IRC log of wam on 2009-04-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:59:44 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wam
12:59:44 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-irc
12:59:51 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make log public
12:59:54 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
12:59:57 [Zakim]: -Art_Barstow
12:59:59 [Zakim]: +Art_Barstow
13:00:05 [ArtB]: Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:00:09 [ArtB]: ScribeNick: ArtB
13:00:11 [ArtB]: Scribe: Art
13:00:14 [ArtB]: Chair: Art
13:00:17 [darobin]: Zakim, IPcaller is me
13:00:17 [Zakim]: +darobin; got it
13:00:22 [ArtB]: Date: 23 April 2009
13:00:30 [fjh]: fjh has joined #wam
13:00:30 [Zakim]: +??P16
13:00:50 [ArtB]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0258.html
13:01:07 [ArtB]: zakim, ??P16 is David
13:01:07 [Zakim]: +David; got it
13:01:16 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
13:01:25 [fjh]: zakim, [IPcaller] is fjh
13:01:25 [Zakim]: +fjh; got it
13:01:29 [fjh]: zakim, who is here?
13:01:29 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Art_Barstow, darobin, David, fjh
13:01:30 [Zakim]: On IRC I see fjh, RRSAgent, drogersuk, Zakim, darobin, ArtB, ArtB_, MikeSmith, heycam, anne, timeless, shepazu, trackbot
13:01:34 [Marcos]: Marcos has joined #wam
13:01:45 [darobin]: Zakim, who's making noise?
13:01:48 [mpriestl]: mpriestl has joined #wam
13:01:52 [abraun]: abraun has joined #wam
13:01:55 [Zakim]: darobin, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 4 (4%), fjh (27%)
13:02:04 [fjh]: i just muted
13:02:11 [Zakim]: +Arve/Marcos
13:02:14 [Zakim]: + +1.919.536.aaaa
13:02:16 [ArtB]: Present: Art, Frederick, David, Robin, Marcos, Mark, Arve
13:02:20 [fjh]: s/i just muted//
13:02:23 [arve_]: arve_ has joined #wam
13:02:24 [ArtB]: Present+ Andy
13:02:32 [arve_]: zakim, who is here?
13:02:36 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Art_Barstow, darobin, David, fjh, Arve/Marcos, +1.919.536.aaaa
13:02:44 [Zakim]: On IRC I see arve_, abraun, mpriestl, Marcos, fjh, RRSAgent, drogersuk, Zakim, darobin, ArtB, ArtB_, MikeSmith, heycam, anne, timeless, shepazu, trackbot
13:02:55 [Zakim]: + +44.771.751.aabb
13:03:05 [Zakim]: + +49.208.40.aacc
13:03:10 [ArtB]: Present+ Marcin
13:03:22 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
13:03:28 [ArtB]: Present+ Andrew
13:03:38 [ArtB]: Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:03:48 [ArtB]: AB: we will drop 3a. and 3c. since consensus for both of these was achieved via email after I posted the agenda. Will add a new agenda item about ECDSA. Are there any other change requests?
13:04:29 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:04:35 [ArtB]: Topic: Announcements
13:04:44 [ArtB]: AB: Please remember to register for the London F2F meeting June 9-11 (http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42538/WidgetsLondonJune2009/).
13:05:04 [ArtB]: AB: the first voice conference of the Widgets Updates PAG is tentative scheduled for 13:00 Boston time on April 28 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-widgets-pag/2009Apr/0002.html) but Rigo Wenning hasn't yet confirmed that call.
13:05:25 [ArtB]: AB: any other annoucements?
13:05:30 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:05:51 [ArtB]: Topic: DigSig: comments by Mark
13:06:15 [fjh]: q+
13:06:16 [ArtB]: AB: on April 7 Mark submitted a relatively long list of comments (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0070.html). Frederick and Marcos responded. If addressing any of these comments could benefit from some discussion today, we can allocate some time. Frederick, what's the status?
