The minutes from the February 19 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 5 March 2009 (the next
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered
Approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conference
19 Feb 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0487.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcos, Frederick, Jere, Mark, Claudio, Mike, Benoit
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Review Feb 24-26 f2f agenda
4. [8]Open Actions
5. [9]Digital Signatures
6. [10]I18N and L10N
7. [11]AOB
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<Marcos> zakin, ??P14 is I
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 19 February 2009
Review and tweak agenda
AB: Agenda posted Feb 18:
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/04
87.html
... any change requests?
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0487.html
FH: want to add DigSig
AB: any other agenda change requests?
MP: want feedback on localization issues
Announcements
AB: some people that have implementation experience with our Widget
specs will join us on Feb 26 (Scott Wilson and others)
... any other announcements?
FH: XML Sec WG FPWD for XML Sig 1.1 is planned for next week
Review Feb 24-26 f2f agenda
AB: I have been tweaking our f2f agenda
... [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda
... I will likely make some additional tweaks based on
... Format is the same we've used in the past
... i.e. only two topics currently have specific time slots
... 1. Widgets DigSig Feb 25 @13:30; (this may get moved to 14:00
depending on Frederick's availability)
... 2. EU widget implementation presentation Feb 26 @ 13:30
... Given a relatively large number of remote participants, we will
need to juggle the agenda to accommodate them. For example,
Frederick and Thomas for DigSig, Josh for widget scheme, Jere for
I18N/L10N, etc.
... Regarding my expectations for the P&C spec: by the end of the
f2f we will have agreed on a plan to resolve all open issues and be
ready to publish a new document in March (another LCWD seems likely)
... For the DigSig spec: by the end of the f2f we will have agreed
on a plan to publish a new WD in March
... any comments on the f2f agenda?
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda
FH: 14:00 on the 25th is better
... we may not need the entire 3 hour slot
AB: I will change the agend to 14:00 Feb 25 for DigSig
Open Actions
AB: Open Actions for widgets:
<[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8>
... Some of the open actions are more critical than others
... Let's briefly discuss the status of the more important ones.
... Action #224 - Work with Marcos to flesh out the details of the
processing model for multiple signatures; Mark and Marcos;
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/224
... where do we stand on this?
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8%3E
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/224
MC: it depends on DigSig spec
... the DigSig spec needs to return a value
... after we work that out we can update the P&C spec
... about 90% of the model is in place
... There is a bug but we can work that out
MP: I agree with MC
... we may be able to separate the depedency
... I will share that proposal on the list today or tomorrow
MC: that would be good; looking forward to seeing the proposal
AB: it would be good if we can cut that dependency
MP: I'll provide the explanation
AB: skip 273 since TLR isn't here
Action #275 - What is our lifecycle, revocation model?; Mark;
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/275
[17] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/275
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #275
AB: Mark proposed this be closed
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/04
95.html
... Any comments?
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0495.html
MC: I need to review it
... and respond on the list
Action #276 - Submit a short set of requirements re extended
permissions and parameters and a proposal to address those
requirements (to public-webapps); Mark;
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/276
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/276
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #276
AB: Mark proposed this be closed:
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/04
95.html
... Any comments?
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0495.html
MC: I need to review that too and will reply to MP's proposal
MP: the action was to submit a proposal
... we've agreed the feature element and other stuff in the P&C is
sufficient
... thus we don't need to add anything else
MC: OK; then I'm OK with closing this
AB: I'll close 276
Action #283 - Include how to deal with <script src="[21]http://...";>
in a signed widget in one of the specs; Marcos;
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/283
[21] http://../
[22] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/283
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #283
MC: I need some more info from MP
MP: if a signed widget includes a script need to be careful
... ties into the access element and network attribute
... I will submit a proposal for that and it will address #283
MC: can this be assigned to Mark?
MP: this can be combined with a proposal for the access element
AB: OK; I will close #283 and add a ref to it to the other actioin
... skip #290 since Arve isn't here
Action #293 - Add the tag: scheme to the scheme pros and cons
document; Marcos;
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/293
[23] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/293
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - #293
MC: I've got the text but got an error when I tried to cut and paste
it into the wiki
... I'll have it done by tonight and then I'll close the action
Digital Signatures
AB:
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda#Digital_S
ignature_spec
[24] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/
WidgetsParisAgenda#Digital_Signature_spec
FH: want to talk about properties
... Mark made an offlist proposal
... I want to add that proposal to the Editor's Draft
... Want Mark to put his proposal on the public mail list
MC: I need to review it
FH: If I do the editing first, then people can understand the
context
MP: OK with me; I'll send my proposal to the mail list
... will send it today
I18N and L10N
AB: Mark, was there something you wanted to discuss?
<fjh> I will update widgets signature draft and send update this
week.
MP: I see this is on the Paris agenda
... there appear to be some diffs between my proposal and Josh's
proposal
... would be interested in hearing MC's view on this
MC: I haven't read all of the relevant emails yet
... there may be some runtime dependencies that make this
complicated
MP: I was looking at things from the author's perspective
MC: we may to add some additional notes
... but I must first read the proposals
... I'm a bit behind
AB: I18N and L10N are major agenda items for next week
... as are Window modes
FH: two questions
1. Re XML Sig FPWD, not sure that should be public
2. P&C and sig processing - can that be moved to DigSig spec
MC: we're going to work that out in Paris
... Think we can move stuff out of P&C and put it directly in DigSig
<Marcos>
[25]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#step-4-locate-digital-signat
ures-for-the-widget
[25] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#step-4-locate-digital-
signatures-for-the-widget
MP: re the processing steps and DigSig
... As I mentioned earlier today, I've got a proposal that I will
send to the list
FH: great; I'll wait for that
JK: re the runtime localization model ...
... I won't be available at all next week (not even on line)
... A concern fall shorts about saying what is done at runtime
... Not all of the resources need to be localized (re Josh's input)
... Must have a well-defined fallback mechanism
... BCP47 permits subtags
... A question is if those subtags are considered in the fallback
mechanism
... Does this apply to resources as well?
MC: we could do that
... My concern is about the complexity
... It would be more rich of course
... But not sure if it is necessary
JK: if have subtags may want to distinguish different resources
AB: are there any existing widget systems that support fallback on
sub-tags
JK: there are some other systems that support such a fallback
... JavaME provides some support for this
MC: does your email, Jere, address this?
JK: yes it covers this issue
MC: OK; I'll look at tit
JK: again, I will not be able to attend the meeting
MC: I will also seek feedback from I18N Core WG
AOB
AB: I don't have anything for today but I've added some AOB topics
to the end of the f2f agenda
... anyone have something?
<JereK> not JavaME as such but JSR 238
AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
