
    f2f we will have agreed on a plan to resolve all open issues and be
    ready to publish a new document in March (another LCWD seems likely)
    ... For the DigSig spec: by the end of the f2f we will have agreed
    on a plan to publish a new WD in March
    ... any comments on the f2f agenda?

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda

    FH: 14:00 on the 25th is better
    ... we may not need the entire 3 hour slot

    AB: I will change the agend to 14:00 Feb 25 for DigSig

Open Actions

    AB: Open Actions for widgets:
    ... Some of the open actions are more critical than others
    ... Let's briefly discuss the status of the more important ones.
    ... Action #224 - Work with Marcos to flesh out the details of the
    processing model for multiple signatures; Mark and Marcos;
    ... where do we stand on this?

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8%3E
      [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/224

    MC: it depends on DigSig spec
    ... the DigSig spec needs to return a value
    ... after we work that out we can update the P&C spec
    ... about 90% of the model is in place
    ... There is a bug but we can work that out

    MP: I agree with MC
    ... we may be able to separate the depedency
    ... I will share that proposal on the list today or tomorrow

    MC: that would be good; looking forward to seeing the proposal

    AB: it would be good if we can cut that dependency

    MP: I'll provide the explanation

    AB: skip 273 since TLR isn't here

    Action #275 - What is our lifecycle, revocation model?; Mark;

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/275

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #275

    AB: Mark proposed this be closed
    ... Any comments?

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

    MC: I need to review it
    ... and respond on the list

    Action #276 - Submit a short set of requirements re extended
    permissions and parameters and a proposal to address those
    requirements (to public-webapps); Mark;

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/276

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #276

    AB: Mark proposed this be closed:
    ... Any comments?

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

    MC: I need to review that too and will reply to MP's proposal

    MP: the action was to submit a proposal
    ... we've agreed the feature element and other stuff in the P&C is
    ... thus we don't need to add anything else

    MC: OK; then I'm OK with closing this

    AB: I'll close 276

    Action #283 - Include how to deal with <script src="[21]http://...">
    in a signed widget in one of the specs; Marcos;

      [21] http://../
      [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/283

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #283

    MC: I need some more info from MP

    MP: if a signed widget includes a script need to be careful
    ... ties into the access element and network attribute
    ... I will submit a proposal for that and it will address #283

    MC: can this be assigned to Mark?

    MP: this can be combined with a proposal for the access element

    AB: OK; I will close #283 and add a ref to it to the other actioin
    ... skip #290 since Arve isn't here

    Action #293 - Add the tag: scheme to the scheme pros and cons
    document; Marcos;

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/293

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #293

    MC: I've got the text but got an error when I tried to cut and paste
    it into the wiki
    ... I'll have it done by tonight and then I'll close the action

Digital Signatures


      [24] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/ 

    FH: want to talk about properties
    ... Mark made an offlist proposal
    ... I want to add that proposal to the Editor's Draft
    ... Want Mark to put his proposal on the public mail list

    MC: I need to review it

    FH: If I do the editing first, then people can understand the

    MP: OK with me; I'll send my proposal to the mail list
    ... will send it today

I18N and L10N

    AB: Mark, was there something you wanted to discuss?

    <fjh> I will update widgets signature draft and send update this

    MP: I see this is on the Paris agenda
    ... there appear to be some diffs between my proposal and Josh's
    ... would be interested in hearing MC's view on this

    MC: I haven't read all of the relevant emails yet
    ... there may be some runtime dependencies that make this

    MP: I was looking at things from the author's perspective

    MC: we may to add some additional notes
    ... but I must first read the proposals
    ... I'm a bit behind

    AB: I18N and L10N are major agenda items for next week
    ... as are Window modes

    FH: two questions

    1. Re XML Sig FPWD, not sure that should be public

    2. P&C and sig processing - can that be moved to DigSig spec

    MC: we're going to work that out in Paris
    ... Think we can move stuff out of P&C and put it directly in DigSig


      [25] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#step-4-locate-digital- 

    MP: re the processing steps and DigSig
    ... As I mentioned earlier today, I've got a proposal that I will
    send to the list

    FH: great; I'll wait for that

    JK: re the runtime localization model ...
    ... I won't be available at all next week (not even on line)
    ... A concern fall shorts about saying what is done at runtime
    ... Not all of the resources need to be localized (re Josh's input)
    ... Must have a well-defined fallback mechanism
    ... BCP47 permits subtags
    ... A question is if those subtags are considered in the fallback
    ... Does this apply to resources as well?

    MC: we could do that
    ... My concern is about the complexity
    ... It would be more rich of course
    ... But not sure if it is necessary

    JK: if have subtags may want to distinguish different resources

    AB: are there any existing widget systems that support fallback on

    JK: there are some other systems that support such a fallback
    ... JavaME provides some support for this

    MC: does your email, Jere, address this?

    JK: yes it covers this issue

    MC: OK; I'll look at tit

    JK: again, I will not be able to attend the meeting

    MC: I will also seek feedback from I18N Core WG


    AB: I don't have anything for today but I've added some AOB topics
    to the end of the f2f agenda
    ... anyone have something?

    <JereK> not JavaME as such but JSR 238

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 14:56:25 UTC