IRC log of waf on 2008-04-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:01:54 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #waf

11:01:54 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-waf-irc

11:01:56 [marcos]

there he is, trusty Zakim

11:01:58 [MikeSmith]

trackbot-ng, status

11:02:05 [MikeSmith]

trackbot-ng, start meeting

11:02:12 [MikeSmith]

hell with it

11:02:14 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make logs public

11:02:28 [marcos]

zakim, this is waf

11:02:28 [Zakim]

ok, marcos; that matches IA_WAF(widgets)7:00AM

11:02:35 [Zakim]

-??P5

11:03:02 [Zakim]

+Art_Barstow

11:03:07 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, code?

11:03:07 [Zakim]

the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MikeSmith

11:03:21 [Zakim]

+??P8

11:03:28 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, ??P8 is me

11:03:28 [Zakim]

+MikeSmith; got it

11:03:31 [Zakim]

+??P9

11:03:45 [ArtB]

Present: Art, Mike, Claudio, Benoit, Arve

11:03:46 [arve]

zakim, ??PP9 is me

11:03:46 [Zakim]

sorry, arve, I do not recognize a party named '??PP9'

11:03:53 [Zakim]

+??P10

11:03:53 [arve]

zakim, ??P9 is me

11:03:54 [Zakim]

+arve; got it

11:04:06 [marcos]

zakim, ??P10 is me

11:04:06 [Zakim]

+marcos; got it

11:04:19 [ArtB]

Present+ Marcos

11:04:53 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

11:04:56 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

11:05:05 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Apr/0000.html

11:05:17 [ArtB]

Topic: Review Agenda

11:05:21 [MikeSmith]

Scribenick: ArtB

11:05:29 [ArtB]

AB: Mike made a request to talk about I18N

11:05:37 [ArtB]

AB: any objections?

11:05:39 [ArtB]

[None]

11:05:52 [ArtB]

AB: add it between #4 and #5

11:06:01 [ArtB]

Topic: Charter update

11:06:07 [ArtB]

AB: anything to report Mike?

11:06:38 [ArtB]

MS: I expect the Charter to be sent to the AC soon

11:06:52 [ArtB]

... I will notify this WG when that has been done

11:07:04 [ArtB]

Topic: VC schedule for April

11:07:27 [ArtB]

AB: next week I being a 5-wk period where I'll be traveling all or part of 4 weeks

11:07:50 [ArtB]

AB: cancel VCs on April 17 and 24

11:08:14 [ArtB]

AB: April 10 is "iffy" now

11:08:23 [MikeSmith]

[MikeSmith will also be in Beijing for AC meeting and WWW2008, April 19 to 26]

11:09:03 [ArtB]

AB: this would mean the next VC is May 1

11:09:20 [ArtB]

... any concerns?

11:10:00 [ArtB]

MC: I'm OK as long as today we record an OK to publish our docs

11:10:16 [ArtB]

CV: this is in-line with the moratorium, right?

11:10:18 [ArtB]

AB: yes

11:12:10 [ArtB]

Topic: Publication status and plans

11:12:34 [ArtB]

AB: status of reqs doc, Marcos?

11:13:09 [ArtB]

MC: it is ready but waiting for an input on the security model

11:13:38 [ArtB]

ABe: I now have approval to publish it and may be able to send it to the list today

11:14:11 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos, you may want to reflect some of Arve's input in the reqs doc?

11:14:13 [ArtB]

MC: yes

11:15:41 [ArtB]

AB: we need a 1-week review period after the spec is "ready for review"

11:17:02 [ArtB]

... tentative plan for Reqs is to start review on April 4 and end on April 11

11:17:34 [ArtB]

... if no objections or major problems raised, we will consider the doc ready for publishing

11:18:30 [ArtB]

Topic: Landscape document

11:18:37 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos, what is its status?