13:06:44 [fjh]: q-
13:06:58 [ArtB]: FH: I think we've reached consensus on most comments
13:07:07 [ArtB]: ... one issue is sig file
13:07:18 [ArtB]: ... I use "widget sig" rather than file
13:07:38 [ArtB]: ... I think both usages makes the most sense depending on context
13:07:53 [ArtB]: MP: I agree most comments have been addressed
13:08:14 [ArtB]: ... but I still need to do some review
13:08:35 [asledd]: asledd has joined #wam
13:09:06 [ArtB]: AB: let's drop this topic for today and take any followups on the mail list
13:09:12 [ArtB]: Topic: DigSig: ECDSA and v1
13:09:24 [ArtB]: AB: the ECDSA issue (captured reasonably well as Issue #81 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/81) is still open. The latest ED does two related things: 1) it includes a note that requests feedback on ECDSA; 2) it also does NOT mandate ECDSA as one of the Signature Algorithms (and thus is a departure from latest WD of XML Signature 1.1). Today there was more discussion on this (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0279.html). One q
13:11:04 [ArtB]: FH: I think we need some text about it
13:11:09 [ArtB]: ... we cannot ignore it
13:11:19 [ArtB]: ... but we don't know what XML Sig 1.1 will decide
13:11:28 [ArtB]: ... using SHOULD may be a good way forward
13:11:48 [ArtB]: ... their risks with other algorightms so having an alternative to consider
13:11:51 [drogersuk]: I agree with FJH
13:11:56 [ArtB]: ... I do agree MUST is too strong
13:12:00 [ArtB]: DR: I agree with FH
13:12:19 [Marcos]: +q
13:12:20 [ArtB]: ... failure to indicate a roadmap is not a good path to take
13:12:32 [ArtB]: MC: I understand the concerns here
13:13:01 [ArtB]: ... if company X implements all of the algs except ECDSA and then they get a widget with ECDSA, there is a prob
13:13:18 [fjh]: q?
13:13:21 [fjh]: q+
13:13:21 [ArtB]: ... if SHOULD is used it will effectively make it required for the implementors
13:13:33 [ArtB]: ... it is expensive to implement to implement all of these algs
13:13:52 [ArtB]: ... perhaps for v1.1. we could add support for new algs
13:14:10 [ArtB]: ... would like some real proof there is real market demand for EC
13:14:24 [ArtB]: ... but without that evidence I don't support including it
13:14:37 [ArtB]: ... think it should either be MUST or not in the spec at all
13:14:48 [ArtB]: DR: I understand your concerns Marcos
13:15:12 [ArtB]: ... need to try to forsee future issues with a limited set
13:15:26 [ArtB]: ... VF have made it clear they see it on their roadmap
13:16:51 [ArtB]: FH: I understand the issues with switching suites
13:17:05 [drogersuk]: q+
13:17:05 [ArtB]: ... we are following this in XML Sec WG
13:17:15 [ArtB]: ... we see a demand from US gov't at least
13:17:20 [ArtB]: MC: OK, that's good information
13:17:29 [ArtB]: ... and in that case, perhaps it should be a MUST
13:17:47 [ArtB]: FH: in XML Sec WG we are leaning toward a MUST but IPR is an issue
13:17:58 [ArtB]: ... think SHOULD would be a good indicator
13:18:53 [ArtB]: AB: agree SHOULD would be a reasonable compromise
13:19:33 [ArtB]: ... we need to make it clear we want feedback from Implementors as well as Developers
13:19:48 [ArtB]: MP: as I said on the list list, we think SHOULD is the best thing for now
13:19:50 [fjh]: s/but IPR is an issue/but are considering various concerns /
13:19:59 [ArtB]: ... we can't use MUST at this point in time
13:20:46 [ArtB]: MC: so let's go with SHOULD
13:21:17 [ArtB]: AB: any additional comments?
13:21:20 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:21:24 [fjh]: ECDSAwithSHA256
13:21:58 [drogersuk]: q-
13:22:07 [fjh]: q-
13:22:27 [ArtB]: AB: propose a resolution: we will add ECDSA support as a SHOULD in the Widgets DigSig spec
13:22:27 [fjh]: proposed resolution - add ECDSAwithSHA256 as should in widgets digsig
13:22:34 [fjh]: fine
13:22:38 [fjh]: s/fine//
13:22:45 [ArtB]: AB: any objections to my proposal?
