All - The minutes from the WAF WG's March 6 VoiceConf on Widgets are
available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-waf-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please
send them to the public-appformats mail list before March 11;
otherwise the minutes will be considered approved.
Regards, Art Barstow
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WAF WG's Widgets Voice Conf
06 Mar 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/
2008Mar/0001.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-waf-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcos, Claudio, Ben_(BW), Benoit_(BS), Arve
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda Review
2. [6]Charter Update
3. [7]Publication Moratorium for 1H08
4. [8]f2f Meeting
5. [9]Widgets Spec
6. [10]Level 1 and Level 2
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Date: 6 March 2008
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<benW> Marcos, we're in the process of doing so at the moment
Agenda Review
AB: any changes?
MC: I was hoping Arve would participate but I'm OK with the agenda
AB: I'll follow up with Arve to determine his status
... important to have active participation from Opera
Charter Update
<arve> sorry, a bit late
<arve> will call in in a minute
<marcos_> cool
AB: I talked to Mike Smith earlier this week and he said the charter
is still being reviewed by the Team
... it seems unlikely the "mega charter" will prevail
... and more likely that at least two WGs will be be proposed
... and the AC4CSR spec may be in a separate WG just for that spec
Publication Moratorium for 1H08
<anne> for real?
<anne> wow
<anne> that's silly
<marcos_> it's called the Anne Working Group
AB: the upcoming AC meeting and WWW2008 in April is cause for a
moratorium
... April 15 is the deadline for publication requests
<anne> seems easier to move it away from the W3c again then though,
given all the overhead
AB: I will be making a WAF/Widgets preso at WWW2008
... It would be great to have some new pubs out before the conf
MC: we can try to publish all 3 widgets doc on that date
AB: that would be fantastic
BS: are your slides ready?
AB: not yet
BS: would be good for our internal presentation
AB: understand
<scribe> ACTION: submit the slides to the WG before presenting them
at WWW2008 [recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-waf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - submit
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow submit the slides to the WG before
presenting them at WWW2008 [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-waf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-173 - Submit the slides to the WG
before presenting them at WWW2008 [on Arthur Barstow - due
2008-03-13].
<marcos_> Widget presentation:
[14]http://www.slideshare.net/mcaceres/widgets-125319
[14] http://www.slideshare.net/mcaceres/widgets-125319
f2f Meeting
AB: Guido told me yesterday he needs one more day to try to find
funding to host the meeting in Dublin
... I will give him another 24 hours
ABe: I
... I'm ok with either
AB: Claudio, June 3-5 in Turin is OK?
Claudio: yes
Widgets Spec
AB: issues: [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/products/5
... I've been thinking about a Level 1 and Level 2 split of the spec
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/products/5
ABe: I agree to some extent
... for example Bernardo will not be able to contribute to the
PKCS#7 discussion
... I think we need to leave some stuff off the table for L1
MC: I think we've essentially agreed on Dig Signatures
... but we still have a few issues e.g. how much of XPath and Cannon
to implement
AB: proposal to close Issue #12 with a resolution that we will use
XML Signature
... any objections?
[none]
RESOLUTION: we will use XML Signature and close issue #12
accordingly
Level 1 and Level 2
MC: I agree as well
... I've already mades some spec simplifications just within the
last week
... e.g. folder stuff
CV: can you assign a timeframe for L1 and L2?
... e.g. when would a L2 spec be ready for impl?
... I don't think the market would wait too long
MC: if you can help Edit Claudio that would help
... us to make progress
... we need inputs for most if not all of the red blocks
... our goal for L1 is October Last Call
CV: and then start thinking about L2 in October?
MC: you could start L2 now
... we could publish it when its ready e.g. technically sound, etc.
<marcos_> L1: packaging format (zip), Config document, Processing
model, base API, base events, digital sigs
<marcos_> Processing model = XML Processing and how to process the
package (files, folders)
BW: I agree in principle to concentrate on the basics so I support
the L1 and L2 split
<benoit> BS: the question is really to decide if an L2 finalized can
be added to the spec
MC: I think yes
... if the items are ready, we could move them into L2
CV: I understand the concerns Marcos is raising i.e. who's going to
actually do the work
... we are particularly interested in the cross-widget messaging
stuff
MC: we need an input for that
... as Nokia did with their digital signature input
CV: OK, I'll think about it
MC: I consider section 4 and 5 essentially done
AB: we could rename the spec back to Widget Packaging Spec
ABe: I'm in favor of something like Widget Packaging and Signature
spec
... I don't think the cross-widgets messaging stuff should be in the
spec at all since that functionality is part of HTML5
... and update is specified separately
... rather than thinking about L1 and L2 should be thinking in terms
of extensions
MC: I would like this to be more modular as well; could even move
the APIs to a separate spec
CV: I'm not an HTML5 expert but I'm not sure if the Widgets
cross-messaging requirements are fully covered by what is in HTML5
ABe: HTML5 probably satisfies the requirements for Widgets
CV: I just wanted to know if our Widgets Reqs are covered by HTML5
MC: I recommend reviewing the HTML5 model to see it covers the
requirements you are thinking about
... postMessage
CV: we have been looking at the Open Ajax model
... they are using a pub/sub model
... and it seems like a good starting point
MC: please do some analysis and let us know what you learned
AB: to summarize, there is support for focusing on core
functionality
... this could mean three separate docs:
... 1. Zip, config, Procssing model
... 2. basic APIs and events
... 3. Signature
... we could then add other specs as needed
... is this what we want to do?
BS: this is more docs. Is this OK with you Marcos?
MC: I would Arve to take the APIs and Events
ABe: that will be difficult for me to meet by the April 15 deadline
MC: I can take the signauture part and ask TLR for some help
AB: I can help of the signature part too
... regarding doc #2, for April 15 we could just cut-and-paste what
we have now
... is splitting the doc into these 3 parts doable by April 15?
MC: yes
<arve> Looking at section 7, we have mostly complete text
AB: proposals to split the current doc into three parts as described
above
... any objections?
[none]
<arve> no
RESOLUTION: the Widgets 1.0 spec will be split into three separate
specs
<marcos_> :)
AB: anything else for today?
... next week will start with section 4.1
<claudio> quit
AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow submit the slides to the WG before presenting
them at WWW2008 [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-waf-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: submit the slides to the WG before presenting them at
WWW2008 [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-waf-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
