All - The minutes from the WAF WG's March 13 VoiceConf on Widgets are
available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please
send them to the public-appformats mail list before March 20;
otherwise the minutes will be considered approved.
Regards, Art Barstow
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WAF WG Widget's Voice Conf
13 Mar 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/
2008Mar/0006.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcos, Claudio, BenW
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda Review
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Icon Element
4. [8]Section 6
5. [9]Section 6.1
6. [10]Section 6.2
7. [11]Section 6.3
8. [12]Section 6.4
9. [13]Section 6.5
10. [14]Section 6.6 (author element)
11. [15]Section 6.7 (license element)
12. [16]Section 6.8 (icon element)
13. [17]AOB
* [18]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Date: 13 March 2008
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Agenda Review
AB: where do we start on the P&C spec?
MC: we should talk about Icon element (6.8)
... talk about all of sect 6
AB: skip section 5?
MC: yes, we've already discussed that
Announcements
AB: #1 Charter update
... Mike Smith is not here again :-(
... #2 f2f headcount
... Dublin May 5-6 is now confirmend
MC: yes, confirmed
BenW: yes, confirmed
CV: I cannot make the meeting because of other commitments; will try
to get someone else from TI that can represent us
AB: #3 No VC next week March 20; I'm traveling and won't be
available
... next VC will be March 27
MC: Richard Rogers and Paul Watson will attend the f2f
Icon Element
AB: Benoit started a thread regarding the icon element and a role
attribute
MC: the spec today just has one icon element
... some people want multiple icons
... can go so far as to making it dynamic HTML
... I prefer simplicity i.e. just one
AB: what does Opera widget support?
MC: I believe just one
AB: what about Dashboard?
MC: I think just one icon as well
BenW: Yahoo has a separate XML doc to describe the icon
... I'm torn between keeping it simple and adding some richness
MC: not sure we can define a dynamic icon for this spec but
something to consider for Level 2
BenW: yes, tend to agree
MC: the number of icon elements is a separate issue from dynamic
icons as is the issue of adding a role attribute
... things such as big and small don't say anything about usage
AB: currently we don't define the role attribute, right?
MC: yes
... only Y! defines something like role for the icon
CV: there is a tradeoff between Level1 and flexibility; nothing to
say in particular; just one icon is OK for now and then consider
dynamic icons for next level
AB: I tend to agree with the concerns about complexity for Level 1
... It would be good to know if Benoit thinks this is critical for
level 1
MC: Microsoft allows icons for different sizes and the engine then
decides which to use e.g. based on screen resolution
AB: I think then we should continue discussions to see if we can get
some convergence for our 1st version
Section 6
MC: without Arve here, I think we should skip this section
Section 6.1
MC: any questions or issues?
[none]
Section 6.2
MC: any issues or questions for 6.2?
AB: are these definitions copied from HTML5?
MC: yes
AB: could we reference it then?
MC: don't want to build a dependency on that spec
AB: yes, agree
... any other comments on 6.2?
BenW: none from me
MC: I'll move the minimum config stuff to section 6.0
Section 6.3
AB: regarding the id attribute, we have a related Issue:
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/14
... perhaps we can close this
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/14
MC: I think Arve is OK with this
AB: I will follow-up with Arve to see if we can close issue #14
MC: some widget systems use UUID
... Joost uses URIs
AB: what does Dashboard use?
MC: they use an arbitrary string; pref to use reverse domain
(com.apple.*.*)
AB: I'm OK with a URI
BenW: makes sense to me
CV: I would like to understand what Dashboard does
MC: they use a reverse domain name
BenW: yes that's true and it is also what the S60 Widgets use
CV: URI is OK with us
AB: think we should leave as is unless someone provides new Use Case
to have us revisit the decison
... any other questions / issues on 6.3?
[none]
Section 6.4
AB: any questions?
[none]
Section 6.5
AB: any questions or issues?
[none]
Section 6.6 (author element)
MC: Benoit just submitted some comments:
<[20]http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
roup.com>
[20] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3FC202B.BCC6%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AB: the metadata to be included in the author element could indeed
be quite large
... now we just have two attributes e-mail and url
<marcos> MC: we could maybe merge url and email ( url=
"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
MC: I'm OK with the current spec
... could even merge those two attributes
AB: I think the URL provides a reasonable compromise between
simplicity and richness in that it provides more details if needed
... thus I tend to favor the current model
BenW: I think the current model is fine as is
CV: agree the current model is fine as is
Section 6.7 (license element)
AB: any questions or issues?
MC: some raised an issue in my blog about this
... they wanted an attribute for the license type e.g. GPLv2, GPLv3
... I think it's better to include the full license
... It did have an href attribute once but I removed it for
simplicity
... Don't really want the terms at the URI to change.
AB: I think the current model is good enough
Section 6.8 (icon element)
MC: if anyone has any comments on the current model, send them to
the list by the end of next week i.e. March 21
<marcos> MC: issue is to only allow 1 icon or more.
AOB
AB: Marcos, what are your thoughts on schedule?
<marcos> [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
[21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
MC: I'm hoping Thomas will review it
AB: I can certainly ask the XML Security Maintentace WG to do a
review
MC: would appreciate a pre-publication review
AB: I'm OK with that
... but have some concerns about people reviewing stuff that isn't
yet ready for /TR/ publication
... I can ask the XMLSec Chair to do the review but we need a
deadline for comments
BenW: I've passed it on to our security guys
AB: try to get comments by March 27
... thus at that meeting we should be ready to decide on FPWD
MC: sounds good
<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a
Signature review by March 27 [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-174 - Ask Chair of XML Security Maint
WG to do a Signature review by March 27 [on Arthur Barstow - due
2008-03-20].
MC: still want to be ready for publishing by the first week of April
... don't think we'll be ready to publish the API doc by then
AB: because of the events stuff being undefined?
MC: no, Arve can't work on it until mid-April
AB: and the Requirements and Landscape doc will be ready to publish
then?
MC: yes, that's my plan
AB: Awesome Marcos!
... Meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow ask Chair of XML Security Maint WG to do a
Signature review by March 27 [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-waf-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