13:22:47 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:23:06 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: we will add ECDSAwithSHA256 as a SHOULD in the Widgets DigSig spec
13:23:42 [ArtB]: Topic: DigSig: getting ready for Last Call
13:23:55 [fjh]: q+
13:23:55 [ArtB]: AB: the basic question is what, specifically, needs to be done before this spec is "feature-complete" and hence for Last Call WD publication? Frederick responded to this yesterday (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0261.html).
13:24:45 [ArtB]: FH: one question is how to work this with Sig Properties spec
13:24:57 [ArtB]: ... not sure how to work this out as a Chair
13:25:06 [ArtB]: ... maybe we take this offline
13:25:33 [ArtB]: AB: my gut feel is your WG should publish Sig Properties
13:25:44 [ArtB]: FH: we probably want a single annoucement
13:26:12 [ArtB]: ACTION: Barstow work with Frederick re synching Signature Properties spec with Widgets DigSig spec
13:26:12 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-335 - Work with Frederick re synching Signature Properties spec with Widgets DigSig spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-30].
13:26:24 [fjh]: agree, xml security should publish signature properties. need to coordinate however.
13:26:38 [ArtB]: AB: are we Feature Complete?
13:26:56 [ArtB]: FH: I don't think the reqs are in synch with the Reqs doc
13:27:21 [ArtB]: MC: the problem is the links point to the ED rather then what is /TR/
13:27:33 [ArtB]: ... we fix this when we publish these two docs in /TR/
13:28:27 [ArtB]: AB: my recommendation is that when we publish the LCWD of DigSig we also at the same time publish a new Reqs doc
13:28:55 [ArtB]: AB: are we done with functionality?
13:28:58 [ArtB]: FH: I think yes
13:29:03 [mpriestl]: +1
13:29:06 [ArtB]: MC: yes
13:29:09 [ArtB]: MP: yes
13:29:23 [darobin]: +1 on top of mpriestl
13:29:30 [ArtB]: RB: yes
13:30:05 [ArtB]: MP: yes, just need to update ECDSA
13:30:23 [fjh]: need to add ECDSA, possibly other minor editorial tweaks
13:30:51 [ArtB]: AB: propose Resolution: the Widgets Digital Signature spec is Feature Complete; we will not add any new functionality
13:31:09 [ArtB]: AB: any comments on that proposal?
13:31:13 [ArtB]: AB: any objections?
13:31:16 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:31:43 [ArtB]: DR: how would this affect schedule?
13:31:53 [ArtB]: MC: I think this would put us ahead of scheudle
13:32:12 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, call Mike
13:32:13 [Zakim]: ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
13:32:14 [Zakim]: +Mike
13:32:23 [ArtB]: Present+ Mike
13:32:24 [fjh]: please indicate the dates so that I can work with XML Security WG to publish Signature Properties
13:32:38 [ArtB]: AB: we never agreed on specific dates but talked about LCWD in April and CR in June
13:33:02 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: the Widgets Digital Signature spec is Feature Complete; we will not add any new functionality
13:33:05 [fjh]: so I will ask XML Security WG to agre to publish Signature Properties next week in XML Security WG call
13:33:19 [arve]: we'll dial in anew
13:33:39 [Zakim]: -Arve/Marcos
13:33:41 [ArtB]: AB: I will start a new discussion on when to publish the LC of DigSig
13:34:13 [Zakim]: -fjh
13:34:21 [arve]: we can't seem to dial in again
13:34:21 [ArtB]: AB: that's it for DigSig for today. Thanks again FH for your great work here!
13:34:38 [mpriestl]: + 1 on the thanks to fjh
13:34:44 [fjh]: thanks, thanks Mark, Marcos
13:34:46 [fjh]: as well
13:35:50 [ArtB]: Topic: P&C: Dropping screenshot
13:35:58 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos proposed (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0197.html) dropping screenshot for v1 and has already added it to the V2 feature list (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets2_UC%26R). My recollection is all comments on this proposal were positive. Does anyone object to this proposal?
