W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

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

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:56:15 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670902220956w1eca0eccu3fd1d76c104d9b6a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Priestley, Mark, VF-Group" <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Mark,
2009/2/19 Priestley, Mark, VF-Group <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>:
> 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.

This is great to hear. However, if you have any requirements from 2.0,
please let us know or please add them to the wiki:


Kind regards,
Marcos Caceres
Received on Sunday, 22 February 2009 17:57:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:51 UTC