All - The minutes from the WAF WG's February 14 VoiceConf on Widgets
are available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-waf-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please
send them to the public-appformats mail list before February 21;
otherwise the minutes will be considered approved.
One comment from me: Marcos attended the meeting.
Regards, Art Barstow
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conf (WAF WG)
14 Feb 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/
2008Feb/0006.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-waf-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Arve, Benoit, Dave, Claudio_(IRC)
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda Review
2. [6]Annoncements
3. [7]Actions and Issues
4. [8]Landscape Document
5. [9]Requirements doc
6. [10]AOB
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<claudio> I'm in Lyon and I'm having troubles in connecting via
phone to the bridge...
<claudio> roamin pains, I'm trying...
ok. with Marcos not present we will not have a formal meeting :-(
<arve> should we reschedule for another day, then?
<claudio> Would be nice for me...
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 14 February 2008
Agenda Review
AB: without Marcos we won't do a deep dive on technical discussions
Annoncements
AB: I was hoping MikeSmith or Shepazu could provide an update on the
WebApps WG Charter
... but neither is present :-(
Actions and Issues
AB: see [12]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/
[12] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/
ABe: regarding Action #112, we have a proposal
... [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/actions/112
... hope to submit it to the WG after I return from vacation at the
end of the month
[13] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/actions/112
DP: is the model for Widgets connecting to the Web or does it also
include accessing device APIs?
ABe: I can't talk about device related things
... but this model is about provisioning widgets i.e. uploading and
downloading
... it describes a detailed URI-based model
AB: we have about 12 Actions open
... and we have about 5 Issues open
<marcos> Argh!
<marcos> coming!
<marcos> got stuck in traffic
<marcos> yep
<arve> bbiam
<arve> (needed more coffee)
MC: I am working on some of the Actions
... input at anytime from people is welcome
Landscape Document
AB: what's the status Marcos?
MC: it fullfills a need to understand the current landscape
... seems logical to move it out of the Requirements document
... also makes the Reqs doc easier to maintain
AB: I like this organization
<marcos>
[14]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-land/Overview.src.html
[14] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-land/Overview.src.html
BS: I think the split makes sense
... not sure about the title regarding the precedence in the W3C
MC: any help with filling in the empty boxes would be appreciated
AB: it may be more appropriate to be WG Note rather than a Rec type
doc
MC: that's OK with me
ABe: WG Note is a good way to go
BS: OK with me
... are any of the WG members providing information for this doc?
... e.g. I noticed something regarding Windows signature may not be
accurate
MC: we've had some Members review but not all
AB: what's the next step toward publication?
MC: I think we'll need about one month to fill in the tables and to
get a good format
AB: I think WG Notes are mainly considered 1-time publication
... not revised generally
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow talk to Mike Smith about WG Note vs Rec
type doc for the Landscape doc [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-waf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-170 - Talk to Mike Smith about WG Note
vs Rec type doc for the Landscape doc [on Arthur Barstow - due
2008-02-21].
BS: could wait for final pub to the end
Requirements doc
<marcos> [16]http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/
[16] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/
<marcos> ooops
AB: latest ED is: [17]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/
... Dave, please send your Feb 10 comments to the public mail list
[17] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/
DP: OK, will do
AB: remind everyone we need to respond to all comments whether the
comments are from WG members or non-members
MC: I will respond to Dave's comments
... regarding Dave's first comment, it's good to hear Arve is
working on a related input
... On Feb 4 I sent some comments re security
... Regarding device security, I'm waiting to see what the UWA WG is
going to do
... I agree device API has security-related implications but it's
not clear if we need to do anything here (in a normative way)
DP: yes, that seems OK with me for v1.0 and focus now on the
packaging format as the #1 priority
<claudio> TI thinks We hould move a little further saying that
Widgets support DCCI specification
BS: I agree about the priority of the packaging format but device
API are important
DP: what about timeframes?
MC: I'd like to get to LC by November
... and Candidate in 1Q09
... but it all depends on WG participation and I'm concerned about
the lack of inputs
... we've lost some steam and we need to get it back
AB: I agree with MC that we have to get some more momentum; the AC
work has domintate my time and I'm sorry about that
... We can work in either mode -> VCs once per week or more
distributed using e-mail like the AC work
BS: can we get more Members participating?
... e.g. Microsoft or Apple
... I also talked with Netvibes people
MC: everyone is in the WG but they aren't all participating
ABe: we've made most progress in the f2f meeting
<claudio> I can report a potential interest also from Alcatel Lucent
ABe: maybe we can explicity invite Apple, MS, NetVibes, to our f2f
meeting
DP: I think if we complete the Reqs doc it can be used to entice
people to participate
BS: some people don't understand if this work is for Web widgets
only, Desktop widgets only, etc.
... this needs to be more clear
... Perhaps we need an inclusive f2f meeting or some type of web
cast
DP: I think some of the reqs are a bit "woolly"
... agree we need the definition of Widgets must be very clear
AOB
AB: VC next week?
ABe: I would prefer two weeks from now
BS: that's OK with me
AB: next meeting Feb 28
MC: please send comments to the public mail list
BS: please include [widgets] in the Subject: header
... agree focusing the agenda on specific text or reqs would be good
ABe: agree
<claudio> Are We booking a date for next F2F?
AB: meeting adjourned
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow start a thread about a Widgets f2f meeting
via the member mail list [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-waf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-171 - Start a thread about a Widgets
f2f meeting via the member mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due
2008-02-21].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow start a thread about a Widgets f2f meeting via
the member mail list [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-waf-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow talk to Mike Smith about WG Note vs Rec type
doc for the Landscape doc [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-waf-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
