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