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

[widgets] Minutes from 18 September 2008 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:23:52 -0400
Message-Id: <0C6F6D6F-3595-471B-A2A0-9E605E4B36B8@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

The minutes from the September 18 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 25 (next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                            18 September 2008

18 Sep 2008


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-wam-irc


           Art, Arve, Claudio, Richard_Tibbett(Orange), Josh,
           David_Rogers, Benoit, Marcos, Mike





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda Review
          2. [6]OMTP Dependency
          3. [7]Annoucements
          4. [8]Requirement #1 LC
          5. [9]Core API & Events Status
          6. [10]Status of Automatic Updates spec
          7. [11]Proposal to Rename the Widget specs
          8. [12]Widgets V2/NextGen Feature List
          9. [13]etag attr
         10. [14]AOB
      * [15]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

    Date: 18 September 2008

Agenda Review

    AB: Agenda is:
    ... any changes?

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


OMTP Dependency

    DR: how to we proceed with OMTP's Dependency input?

    AB: we can discuss that on the mail list since it is directed to the
    P&C spec

    DR: I'm OK with using the mail list to discuss

    RT: OK with me too

    MC: do you think the reqs are OK in this regard?

    DR: yes

    RT: can I start a discussion about Dependencies now on the mail

    MC: yes; comments at any time on any spec are always welcome


    RT: he was OMTP's author for the dependency input
    ... he works at Orange

    AB: can we get a short update of the BONDI highlights from last
    week's meeting?

    DR: I can try to send something out by the end of the week
    ... We need to update the BONDI doc to reflect the latest Widgets
    work that has been done
    ... We will continue to work on the DigSig spec; mostly via Mark
    ... If Marcos needs some help, please ask us

Requirement #1 LC

    <drogersuk> OMTP are happy to offer assistance to webapps during the
    XML digital signature discussions

    AB: what remains to be done to get the LC #1 DoC doc up-to-date

    MC: I just need to align the document with the latest emails on the
    ... Still need to get some feedback from the MWBP
    ... They haven't replied to my deadline with any objections
    ... They can of course submit comments for LC #2
    ... The DoC doc is 90% complete.

    AB: I want to complete the DoC #1 doc before we start the LC #2
    review period

Core API & Events Status

    AB: during Turin we agreed to publish this doc in September
    ... What's the status?

    Arve: what remains to be done
    ... the update event

    and one of the features

    AB: the latest ED is [17]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

      [17] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

    MC: what do you need to define the states?

    Arve: I'll need to check the P&C spec
    ... I think I have the info I need (from P&C)

    AB: what about the Icons issue?

    Arve: I'm not comfortable with our current level of support but we
    can live with this as an open issue for FPWD

    AB: what about the WindowWidget Interface issue?

    Arve: I talked to Cameron about this

    <timeless> zakim +??P14 is marcos

    Arve: we may need to add some related text to the P&C spec

    AB: do we need to make the link before FPWD?

    MC: no, I don't think so

    Arve: I agree with Marcos

    AB: I think it would be good to provide a bit more detail about the
    Issues identified in the spec

    Arve: what is the process for agreeing on FPWD?

    AB: we need to record an agreement to publish
    ... I propose we publish the API and Event Editor's Draft as a FPWD
    ... any objections?


    CV: I'd like a clarification about message exchange between widgets
    ... Is this related to the widget context?
    ... Also is this related to HTML5 postMessage?

    Arve: cross-widget communication is something that belongs in an
    Extended API
    ... there are some security implications as well
    ... UA should have some configuration mechanism about its usage (or

    RESOLUTION: we will publish the API and Events Editor's Draft as a

    <scribe> ACTION: Arve notify Art when the API and Events API is
    ready for Publication [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - Notify Art when the API and Events
    API is ready for Publication [on Arve Bersvendsen - due 2008-09-25].

Status of Automatic Updates spec

    AB: would like a brief status

    MC: I've had some other higher priority stuff come up
    ... hope to have it ready by early next week

    AB: are you blocked on anyone?

    MC: no
    ... Mark Baker's etag concerns could affect it

Proposal to Rename the Widget specs

    AB: what is the motivation and rationale for a change?

    MC: there is confusion about WebApps' widgets and "web widgets"
    ... the new proposal will force the reader to seek clarity by
    reading the Abstract and/or Intro

    <marcos> Widget Packages and User Agents 1.0:

    MC: it makes "Package" primary

    AB: what do people think?

    BS: some of the specs are not generic to the UA

    CV: I share Benoit's concern

    <Benoit> the user Agent defined elements are only related to the

    Arve: I'm not too fond of either of these proposals

    <claudio> "Widget Packages 1.0 and User Agents conformance criteria:

    Arve: I'm afraid there could be confusion with those too
    ... how about dropping Widgets altogether

    BS: we need to keep Widgts

    Arve: use Web Apps rather than Widgets
    ... I understand the Marketing usefulness of Widgets
    ... We are specifiying stuff for Web Apps that we call "widgets"

    <Benoit> proposition: "User Agent Widget Pakaging format"

    AB: any other opinions?

    <marcos> Packages for Client-side Web Applications and User Agent
    Conforming Criteria

    DR: we've had similar discussions in OMTP

    <arve> (word bloat)

    DR: the point of agreement is that we are talking about Web

    <marcos> s/conforming/conformance

    AB: without some compelling reasons I think we should stay with the
    names we already use
    ... If we make a change, it would be the third name
    ... We already have at least one doc in LC and it seems too late to
    make a change

    Arve: I tend to agree with Art
    ... We need to make our definition the mainstream name that is used

    MC: OK, let's keep it as is
    ... We need to keep educating people about our definition
    ... I agree we can have the most authoritative definition in the

    Arve: FWIW, Google already agrees with our definition
    ... take a look at wikipedia

    AB: I propose we keep the names of our documents as is
    ... any objections?


    RESOLUTION: we will not change the names of our Widgets specs

Widgets V2/NextGen Feature List

    AB: want to get consensus on how we move forward

    CV: there is some prelim work that needs to be done first
    ... for example, need to get some type of scope around V2

    <timeless> the cell network here is giving me network busy and
    kicking me off

    CV: We may get lots of additional requirements
    ... Regarding a doc or wiki, I think we need to know what we plan to
    ... Regarding V1.0 reqs, we didn't do a lot of Use Case work
    ... We should probably do some UC work for v2.0

    MC: I agree with Claudio re UCs for v2.0

    AB: so you support doing some UC work for v2.0?

    MC: yes

    AB: any other comments?
    ... I support doing UC work for v2.0
    ... My only concern is that it not take away time/resources from our
    1.0 work

    MC: agree on the resource issue

    AB: seems like we should document the general ideas we have now for
    ... but not do any detailed work until next year
    ... Don't want to disrupt v1.0 spec work
    ... Claudio, Marcos - can we start using a wiki now?
    ... And defer the question about using a document for a few months?

    CV: that's OK with me

    MC: yes, that's OK
    ... and if Claudio wants to take the initial lead that's OK

    MS: Claudio should be able to gain access without me getting

etag attr

    AB: we don't have time to discuss this today
    ... if you have any comments, send them to public-webapps


    AB: any topics?
    ... regarding TAG joint meeting, Roy Fielding isn't a member of the
    TAG any more; Stuart Williams will not be in Mandelieu
    ... that means it may be difficult to get some f2f time with at TAG
    member but I will try
    ... anything else?


    AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Arve notify Art when the API and Events API is ready
    for Publication [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 12:25:06 UTC

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