The minutes from the December 18 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/12/18-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 8 January 2009 (the next
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered
Approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
18 Dec 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008OctDec/0505.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/18-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Claudio, Benoit, Jere, Mike, Marcos, Mark, Thomas
Regrets
Arve
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda review and tweaking
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]P&C spec and Last Call
4. [8]DigSig Spec
5. [9]Next F2F Meeting for Widgets group
6. [10]AOB
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Agenda review and tweaking
AB: agenda is
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/05
05.html
... any change requests?
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008OctDec/0505.html
CV: how about a short summary of the Security Workshop Dec 10-11
AB: good idea; will add it to AOB
... any other change reqs?
[None]
Announcements
AB: this is the last VC in 2008
... any other annoucements?
[None]
P&C spec and Last Call
AB: [13]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/
... Marcos, please summarize changes since Dec 11 CfC
[13] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/
MC: some changes in Section 8
... Still a few holes I need to patch today
<tlr> huh? widgets call on for today?
MC: Josh has provided some good feedback
... I think we can put in a reqest today
AB: primarily editorial changes still need to be made?
MC: yes
... some spelling checks and related tidying
AB: please describe the Window Mode change you made today
MC: no one has submitted any inputs for Window Mode
... Consequently, I added a warning to the spec
<marcos> Warning: Feature at risk! This spec does not define the
semantics of the window modes. We seek input regarding - what, if
anything, should be specified in this spec versus what should be
left as an imple detail. The widget element's mode attribute and
associated window modes will be dropped without substantial evidence
that they are needed.
MC: And a request for feedbback
AB: please read this new text
... any issues with this proposed text
MP: we think defining modes in P&C spec
... we will submit input as part of the review process
BS: I agree with MP
CV: my recollection from last f2f meeting is that for v1 we would go
with minimal mode
MC: yes, but we never got any UCs or behaviour descriptions
... We also don't have a related requirement
BS: so you want both a requirement and a proposal?
MC: yes, that's correct
AB: any other comments on the proposed Warning text?
CV: what level of detail do you want for the requirment?
MC: same level as we have in the Requirements doc
CV: I think we need something like iconized, full screen, floating
<Benoit> do we need to include all existing modes already?
AB: perhaps we should add a request for Use Cases and Requirements
to the new warning text
MC: the various WUAs support different modes
AB: sorry to interrupt but I want to postpone deep dive discussion
on this topic
... What we need are specific: Use Cases, Requirements and
prescriptive text
... That should be sent to the public mail list for discussion
... For the purposes of this meeting, we want to discuss if this doc
is ready for LC or not
BS: I want to understand what inputs can be relfected today
MC: any substantial inputs should be sent after the review period
begins
JK: I just sent you the biblio info
AB: I agree with Marcos
... any other comments
... I propose we publish a LCWD of the P&C spec
... any objections?
MP: how long will the LC review period be?
AB: it will end January 31
... any concerns about the Jan 31 date?
... it will give us 3 weeks before we have our next f2f
BS: I suspect we will have more than one LC, right?
AB: If we get substantial input on any part of the spec, a 2nd LC is
likely
... any support to publish a LC?
MC: I support
BS: abstain
JK: I support
MP: VF supports it
CV: we support it
RESOLUTION: we will publish a LCWD of the P&C spec
DigSig Spec
AB: questions for the XML Sec WG
... Mark closed this today, right?
MP: yes; I submitted a response today
...
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/05
13.html
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008OctDec/0513.html
AB: any other comments?
[]None]
Next F2F Meeting for Widgets group
AB: proposal is Feb 24-26 in Paris hosted by Benoit in Orange
... any concerns about that date?
MP: I may have to leave early on the 26th but otherwise that's fine
AB: we have an obligation to annouce f2f meetings 8 weeks in advance
JK: do you have an agenda?
AB: yes; skeleton at
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda
... I think we'll have plenty to talk about
... are there any objections to the f2f during those dates and in
that location?
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda
[None]
AB: I will make an annoucement shortly
AOB
AB: next Voice Conf is January 8
... regarding holidays, I'll be offline starting Dec 22 and return
on Jan 5
BS: I may have some conflicts on Jan 8 and Jan 15 but will try to
join
AB: regarding Security Workshop
... the Team will create a Workshop Report and that will be
available in January
... there was consensus to start two new blocks of work at W3C
... 1. is Device APIs i.e. JavaScript bindings to services such as
contacts, PIM
... 2. Security Model
... there was some discussion about whether these work items could
be done by WebApps or a new WG
... WebApps seems to have a pretty full plate already
... Mark, Marcos, anything to add?
MC: I don't ahve anything to add
MP: there were discussions about user interaction and how to present
security info to the user
... in a usefule way
... especially on mobiles
... Lots of good discussions
CV: thanks for those summaries
... what about managing APIs in terms of a framework?
... or was it more about vertical APIs?
MC: regarding a framework, I proposed the one we are already
specifying e.g. via the <feature> element
CV: is this going to be UWA v2 or Geolocation API replication?
MC: I don't think there will be any replication of work
... Nokia said they will submit their APIs
TR: I think this isn't clear
... another topic is web apps versus widgets
... whatever is done for widgets should apply for web apps in
general
<tlr> ... and with that, happy holidays ;-)
TR: This could be something we need to consider in the context of
the widget: scheme discussions
AB: thanks very much Marcos for the great work you've done on the
P&C spec
[Lots of thanks for Marcos]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