11:18:59 [ArtB]

MC: need to make some changes re Yahoo! engine

11:19:08 [ArtB]

... I can be done by tomorrow though

11:19:25 [ArtB]

AB: so we can start a 1-week review period on April 4?

11:19:31 [ArtB]

MC: yes

11:20:50 [ArtB]

AB: I propose that if no major issues are identified in the April 4 ED of the Landscape doc, that we request FPWD

11:20:57 [ArtB]

AB: any objections?

11:21:00 [ArtB]

[None]

11:21:42 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: if no major issues are identified in the April 4 ED of the Landscape do, we will request FPWD

11:22:19 [ArtB]

Topic: P&C status

11:22:28 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos, we do we stand?

11:22:44 [ArtB]

MC: I've done some more work on the Proc Model

11:22:54 [ArtB]

... I am also in the process of implementing the ProcMod

11:23:05 [ArtB]

... in Java using Xerces

11:23:19 [ArtB]

... will be ready to review on April 4

11:23:59 [ArtB]

AB: I'd like to get a new version published

11:24:38 [ArtB]

AB: any objections to starting a review on April 4 and if no major issues identified then we request formal pub on April 14?

11:24:44 [ArtB]

[None]

11:26:14 [ArtB]

Topic: Signatures doc

11:26:24 [ArtB]

MC: I responded to Hal's comments

11:26:34 [ArtB]

... I also asked the XML Security Maint WG for comments

11:26:46 [ArtB]

... I've written a Java impl and it seems to work

11:28:06 [ArtB]

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.

11:28:15 [ArtB]

AB: Any objections?

11:28:19 [ArtB]

[None]

11:29:06 [ArtB]

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

11:29:15 [ArtB]

Topic: API and Events

11:29:23 [ArtB]

AB: what is the status?

11:29:26 [ArtB]

MC: no change

11:29:34 [ArtB]

... it will not be ready to publish

11:30:15 [ArtB]

Topic: Issue #17 - Widgets: should Automatic Updates be included in v1.0?

11:30:27 [ArtB]

AB: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/17

11:30:56 [ArtB]

AB: status Marcos?

11:31:05 [ArtB]

MC: I created a separate document

11:31:26 [ArtB]

... not many changes since Oslo meeting (Aug 2007)

11:31:58 [ArtB]

... I think it is very useful and I am in favor of continuing the spec

11:32:08 [ArtB]

ABe: why is it included in the base spec?

11:33:04 [ArtB]

AB: a key question is dependencies

11:33:23 [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

11:33:39 [ArtB]

... e.g. would one need to implement Updates to implement P&C?

11:33:43 [ArtB]

MC: no, not yet

11:34:39 [ArtB]

BS: we can either state how the revision numbers work and the platform uses the data; otherwise we can define end-to-end

11:35:40 [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.

11:36:24 [ArtB]

AB: I think it is useful but I don't want the P&C spec have a dependency on the Updates

11:36:49 [ArtB]

ABe: in the mobile space, updates is complicated because different OTA mechanisms are used

11:37:22 [ArtB]

MC: I can investigate the various deployed models in the next rev of the Landscape

11:38:07 [ArtB]

BS: would it make sense to say udpates is in the level two specs

11:38:51 [marcos]

<update url = "dddddd" >

11:38:53 [ArtB]

MC: update spec could include a new element that would need to be in the P&C spec

11:39:21 [ArtB]

... the spec is written such that unknown elements are ignored

11:39:49 [ArtB]

MC: would like to have a decent model by June

11:40:15 [ArtB]

ABe: if we can't get a good proposal by then, it should be considered level two

11:41:53 [ArtB]

AB: so we could close this and say that without a good solid model, updates will be level 2

11:41:59 [ArtB]

MC: ok

11:42:05 [ArtB]

ABe: ok

11:42:34 [ArtB]

BS: maybe the spec needs clarification on the version

11:42:45 [ArtB]

... could provide a link to it

11:43:44 [ArtB]

