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

[widgets] Minutes from 25 September 2008 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:02:10 -0400
Message-Id: <62A81B2D-33BA-43C4-9F74-0711BBD081A1@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

The minutes from the September 25 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 October 2 (next Widgets  
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

25 Sep 2008


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-wam-irc


           Art, Bryan, Marcos, Thomas, Benoit, Mark

           Arve, Nick, David, Claudio


           Art, tlr


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Announcements
          2. [6]Widgets core API and events status
          3. [7]automatic updates
          4. [8]digsig spec
          5. [9]Packaging and config
          6. [10]AOB
          7. [11]next meeting
      * [12]Summary of Action Items

    <ArtB> Date: 25 September 2008

    <ArtB> Scribe: Art

    <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <tlr> ScribeNick: tlr


    artb: reminder, go ahead and register for TPAC

    <ArtB> AB: registration list:

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/ 

    benoit: I think I'm registered

    artb: Marc, Claudio, most of the usual suspects are registered
    ... obvious omissions at this point are the OMTP folks ...
    ... about 19 people registered as members of the WG ...
    ... will split up meeting; not everybody will attend widget part ...

    benoit: half/half?

    artb: unlikely. 90/10
    ... interested in any discussions related to access-control and xhr2
    specs ..
    ... maybe a big joint meeting for that discussion ...
    ... let's see how things unfold over the next few weeks ...
    ... also, Larry Masinter will be attending the meeting ...
    ... registered as observer for Tuesday ...
    ... believe that Larry is member of TAG ...
    ... any other announcements?

Widgets core API and events status

    per [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/#Membership, Larry Masinter is
    not a member of the TAG

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/#Membership

    artb: marcos, can you give us any update?

    marcos: nope

    artb: will prod Arve
    ... we're past the planned deadline for publishing ...

    <scribe> ACTION: art to ping Arve regarding status of core API and
    events specification [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-252 - Ping Arve regarding status of core
    API and events specification [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-02].

automatic updates

    <scribe> Scribe: tlr

    marcos: dotting t's, crossing i's
    ... should have something ready later today ...
    ... started working on processing model ...
    ... put in a bunch of red blocks to show where we're going ...

    <mpriestl> +q

    marcos: think it's ready for FPWD ...

    artb: noticed request to webreq already

    tlr: transition request?

    artb: not yet, and confused publication requests
    ... what are the prerequisites?

    tlr: reasonably stable editor's draft, SOTD, Abstract
    ... there can be some editorial fine-tuning

    artb: marcos, please let me know when you're ready

    marcos: couple hours

    mpriestl: Marcos, we discussed a while ago about text on security of
    ... have something in draft ...
    ... but need a few more days to finish ...
    ... should be available by Monday ...

    marcos: for the automatic update spec?

    mpriestl: yes

    marcos: wait?

    mpriestl: don't want to hold up things
    ... will send to list on Monday or as soon as I can ...

    artb: recommend not to block publication on this
    ... as soon as document is published, that would be a good time for
    Marc to send comments

    mpriestl: agree

    marcos: agree

    artb: looking forward to that input

digsig spec

    marcos: have been discussing various approaches ...
    ... particularly in relation to including multiple signatures ...
    ... and dealing with cert chains ...
    ... we haven't drafted anything quite yet ...
    ... plan to work on that soon with Marc ...
    ... priority to getting second Last Call of Requirements out ...
    ... and auto-update FPWD ...
    ... no spec language yet, but think we have a model and can start
    spec'ing ...

    mpriestl: fyi, BONDI f2f discussed the spec
    ... position at the moment (which we hope to formally communicate
    this week) ...
    ... is that we hope to adopt W3C solution in BONDI ...
    ... will be officially communicated later this week ...

    artb: in the agenda, listed a couple issues


    <trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet
    required use cases and requirements -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19


    <trackbot> ISSUE-22 -- Is sha1 as a DigestMethod strong enough for
    Widgets digital signatures? -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/22

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/22

    artb: discussed these most recently in Turin; don't necessarily want
    to do deep dive

    <ArtB> Issue #19 discussion from Turin:

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/27-wam-minutes.html#item06

    marcos: ISSUE-19 -- we now have a clearer idea of what the UC&R's
    ... will put things into the spec some time soon ...
    ... want to list what the use cases are ...
    ... basically, think that our current model addresses things ....
    ... but need to spec it out ...
    ... wrt ISSUE-22, can close that -- agreement that SHA1 is not the
    only digest in town ...

    mpriestl: question for Thomas, you said that in the update to dsig
    spec, might specify sha-256
    ... any update? ...
    ... or any reason?

    <ArtB> Discussion re Issue #22 from Turin is:

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/27-wam-minutes.html#item07

    tlr: no progress quite yet, also, I seem to recall that there was
    something about algorithm URIs

    <ArtB> Here is the action I accepted re Issue #22

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/27-wam-minutes.html#action05

    artb: yes, still want to do that
    ... put this item on the agenda for today to see whether I still
    should ask that question ...

    tlr: that would be a good idea

    artb: will put together e-mail today
    ... anything else?