13:36:00 [Zakim]: -Mike
13:36:10 [MikeSmith]: ArtB: try again now
13:36:38 [ArtB]: AB: any objections to dropping screenshot?
13:36:40 [ArtB]: RB: no
13:36:54 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: screenshot will not be in v1 (already added to the v2 feature list)
13:37:00 [MikeSmith]: Marcos: is it a local phone problem? or a problem with Zakim?
13:37:13 [MikeSmith]: arve: trying calling back in now, if you can
13:37:21 [Zakim]: +??P11
13:37:47 [ArtB]: Topic: P&C: <access> element
13:37:56 [ArtB]: AB: Robin made a short proposal several weeks ago (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0943.html). There has been a little follow-up on the mail list but certainly no consensus on a solution. This is one of the major open issues that is blocking the publication of a new LCWD.
13:37:57 [MikeSmith]: is P11 arve and Marcos ?
13:38:03 [Marcos]: zakim, ??P11 is me
13:38:03 [Zakim]: +Marcos; got it
13:38:16 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, call Mike
13:38:16 [Zakim]: ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
13:38:18 [Zakim]: +Mike
13:38:27 [ArtB]: AB: Robin, where are we on this?
13:38:45 [ArtB]: RB: I think we do have consensus, the issue is on the wording
13:38:57 [ArtB]: ... I will create some tighter wording
13:39:10 [ArtB]: ... but feature wise, the comments have been positive i.e. at the right level
13:39:27 [ArtB]: AB: has your proposal been added to the ED?
13:39:29 [ArtB]: RB: yes
13:39:45 [ArtB]: AB: what's the next step?
13:39:54 [mpriestl]: q+
13:39:57 [ArtB]: RB: there really is no next step
13:40:04 [ArtB]: ... just need to fix the wording
13:40:13 [ArtB]: AB: any comments?
13:40:21 [ArtB]: MP: I support the current proposal
13:40:35 [Zakim]: +Arve/Marcos
13:40:40 [Zakim]: -Marcos
13:40:47 [ArtB]: ... there were some comments from BONDI
13:40:48 [mpriestl]: * The User Agent's security policy MAY prevent network access by the Widget to an IRI that does belong to the set of target IRIs.
13:41:23 [ArtB]: MP: my understanding of the current proposal is the above should be a MUST
13:42:13 [ArtB]: ... rather than the MAY
13:42:45 [ArtB]: RB: I'm not sure I understand
13:43:17 [ArtB]: MP: I'll need to go back and re-read it
13:43:48 [ArtB]: AS: the sec policy may be more restrictive about IRI access then the P+C's access element
13:43:58 [ArtB]: MP: yes, I agree with that
13:44:08 [ArtB]: ... and hence the BONDI statement is correct
13:44:52 [ArtB]: AB: Arve, Marcos - do you have any comments about the access element?
13:45:00 [ArtB]: MC: no, we still need to review it
13:45:16 [ArtB]: ... it appears to be a bit thin; may not cover all of the UCs we have in mind
13:46:01 [ArtB]: AB: please, everyone, send all comments re <access> ASAP!
13:46:09 [ArtB]: AB: anything else on this topic?
13:46:34 [ArtB]: RB: what's the status of Thomas on this proposal?
13:46:43 [ArtB]: s/RB: what/AB: what/
13:47:02 [ArtB]: RB: he may have some issues; not clear yet
13:47:19 [ArtB]: Topic: P&C: Localization proposal from Marcos
13:47:34 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos submitted a comprehensive localization proposal (http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets/i18n.html) several weeks ago. The amount of feedback has been very low yet this is a major open issue that is blocking the publication of a new LCWD. Currently, only me, Jere and Marcos have expressed their opinions on the various proposals thus I'd like to hear from other people.
13:48:37 [ArtB]: AB: what do people think about this proposal from Marcos?
13:48:44 [ArtB]: [ Silence ]
13:48:58 [mpriestl]: (sorry I have to leave the call)
13:49:01 [Zakim]: - +44.771.751.aabb
13:49:02 [ArtB]: AB: one interpretation of silence is agreement with Marcos
13:49:08 [ArtB]: AS: I haven't reviewed it yet
13:49:25 [ArtB]: AB: we need feedback ASAP
13:49:41 [ArtB]: AS: yes, I understand the priority
13:50:06 [ArtB]: MC: what's the next step?
