Widex WG Monday July 10, 66 IETF, Montreal
as reported by Dave Raggett, dsr@w3.org

Dean introduces the meeting and starts with the Agenda bash.
He reminds people to use the microphone as we may be being
streamed to a wider audience.

Dave asks if he can talk about HTTP bindings before REX.
Dean agrees to this.

Vlad launches into the presentation on the Widex Requirements.

It has gone through two revisions and has had no objections.
The next step is to send it to the IESG for publication,

ACTION Dean to forward the Widex Requirements to the IESG


Vlad moves onto the Widex Framework draft.

He summarizes the major updates:

 * which events have remote scope
 * clarifications on event listeners
 * clarifications on networked MVC model
     - real vs virtual view

There are 3 ways to indicate that events have remote scope

 * prior agreememt
 * negotiation at session setup, e.g. as a list of event names
 * Dynamic addition/removal during the session

The last led to the addition of a new Widex object called
WO.Selector.

Some UI markup languages don't include the means to indicate
at markup level for event bindings. This is why we defined
this new object.

A section has been added on processing external resources
such as images or sound. It is the responsibility of the
Widex Renderer to retrieve these.

 * references to external resources
 * synchronization with external resources

Next steps:

 * Add WO.* examples when next draft of REX is available
 * Add XML Processing parameters to the Service discovery
   section, e.g. encoding and charset
 * Are major things missing?

Can we consider adopting the draft framework as a Working
Group document?

Ted: Can't you reference the public version of REX and
update that as we move along?

Vlad: the unpublished version addresses the comments we
provided on the first public working draft.

Dean: when do you think the next draft will be published?

Dave: I will talk about this later

Vlad: Dave and I have done some implementation work and
it seems pretty effective.

Dean: there was quite a bit of discussion on the email list
and this has died down which is a good sign.

Eric: lets come back to the question of whether it is adopted
after we have heard about the status of REX.


We move on to the Vlad's presentation on a binding of Widex
to BEEP.


This is aimed at resource constrained devices. There is a one
to one relationship between BEEP messages and Widex objects.

Dean: is there a potential need to place multiple Widex objects
in the same BEEP message for efficiency?

Vlad: REX already provides a means to do that

Dean: do we really need a new URL scheme?

Vlad: BEEP doesn't define its own scheme and leaves that to
application specifications.

Vlad asks if external resources should be handled in band or
separately.

Ted: don't put them into the same channel, and in many cases
it would be appropriate to use different streams on other
protocols. BEEP makes it easy to multiplex channels.

Dave Blacker <??> and Andy Newton <andy@hxr.us> would be good
people to review this as they have done some recent work with
BEEP and are familiar with other BEEP applications.

Dean talks about two approaches to making documents WG documents.
One is to do it early as a sign of concensus and to solicit
review, the other is to wait until it is nearly finished.

What does the Director recommend?

Lisa: it seems that Vlad has a preference for the former

Vlad: does it need to wait until there are implementations?

No, early review is valuable, even before implementations.

We then went into a discussion of pipelining in BEEP. It seems
that BEEP supports pipelining naturally, but it is advisable
to use multiple channels to avoid a large resource blocking
a smaller resource. Using separate channels avoids this.

Dean suggests a large SVG document as an example.

Vlad: if the UI markup includes a reference to an SVG resource
then it is treated as a external resource and should be handled
as such via a separate channel.

If the resource is included in the UI markup then it can slow
down loading.

Vlad asks if the document is ready to be adopted as a WG document?

Dean asks Eric for his opinion.

ACTION: Dean to raise an email poll on adoption of BEEP profile
as a Widex WG document

.... at this point Vlad took over minute taking