Packaging and config

    marcos: not too much new to report
    ... updated some things; latest draft not yet submitted ..
    ... working on the URI problem ...
    ... re-reading URI spec, making sure terminology is in line with
    that ...

    artb: marcos, it would be helpful if you could go ahead and upload
    current snapshot
    ... even if not perfect yet ...
    ... drafts are by definition fluid and all that ...
    ... latest draft is a couple months old ...

    marcos: usually submit source version fairly regularly ...
    ... source version is usually current ...
    ... if you want to see bleeding edge, look at source version ...

    artb: want to be able to show some of the latest and greatest
    ... nice to be able to be more specific
    ... is the source-to-html process a lot of manual work?

    marcos: no big deal

    artb: we'd much appreciate if you could make that update more often

    marcos: will do
    ... Interested in talking about e-mails, in particular the ones from
    ... affect auto update ...
    ... would like to talk about this ...
    ... start with Felix' message ...

    <ArtB> Felix comments:

      [21] http://www.w3.org/mid/48C86720.70206@w3.org%3E

    <ArtB> ... from the archive:

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

    marcos: we asked about span vs Unicode characters
    ... they said the Unicode characters are a really bad idea
    ... recommend use of its:span
    ... it does add another level of complexity
    ... need to talk about how we actually address that ...


      [23] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-its-20070403/#span

    marcos: could also be silent on this, leave it to implementers
    ... there are conflicts with the current algorithm ...
    ... currently, we build a big text string out of elements inside ...
    ... this is for error handling reasons ...
    ... can relax algorithm in the future ...
    ... not sure that's the best approach ...
    ... modelled on HTML5 parsing algorithm ...

    tlr: "the algorithm" was what?

    marcos: config document
    ... if author puts HTML / XHTML tag inside description ...
    ... and engine doesn't know how to deal with this ...
    ... just grabbing text content

    tlr: is the concern about HTML, then?

    marcos: either introduce bdo or span explicitly within this spec
    ... but that would imply changing the parsing algorithm ...
    ... explicit introduction of new element ...

    tlr: mhhh.. that sounds like an awfully broad extensibility model
    for descriptions
    ... maybe tighten that ...
    ... but not sure I understand the point well enough right now to
    make the argument ...

    artb: interoperability concern around this
    ... ITS support, etc ...

    just to be clear, I'm happy with ITS, but wonder whether "arbitrary
    XML stuff" is the right approach for the description

    artb: want to have feed-back from arveb
    ... please follow up on the mailing list ...
    ... this might be a specific agendum for Cannes ...
    ... may try to drag I18N folks into the room.

    marcos: would prefer to resolve this before then
    ... once the update spec is out, will try to work on packaging spec

    tlr: I think there's a requirements question here about what kind of
    material goes into the description

    marcos: description of what the widget does, maybe some arabic

    tlr: concern is that permitting arbitrary XML content there could
    get messy
    ... concern is not about ITS, though ...

    artb: agree; maybe KISS for v1

    <ArtB> Here is Dom's input re the P&C spec:

      [24] http://www.w3.org/mid/1221556815.6777.88.camel@localhost

    <marcos> AB: other comments we need to look at are from Dom

    <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB

    AB: we've discussed the HTML5 reference issue before; I'm concerned
    about it for this spec as well as other specs in progress

    MC: we have two options:
    ... 1. We don't care

    <marcos> MC: there are two minds on this: one is we don't care about
    going to REC and keep referencing HTML5; the other is that we copy
    and paste the bits we like HTML5 into our spec.

    MC: 2. We copy-and-paste text from HTML5

    AB: it seems like option #2 is our only really option

    <tlr> ScribeNick: tlr

    benoit: is there a way that we can get along without a reference to

    marcos: it'll take a loong time

    benoit: want to make sure we're adaptive enough

    artb: if we need to copy and paste from HTML5, note that this is the

    marcos: will look more closely

    benoit: instead of copying and pasting...

    tlr: is content sniffing really needed in the widget spec?

    marcos: we don't have a manifest...

    tlr: I think this is a more general point
    ... maybe raise it more generally?

    marcos: there's some discussion going on

    tlr: ah, interesting!

    artb: plan in turin was to advance as much as possible, so ready to
    request LC soon after Mandelieu


    marcos: Bryan on the call; maybe he can give us update on MWBP
    ... what happened to our feed-back ...

    Bryan: happy to adapt things; guidelines to developers on how widget
    APIs are used
    ... we can make some recommendations as to how they do things ...
    ... some of the things we suggested be firm requirements ...
    ... the other thing, within the scope of OMTP, have ability to make
    ... requirements on implementations ...
    ... couple ways to establish requirements ...
    ... undestand focus of webapps and widgets to be on packaging ...
    ... not so much behavior or best practices ...
    ... possible that we promote interoperability, efficiency etc
    ... usability aspects within this group ...
    ... torch carried by MWI ...

    artb: that sounds like a useful split of work ...

    bryan: re uaprof, specifying user agent, can specify behavior for
    XHR aPI
    ... don't need to do that within widget spec itself ...

    artb: bryan, coming to Mandelieu?

    bryan: conflicts with OMA meeting

    marcos: for purposes of disposition of comments, was MWBP group
    happy with feedback?

    bryan: will send question to list today
    ... won't be in meeting today ...
    ... can get them to ask that question to get closure ...
    ... my sense is that they understood focus, and scope of influence
    ... better understanding now ...

next meeting

    artb: next week, same time

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: art to ping Arve regarding status of core API and
    events specification [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2008 12:03:09 UTC

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