13:50:18 [ArtB]: s/MC: what/AB: what/
13:50:39 [ArtB]: MC: I think we need more feedback
13:51:28 [ArtB]: ACTION: barstow seek comments from WG members on Marcos' L10N proposal
13:51:28 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-336 - Seek comments from WG members on Marcos' L10N proposal [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-30].
13:52:00 [ArtB]: AB: we can spend a lot of time on this today
13:52:02 [ArtB]: MC: that would be good
13:53:00 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos, lead us thru A1 and A2
13:54:06 [ArtB]: MC: A1 has no support for sub-lang tags i.e. it does not support BCP47 and its lookup mechanism
13:54:19 [ArtB]: ... A2 supports BCP47 lookup
13:55:02 [ArtB]: ... A2 will reduce the amount of content that must be localized, particulary if there are multiple levels of sublants
13:55:11 [ArtB]: s/sublants/sublangs/
13:55:27 [ArtB]: AB: so there is an efficiency tradeoff here, right?
13:55:30 [ArtB]: MC: yes
13:55:54 [ArtB]: MC: Jere and Josh both proposed A2 model
13:56:05 [ArtB]: ... note that A2 is already in the P+C spec
13:56:20 [ArtB]: AB: any comments on A1 versus A2?
13:56:25 [ArtB]: MC: I prefer A2
13:57:50 [ArtB]: AB: I think we should give people one more week i.e. until April 30 to provide input
13:58:00 [ArtB]: ... During the Apr 30 call we will decide on each proposal
13:58:14 [ArtB]: MC: what if there is disagreement on the 30th
13:58:27 [ArtB]: AB: a decision will be made on all of these by the 30th, if not earlier
13:58:49 [ArtB]: MC: David, can we get any feedback from BONDI on the L10N model?
13:59:13 [ArtB]: DR: there hasn't been any discussion to this yet
13:59:25 [ArtB]: ... when do you need feedback?
13:59:31 [ArtB]: AB: April 30 is the deadline
14:00:14 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos, can you provide a short description of B1 and B2?
14:00:39 [ArtB]: MC: B1 proposes the UA's locale can be a list of locales
14:00:55 [ArtB]: ... B2 proposes the UA just have a single locale
14:01:28 [ArtB]: ... HTTP supports multiple languages
14:01:50 [ArtB]: ... The basic question is: does the UA support one lang or a list of languages?
14:02:21 [ArtB]: AB: any comments on B1 vs B2?
14:03:10 [ArtB]: AS: so one use case is about knowing which langs a UA supports?
14:03:12 [ArtB]: MC: yes
14:04:01 [ArtB]: AS: I would expect the UA to have a single language but a widget could be localized in many diff languages
14:04:16 [ArtB]: s/a single language/a single locale/
14:04:23 [ArtB]: ... could then use prefs to manage this
14:05:21 [ArtB]: ... I can understand a UA support multiple locales but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it
14:07:54 [ArtB]: AB: yesterday I suggested we need some more reqs work and some more UC's to understand why need this stuff http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0269.html
14:08:04 [ArtB]: ... will you reply to my comments?
14:09:04 [ArtB]: MC: I think you have some good comments
14:09:18 [ArtB]: ... we need to get this done as soon as possible
14:09:32 [ArtB]: AB: yes, agree. But I also heard Andrew asking for some UCs too
14:09:57 [ArtB]: AS: yes; some UCs and Reqs would be helpful in understanding the problems we are trying to solve
14:10:27 [ArtB]: MC: some of the proposals do go beyond what current engines do today
14:11:44 [ArtB]: AB: I get concerned about the complexity here for v1
14:12:19 [ArtB]: ... we seem to be moving from codifying the existing cow paths to building a new super highway
14:13:04 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos, would you please give us a summary of the C* proposals?
14:13:27 [ArtB]: MC: these about resolving te widget's locale
14:13:39 [ArtB]: s/resolving/deriving/
14:14:41 [ArtB]: ... diff between C1 and C2 is the order of searching for the widget's locale
14:15:32 [ArtB]: AB: I hope that is clear to everyone; any questions?
