W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

[widgets] Minutes from 11 September 2008 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:31:54 -0400
Message-Id: <8AE45312-C59A-418F-A883-A91215E677D1@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

The minutes from the September 11 Widgets f2f meeting are available  
at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before September 18 (next Widets  
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

11 Sep 2008


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-wam-irc


           Art, Arve, Marcos, Mike, Benoit, Josh

           Claudio, Bryan, Thomas




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda Review
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Requirement Document
          4. [8]is next publication of the Requirements doc another Last
             Call or a _plain_ WD?
          5. [9]Core API and Events spec
          6. [10]Automatic Update Status
      * [11]Summary of Action Items

    Date: 11 September 2008

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

Agenda Review

    AB: agenda posted yesterday:
    ... regarding V2/NG features for Widgets, Claudio won't be here
    today and asked me to postpone the discussion until next week
    ... any problems with that?

      [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    ABe: no

    MC: no


    AB: I was hoping for a BONDI Widgets update but Marcos said they are
    meeting this week
    ... I'll add that to next week's agenda
    ... Marcos was contacted by the Mobile Web Test Suites WG regarding
    Widgets test suite

    MC: MWTS WG would like to help other WGs with their test suites
    ... they have identified Widgets as a potential candidate
    ... Discussions are still preliminary
    ... For the first step, I've asked Dom to look at the spec from a
    "test-ability" viewpoint
    ... If there is anything we can do in the spec itself to facilitate
    testing, we want to know that now and reflect it in the spec

    AB: this is great Marcos
    ... I told Dom we are very interested in engaging MWTS WG

    MC: Arve, how does this sound to you?

    ABe: it would be best if I was able to get someone from our QA team

    AB: I'll do the same

Requirement Document

    AB: what is the status on the LC comments, Marcos?

    MC: waiting for confirmation from Kryztof
    ... also Josh
    ... also I18N WG
    ... also Bryan and MWBP WG

    AB: so that is quite a few loops to close

    MC: I gave the MWBP WG a deadline (think it was end of this week)

    AB: Bryan submitted some comments about the Closing of Issue #17
    ... To me, proxy support could be a candidate for the V2/NG feature
    ... Would that make sense?

    MC: yes that would make sense to me, especially if it will keep the
    doc from being blocked

    AB: in general, I don't want to re-open Closed Issues unless there
    is large consensus among the people that closed the issue that new
    input/evidence suggests we re-open

    <MikeSmith> (I agree about not re-opening closed issues.. it's one
    of the worst things that a WG can decide to do.)

    MS: I agree with Art's comment about not re-opening Closed Issues
    ... it has caused large problems for some WGs
    ... Re-opening issues will delay our specs and hence implementations
    ... This inevitably will result in some people not being happy.
    ... Unfortuantely that will happen but we also need to be cognizant
    about schedule.
    ... That said, we do need to keep track of all feature requests
    ... and such requests to the V2/NG list.

    <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to weigh in on V2 feature-list idea

    MC: I agree with what Mike said
    ... in the case of the proxy, I don't view it as a feature.
    ... I don't think we can spec the proxy input as Bryan proposed it.

    <timelyx> "oops"

    AB: other than chasing the commentors, is there any other work that
    needs to be done?

    MC: no; I think the document is ready for a new publication

is next publication of the Requirements doc another Last Call or a
_plain_ WD?

    MC: I want to go straight to another LC

    AB: my take on the Process Document is we need to publish another WD
    before a LC doc

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return- 

    BS: what are the major diffs?
    ... between the 1st LC and what we now have in the latest ED

    MC: the changes are "pretty significant"
    ... we could do another WD and then a LC but I don't think we'll get
    much feedback during that time frame
    ... People won't submit comments until another LC is published

    BS: I agree

    AB: I agree as well but I wonder if the process people will raise an

    JS: could we just have a short review period for the WD?

    BS: yes, I think we can do that
    ... Is there a minimum review period?

    MS: I don't think so but 2-3 weeks is typical
    ... most people wait until the last day
    ... to submit comments
    ... It is very important to stick to the deadline for comments

    MC: what if we publish a new WD ASAP and have just a 2-3 week review
    ... and then on October 2, publish the LC

    BS: so a WD would have just a 2-week review period

    AB: In Turin we said we wanted the LC to end on Oct 13
    ... If the LC has a 3-wk review period it would then have to
    published on Sept 22
    ... That would then mean we could ony have a 1-week review period
    for the WD, assuming it was published on Sep 15
    ... having a 1-wk review period seems a bit odd

    BS: agree, but I think Marcos has done a good job of answering all

    <marcos> :)

    AB: Mike, what do you think?

