W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

[widgets] Minutes from 30 October 2008 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:10:37 -0400
Message-Id: <79F57F7A-446E-48E5-A3B3-8F0047E9B15F@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

The minutes from the October 30 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

  <http://www.w3.org/2008/10/30-wam-minutes.html>

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before November 6 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  
approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow


    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

30 Oct 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2008OctDec/0201.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/30-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Arve, Claudio, Mark, Marcos, Josh, Bryan

    Regrets
           Thomas, David, Jere

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda review
          2. [6]Annoucements
          3. [7]URI scheme
          4. [8]Version String
          5. [9]ID attribute
          6. [10]DigSig
          7. [11]AOB
      * [12]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <timeless> zakim +??P18 is Marcos

    Date: 30 October 2008

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <arve> +??P19

    <timeless> zakim +39.011.228.aaaa is Claudio

Agenda review

    AB: any changes?

    [None]

Annoucements

    AB: any annoucements?

    <timeless> # who is on the phone?

    <timeless> who is on the phone?

    AB: Workshop deadline is now Nov 5

    <timeless> Zakim: who is on the phone?

    AB: who plans to submit a Position Paper?

    <Bryan> very noisy

    <arve> ArtB: Arve just spoke, and I said we were planning on
    submitting a position paper

    AB: am I the only one that cannot understand anything that is being
    said?

    <Bryan> I can't understand either

    <arve> muting me didn't help

    <arve> I can't understand a word being said

    <Bryan> I hear a 2nd conversation

    AB: everyone hang up and re-dial, please !

    <Bryan> OK

    <marcos> Arve, you are very noisy

    AB: is anyone going to submit a PP for the workshop?

    MC: I will

    AB: how about Vodafone?

    MP: no

    Arve: I believe Opera will submit a paper

    JS: no

    Bryan: we may submit something but we won't be present

    CV: we won't submit a paper but are very interested in the outcome

URI scheme

    AB: we had a good conversation with TAG last week
    ... would like to know what people think are the next steps for this
    issue

    MC: I think we have enough technical arguments to push forward
    ... we do need to fleshout the reqs
    ... We may also want to coordinate with other groups
    ... e.g. the ODF group
    ... they need a similar URI scheme
    ... for packaging

    <timeless> ack

    BS: we recognize (in OMA) that some type of URI scheme for widget
    interaction is needed

    CV: I agree with Marcos and Bryan
    ... I think a widget-specific URI scheme would be useful

    JS: I haven't changed my mind
    ... agree we need to flesh out the reqs

    <marcos> Arve, you might need to type out your answer

    <arve> ArtB: Your assesment of my opinion is essentially correct

    AB: I'd like to understand the ODF coordination point

    MC: I've had some conversations
    ... I don't want to block on them or create a dependency
    ... I will continue to talk with them

    AB: are there some actions we can assign?

    MC: think we need to look at the implications vis-a-vis the API spec
    ... we use the widget URI scheme to resolve the DOM at run time
    ... this affects the APIs we will define

Version String

    AB: Marcos
    [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/01
    83.html
    ... where are we on this?

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2008OctDec/0183.html

    MC: there were no strong objections

    AB: OpenAjax recommend we consider their model?

    MC: they proposed another way to write the scheme
    ... they have a proc model for version strings
    ... Arve showed their model has problems
    ... I want to follow the KISS principle

    AB: I propose we agree with Marcos' version string proposal
    ... any objections?

    JS: what about leading zeros?

    MC: they are just opaque strings

    AB: Josh, please enter an example

    <timeless> MIDlet Suite Versioning suggests:

    <timeless> Major.Minor[.Micro] (X.X[.X])

    <arve> Does this mean any string difference is "a new version"

    MC: we aren't adding that complexity
    ... If they are differen, then they are different

    <timeless> do we need to suggest that we're aware that leading zeros
    are ignored by MIDlet

    <timeless> and that people should avoid using leading zeros (or at
    least inconsistently)

    <arve> What I actually meant is that "new" is that the UA, or the
    server, can decide whether it's "newer" or no

    <arve> +t

    AB: Marcos, what do you think about JS' recommendation?

    MC: we can recommend a format
    ... and that there is no special processing

    <arve> yes

    <Bryan> +1

    AB: can we live with the model Marcos has proposed?

    JS: yes

    <timeless> yes

    <claudio> yes

    RESOLUTION: Marcos' proposal for version string is acceptable

ID attribute

    AB:
    [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/01
    84.html
    ... there was no follow-up discussion
    ... see also [15]http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20081027

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2008OctDec/0184.html
      [15] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20081027

    MC: the question is about whether xml:id should be used or we define
    our own ID attribute

    JS: could "name" be used?

    MC: we already have a name element
    ... we would have to rename that to "title" element

    <timeless> ack

    BS: are we planning to use the title attribute in a semantic way?

    MC: no, just a name

    <claudio> +q

    AB: Marcos, should you followup and make the proposal you and Josh
    just discussed?

    MC: yes, I can do that
    ... we are currently following what other people are doing
    ... but I'd like to hear from others

    CV: will there some semantics about the widget in the config doc?
    ... Req #12 is related to widget semantics

    MC: no, not at this point

    CV: so the manifest is extensible?

    MC: yes, can add other elements

    <timeless> ack

    MC: the name element could be use in that use case

    BS: there is a core set of metadata attributes already defined
    ... and it is extensible

    MC: right, via using another namespace

    AB: are you still looking for more input, Marcos on your ID
    attribute proposal?

    MC: I can make the change if people are OK with it

    <arve> did the channel just go dead?

    MC: my fear is confusing widget authors

    <arve> I'll have to give up on this, all audio just disappeared

    <marcos> MC: widgetid

    AB: what is your proposal?

    <marcos> MC: uid

    <marcos> MC: name

    <marcos> CV: wid

    AB: I am mostly indifferent

    MC: it is a URI to identify the widget

    JS: could use href

    MC: but that implies something that http can get

    <timeless> ack

    BS: so you want something that is unique, right

    MC: yes

    BS: what about uniqueid then?

    MC: yes, we could
    ... that's what I meant by "uid"

    <marcos> arve, do you have an opinion?

    MC: Are we providing at leas a non-normative suggestion about how to
    add semantics to the widget?

    <arve> leaning towards making it "just a string"

    <arve> I do not like the notion of saying it's an ID

    <marcos> arve, what would you call it?

    <marcos> ok, no probs

    AB: I propose you make a proposal on the mail list with a default
    resolution

    MC: OK

DigSig

    AB: I will take 4.a and 4.b agenda items to the mail list

    MC: Mark and I have been making some edits
    ... need comments from XMLSec WG
    ... perhaps that can be done while I am away

AOB

    AB: Marcos will be offline for the next three weeks; not online
    again until 21 November
    ... I will decide on Tues or Wedn of the next 3 weeks if we will
    have a voice conf on Thursdays - or not

    <arve> Have a nice trip, marcos

    AB: meeting adjourned

    <marcos> Thanks!

    RRRSAgent, make minutes

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2008 14:11:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:28 GMT