14:15:54 [ArtB]: AB: what about the D* proposals?
14:17:34 [ArtB]: MC: these three proposals are about how to represent the widget's locale
14:17:52 [ArtB]: ... my preference is D2
14:18:06 [ArtB]: AB: any comments or questions on these 3 D proposals?
14:20:23 [ArtB]: [ Discussion between Andrew and Marcos about D2 and various scenarios ... ]
14:20:58 [ArtB]: AB: can we get a short intro to E, F and G proposals?
14:21:33 [ArtB]: MC: E proposals are about XML Base and whether we use XML Base itself or our own emulation of it
14:22:00 [ArtB]: AB: I agree E1 seems reasonable to me
14:22:15 [ArtB]: AS: does that apply to all URIs?
14:22:15 [ArtB]: MC: yes
14:22:20 [ArtB]: AS: OK; that's good
14:23:25 [ArtB]: MC: F proposal addresses the "missing content" problem
14:24:05 [ArtB]: ... F1 uses root directory in search; F2 does not use root
14:24:15 [Zakim]: -Mike
14:24:52 [ArtB]: ... My preference is F1
14:25:01 [ArtB]: AB: yes, F1 seems reasonable to me
14:25:19 [ArtB]: ... I think it works with the principle of least surprise
14:25:48 [ArtB]: AB: please introduce G1 and G2 Marcos
14:26:15 [billyjackass]: billyjackass has joined #wam
14:27:03 [ArtB]: MC: this is similar to F proposals but if the lookup is using URIs
14:27:32 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:27:32 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:29:10 [ArtB]: Topic: Window Modes spec: status and plans
14:29:21 [Marcos]: zakim, mute me
14:29:21 [Zakim]: sorry, Marcos, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:30:14 [Marcos]: zakim, who is making noise?
14:30:16 [ArtB]: AB: Robin, what is your level of interest here?
14:30:26 [Zakim]: Marcos, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: darobin (15%), +1.919.536.aaaa (11%)
14:30:33 [ArtB]: RB: unless someone wants to lead this, I will start working on it next week
14:31:11 [ArtB]: MC: we are interested and willing to collaborate on anyone that wants to lead it
14:31:39 [ArtB]: AB: I think the plan is for Robin to start working on this spec next week and for MC to help
14:31:44 [ArtB]: ... is that right?
14:31:49 [ArtB]: MC: yes
14:31:54 [ArtB]: RB: yes
14:32:14 [arve]: Zakim, who is making noise?
14:32:25 [Zakim]: arve, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (28%), Art_Barstow (40%)
14:32:33 [ArtB]: AB: meeting adjourned
14:32:46 [Zakim]: -darobin
14:32:51 [Zakim]: -Art_Barstow
14:32:52 [Zakim]: -Arve/Marcos
14:32:52 [Zakim]: -David
14:32:55 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:32:55 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:32:56 [Zakim]: - +49.208.40.aacc
14:33:06 [darobin]: it's like Zakim has a double call notification or something
14:33:16 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller]
14:36:44 [ArtB_]: zakim, bye
14:36:44 [Zakim]: leaving. As of this point the attendees were Art_Barstow, darobin, David, fjh, Arve/Marcos, +1.919.536.aaaa, +44.771.751.aabb, +49.208.40.aacc, [IPcaller], Mike, Marcos
14:36:44 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #wam
14:38:24 [Marcos]: Marcos has joined #wam
14:50:24 [MoZ]: MoZ has joined #wam
15:25:37 [anne]: anne has joined #wam
15:27:07 [billyjackass]: billyjackass has joined #wam
15:44:57 [annevk]: annevk has joined #wam
15:57:22 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, bye
15:57:22 [RRSAgent]: I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-actions.rdf :
15:57:22 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Barstow work with Frederick re synching Signature Properties spec with Widgets DigSig spec [1]
15:57:22 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-irc#T13-26-12
15:57:22 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: barstow seek comments from WG members on Marcos' L10N proposal [2]
15:57:22 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-irc#T13-51-28