MC: we discussed this a while ago with Ian Hickson; I'll track down that e-mail

11:44:34 [ArtB]

... Ultimately, I think the simple comparison model is good enough

11:45:11 [ArtB]

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

11:45:31 [ArtB]

MC: the current model is just about "is the version Different"

11:46:44 [ArtB]

BS: in our widget system we have some additional requirements

11:46:59 [ArtB]

... we have different scenarios

11:47:16 [ArtB]

ABe: I think your last scenario is about widget revocation

11:47:25 [ArtB]

... and I don't think that should be part of Updates

11:49:25 [ArtB]

CV: we do need some mechanism for Updates

11:49:46 [ArtB]

... and we don't have a strong preference for how it is done

11:50:41 [ArtB]

AB: I think we should leave this Issue open

11:50:41 [Benoit]

3 scenarios:

11:50:51 [ArtB]

MC: we need to discuss this at the f2f

11:50:59 [Benoit]

1- enw version but does not need to change the widget

11:51:23 [Benoit]

2- new version that allows the user to upgrade

11:51:53 [Benoit]

3- new version the requires the user to change and revoque the earlier versions

11:52:44 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: Issue #17 will remain OPEN for now

11:52:55 [ArtB]

Topic: I18N

11:53:34 [ArtB]

MS: Felix, Team contact for the I18N group raised an issue related to Widget localization

11:53:52 [ArtB]

MS: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Apr/0002.html

11:54:08 [ArtB]

MS: there isn't any info at all about how to localize a Widget

11:54:33 [ArtB]

... they think something is needed, even if Optional

11:54:57 [Benoit]

can they join the f2F?

11:55:00 [marcos]

Model for i18n.

11:55:01 [marcos]

If no config file is found in src (via content element) assume i18n mode.

11:55:03 [marcos]

use widget.locale (in RFC3086)

11:55:04 [ArtB]

... they are also willing to help; at least submit comments and provide guidance

11:55:04 [marcos]

search for folders that match window.locale at the mount point.

11:55:06 [marcos]

if match, match the start file in the i18n folder.

11:56:03 [MikeSmith]

q+ to respond to Benoit's question

11:57:16 [ArtB]

BS: will this be a declarative model?

11:57:38 [ArtB]

MC: no, it's an automatic model

11:58:17 [ArtB]

BS: with Vista, can have multiple config dirs

11:58:27 [ArtB]

MC: correct

12:00:07 [ArtB]

MS: Felix won't be in Dublin but maybe some others will be there because of XTech; we can also use a VC bridge

12:00:27 [ArtB]

... Yahoo's Addison is the Chair of the I18N WG

12:00:53 [ArtB]

... I wonder if the model Marcos proposed is consistent with Y!'s model

12:01:09 [ArtB]

... it would be good if Marcos could propose a model

12:01:19 [ArtB]

MC: there's some stuff in the Landscape doc

12:01:54 [ArtB]

AB: I'm tempted to create an Issue

12:01:59 [ArtB]

AB: any objections?

12:02:02 [ArtB]

[None]

12:02:33 [ArtB]

ISSUE: what is the Localization model for Widgets

12:03:22 [ArtB]

Topic: AOB

12:03:37 [ArtB]

AB: I'll notify everyone by April 7 if we will have a call on April 10

12:04:31 [ArtB]

AB: If it appears there will be an urgent need for a call April 10 and I cannot make, Mike can you Chair?

12:04:38 [ArtB]

MS: tentatively yes

12:05:02 [ArtB]

AB: I encourage everyone to review the 4 docs that will start formal review on April 4

12:06:11 [ArtB]

AB: meeting adjourned

12:06:55 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

12:06:55 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-waf-minutes.html ArtB

12:07:14 [Zakim]

-Caroline

12:07:21 [Zakim]

- +39.011.228.aaaa

12:08:08 [ArtB]

rrsagent, bye

12:08:08 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items