The minutes from the WAF WG's April 3 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
<hhttp://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-waf-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-appformats mail list before April 10; otherwise
the minutes will be considered approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
SV_MEETING_TITLE
03 Apr 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/
2008Apr/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-waf-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Mike, Claudio, Benoit, Arve, Marcos
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review Agenda
2. [6]Charter update
3. [7]VC schedule for April
4. [8]Publication status and plans
5. [9]Landscape document
6. [10]P&C status
7. [11]Signatures doc
8. [12]API and Events
9. [13]Issue #17 - Widgets: should Automatic Updates be
included in v1.0?
10. [14]I18N
11. [15]AOB
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<marcos> there he is, trusty Zakim
<MikeSmith> trackbot-ng, status
<MikeSmith> trackbot-ng, start meeting
<MikeSmith> hell with it
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Review Agenda
<MikeSmith> Scribenick: ArtB
AB: Mike made a request to talk about I18N
... any objections?
[None]
AB: add it between #4 and #5
Charter update
AB: anything to report Mike?
MS: I expect the Charter to be sent to the AC soon
... I will notify this WG when that has been done
VC schedule for April
AB: next week I being a 5-wk period where I'll be traveling all or
part of 4 weeks
... cancel VCs on April 17 and 24
... April 10 is "iffy" now
<MikeSmith> [MikeSmith will also be in Beijing for AC meeting and
WWW2008, April 19 to 26]
AB: this would mean the next VC is May 1
... any concerns?
MC: I'm OK as long as today we record an OK to publish our docs
CV: this is in-line with the moratorium, right?
AB: yes
Publication status and plans
AB: status of reqs doc, Marcos?
MC: it is ready but waiting for an input on the security model
ABe: I now have approval to publish it and may be able to send it to
the list today
AB: Marcos, you may want to reflect some of Arve's input in the reqs
doc?
MC: yes
AB: we need a 1-week review period after the spec is "ready for
review"
... tentative plan for Reqs is to start review on April 4 and end on
April 11
... if no objections or major problems raised, we will consider the
doc ready for publishing
Landscape document
AB: Marcos, what is its status?
MC: need to make some changes re Yahoo! engine
... I can be done by tomorrow though
AB: so we can start a 1-week review period on April 4?
MC: yes
AB: I propose that if no major issues are identified in the April 4
ED of the Landscape doc, that we request FPWD
... any objections?
[None]
RESOLUTION: if no major issues are identified in the April 4 ED of
the Landscape do, we will request FPWD
P&C status
AB: Marcos, we do we stand?
MC: I've done some more work on the Proc Model
... I am also in the process of implementing the ProcMod
... in Java using Xerces
... will be ready to review on April 4
AB: I'd like to get a new version published
... any objections to starting a review on April 4 and if no major
issues identified then we request formal pub on April 14?
[None]
Signatures doc
MC: I responded to Hal's comments
... I also asked the XML Security Maint WG for comments
... I've written a Java impl and it seems to work
AB: I propose that if no major issues are identified in the April 4
ED of the Signatures doc then after a 1-week review period we
request publication.
... Any objections?
[None]
RESOLUTION: if no major issues are identified in the April 4 ED of
the Signatures doc, after a 1-week review period we will request
FPWD
API and Events
AB: what is the status?
MC: no change
... it will not be ready to publish
Issue #17 - Widgets: should Automatic Updates be included in v1.0?
AB: [17]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/17
... status Marcos?
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/17
MC: I created a separate document
... not many changes since Oslo meeting (Aug 2007)
... I think it is very useful and I am in favor of continuing the
spec
ABe: why is it included in the base spec?
AB: a key question is dependencies
<Benoit> I believe it was taken out to make sure the widget spec
could go through just in case... but if finalized it should be put
back in
AB: e.g. would one need to implement Updates to implement P&C?
MC: no, not yet
BS: we can either state how the revision numbers work and the
platform uses the data; otherwise we can define end-to-end
<Benoit> btw I've spoken with Access to see if they are insteressted
in joining the group, and they will see if they can, but it seems
they are interested in this specific item.
AB: I think it is useful but I don't want the P&C spec have a
dependency on the Updates
ABe: in the mobile space, updates is complicated because different
OTA mechanisms are used
MC: I can investigate the various deployed models in the next rev of
the Landscape
BS: would it make sense to say udpates is in the level two specs
<marcos> <update url = "dddddd" >
MC: update spec could include a new element that would need to be in
the P&C spec
... the spec is written such that unknown elements are ignored
... would like to have a decent model by June
ABe: if we can't get a good proposal by then, it should be
considered level two
AB: so we could close this and say that without a good solid model,
updates will be level 2
MC: ok
ABe: ok
BS: maybe the spec needs clarification on the version
... could provide a link to it
MC: we discussed this a while ago with Ian Hickson; I'll track down
that e-mail
... Ultimately, I think the simple comparison model is good enough
BS: I'm more concerned about being able to process the updates at
some point; need to know if the figures are Higher or Lower
MC: the current model is just about "is the version Different"
BS: in our widget system we have some additional requirements
... we have different scenarios
ABe: I think your last scenario is about widget revocation
... and I don't think that should be part of Updates
CV: we do need some mechanism for Updates
... and we don't have a strong preference for how it is done
AB: I think we should leave this Issue open
<Benoit> 3 scenarios:
MC: we need to discuss this at the f2f
<Benoit> 1- enw version but does not need to change the widget
<Benoit> 2- new version that allows the user to upgrade
<Benoit> 3- new version the requires the user to change and revoque
the earlier versions
RESOLUTION: Issue #17 will remain OPEN for now
I18N
MS: Felix, Team contact for the I18N group raised an issue related
to Widget localization
... see
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Apr/00
02.html
... there isn't any info at all about how to localize a Widget
... they think something is needed, even if Optional
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/
2008Apr/0002.html
<Benoit> can they join the f2F?
<marcos> Model for i18n.
<marcos> If no config file is found in src (via content element)
assume i18n mode.
<marcos> use widget.locale (in RFC3086)
MS: they are also willing to help; at least submit comments and
provide guidance
<marcos> search for folders that match window.locale at the mount
point.
<marcos> if match, match the start file in the i18n folder.
BS: will this be a declarative model?
MC: no, it's an automatic model
BS: with Vista, can have multiple config dirs
MC: correct
MS: Felix won't be in Dublin but maybe some others will be there
because of XTech; we can also use a VC bridge
... Yahoo's Addison is the Chair of the I18N WG
... I wonder if the model Marcos proposed is consistent with Y!'s
model
... it would be good if Marcos could propose a model
MC: there's some stuff in the Landscape doc
AB: I'm tempted to create an Issue
... any objections?
[None]
ISSUE: what is the Localization model for Widgets
AOB
AB: I'll notify everyone by April 7 if we will have a call on April
10
... If it appears there will be an urgent need for a call April 10
and I cannot make, Mike can you Chair?
MS: tentatively yes
AB: I encourage everyone to review the 4 docs that will start formal
review on April 4
... meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