    MS: I think this plan is OK
    ... We should do whatever it takes to make the Mandelieu f2f meeting
    as productive as possible

    MC: what is the point of the 2nd Last Call?

    BS: I assume those that submitted comments

    MC: but they have already received confirmation from them that we
    have addressed their comments

    AB: another proposal would be to just have no _plain_ WD and a LC
    with a 4-week review period
    ... Mike, can we do that?

    MS: we would need to provide some rationale

    AB: the PD says "In the case of substantive changes, the Working
    Group MUST republish the technical report as a Working Draft."
    ... in section 7.4.6

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return- 

    MC: we want to be as productive as possible

    AB: Mike what do you recommend?

    <marcos> "A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

    <marcos> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its
    relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or
    requirements document) in the Working Draft;

    <marcos> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied
    significant dependencies with other groups;

    <marcos> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that
    these dependencies have been satisfied.

    <marcos> "

    MS: we can review the PD here as a guide and not be overly
    ... I think we can just publish a new 2nd LC WD
    ... without a new _plain_ WD
    ... But we must make sure the LC addresses all of the comments that
    were submitted by the deadline for LC #1

    AB: propose we do not publish a _plain_ WD and make the next
    publication the 2nd LC
    ... any objections?

    BS: no

    MC: no

    ABe: no

    MS: no

    JS: no

    RESOLUTION: we will not publish a _plain_ WD; our next publication
    will be LC #2

    AB: what date are we shooting for?

    MC: September 15

    <MikeSmith> (ideally, anybody who submitted comments on the LC draft
    should be directly contacted -- with a CC to the list -- that we
    have published an updated draft)

    AB: actually, I will neded to send a notification to the Chairs list

Core API and Events spec

    AB: what's the status

    ABe: I think the Sep 15 deadline I provided in Turin is still mostly
    ... I am adding some input
    ... have a question about all of the properties

    MC: I am wondering if rather than a list of props we use some type
    of Get and Set methods

    ABe: regarding the Window interface, we have an open issue

    <marcos> MC: I will spec that linkage between the default properties
    and the Widget interface (hence bridging the two specs so that the
    correct properties from the correct config doc are loaded).

    ABe: using Web IDL, I don't know how to associate the relationship
    between the Window interface and the Widget interface

    <arve> I'm not seeing any way in WebIDL where I can express that
    WindoWidget extends the Window interface, rather than replacing it

    MC: does Web IDL have a notion of extends?

    ABe: not really

    <marcos> interface WindowWidget extends Window{ .... }

    ABe: for the purposes of what we need
    ... I will contact Cam about this

    JS: do we really need to clearly specify this?
    ... could prose be sufficient?

    ABe: we could do that
    ... but in practice, I think it should be more explicit, especially
    for implementors

    AB: how do we get consenus here?

    <timelyx> I think we don't want interface declarations to bind an
    interface to a specific other interface

    <timelyx> because it excludes the ability to bind it to some other

    <timelyx> what we should want is an independent declarative

    <timelyx> Window supports WindowWidget;

    <timelyx> so that someone elsewhere could write:

    <timelyx> MyObject supports WindowWidget;

    <timelyx> and this is really independent of the definition of
    WindowWidget, enabling others to later make similar statements for
    other objects.

    ABe: this is probably good
    ... but should we ask Cam to express this in Web IDL
    ... It would be better to express this in Web IDL than in prose
    ... I will follow-up with Cam

Automatic Update Status

    AB: what's the pub plan?

    MC: I want to publish this ASAP

    AB: propose we publish FPWD of the Automatic Update spec as soon as
    it is pub ready
    ... any objections?

    ABe: I have plenty of issues with the doc but no objections to
    publishing it as is as the FPWD

    BS: no

    JS: no objections to FPWD

    RESOLUTION: we approve the FPWD of the Automatic Updates spec as is

    ABe: when is the publication moratorium?

    AB: not sure but I'll let you know
    ... Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 12:32:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:12 UTC