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

[widgets] Minutes from 4 December 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:13:44 -0500
Message-Id: <6B54E4BB-0979-4590-889C-03E4DC1FCBDF@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

The minutes from the December 4 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

  <http://www.w3.org/2008/12/04-wam-minutes.html>

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before December 18 (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

04 Dec 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2008OctDec/0360.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/04-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Arve, Marcos, Jere, Josh, Mark, Mike

    Regrets
           David, Claudio, Thomas

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda review
          2. [6]Annoucements
          3. [7]Content-type sniffing
          4. [8]ACTION-231 Work with Marcos to submit a proposal to
             address the feature fallback problem
          5. [9]URI Attribute Names
          6. [10]Window Mode
          7. [11]P&C Last Call
          8. [12]Widget Testing
          9. [13]Next f2f Meeting
      * [14]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

    <trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing
    Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel'
    (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)

    <MikeSmith> peh

    <MikeSmith> timeless: ↑

    Date: 4 December 2009

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <marcos> Zakim: , IPcaller is I

Agenda review

    AB: any change requests?
    ... try to allocate time for Window Modes
    ... any other requests?

    [None]

Annoucements

    AB: only more VC this year - December 18
    ... that date coincides with the publication moratorium for the rest
    of the year

    <timeless> zakim +358 is Jere

Content-type sniffing

    <arve> Zakim: aabb is me

    AB: see
    [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/03
    40.html
    ... Marcos, quick update and issue coverage

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2008OctDec/0340.html

    MC: in the Widget package we don't have a header (like HTTP)
    ... so we need to define a mapping of file extenstions to Media Type
    ... I have now submitted a proposal to the list
    ... It uses HTML5's content sniffing algorithm

    Arve: I think Henri's proposal is basically OK

    MC: I'm divided on it
    ... and still investigating

    Arve: two things make sense here
    ... As Henri said, a simple solution is a good one
    ... If rely on sniffing, can have some probs with older HTML docs
    ... I'm concerned we can break some widgets e.g. layout
    ... May also have probs with document.write()
    ... If a document is labeled .txt and is actually HTML, a browser
    will treat it as HTML

    MC: the proposal is to check file extension first and if that fails,
    revert to content sniffing

    AB: you mean what is in the ED now?
    ... [16]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#files

      [16] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#files

    MC: yes

    Arve: need to look at what Hixie wrote about this earlier
    ... I don't think we should do content sniffing

    AB: we have at least member of the WG that has reservations re
    content sniffing.
    ... Any other feedback

    <arve> <ArtB> ... If a document is labeled .txt and is actually
    HTML, a browser will treat it as HTML

    AB: Mike, anything you want to mention on this issue?

    <arve> that is not what I said

    <arve> browsers will not try to sniff it

    MS: in HTML5 we aren't really covering sniffing by file extension

    AB: Arve, let's correct what I minuted re sniffing

    Arve: browser will treat it as a plain text file

    <timeless> zakim: +44 is Mark

    Arve: I think the common sense solution is to specify what browsers
    are actually doing today
    ... we don't want to specify something that isn't being done today
    ... If we need a way to override that, then we could define an
    author mapping mechanism

    <marcos> MC: for instance, .php text/html

    AB: Marcos, what's the next step

    MC: do we want to define the overide format for v1?

    Arve: I think not
    ... this hasn't been a problem for Opera widgets

    AB: sounds like we have a resolution: we will not define an override
    format/mechanism for v1
    ... any objections?

    [None]

    RESOLUTION: we will not define an override format/mechanism for v1

    AB: what additional guidance do you need on this topic, Marcos?

    MC: I just need to document this
    ... Wondering if there are any concerns about the requirement I
    proposed

    <marcos> [17]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r12.-

      [17] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r12.-

    AB: I don't have any major issues with this

    Arve: I don't understand the need for this requirement

    MC: I think we need this to provide guidance on how UAs process the
    files
    ... I think we will have some interop issues if we don't specify
    this

    AB: do you see this req as harmful, Arve?

    Arve: I don't object to it; I just don't see a need for it
    ... I don't think it will change the behaviour of UAs

    AB: when I read that section, I don't see prescriptive text

    MC: yes, I need to work on it; plan to do so today

ACTION-231 Work with Marcos to submit a proposal to address the feature
fallback problem

    AB: where do we stand on this issue?
    ... [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/231

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/231

    MC: this is related to the topics for next week's security workshop
    ... I am expecting related discussions next week
    ... At the moment, I think the text in the spec is OK
    ... But want to revisit this based on the Workshop outcomes

    Arve: I agree with that reasoning

    MC: I'd like to close

    Arve: let's wait until next VC

    MC: OK

URI Attribute Names

    AB: proposal is
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/03
    98.html
    ... is this blocking you Marcos?

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2008OctDec/0398.html

    MC: no
    ... there is some inconsistency we need to fix

    AB: my inclination is without strong opposition to let the Editor
    make a proposal
    ... and then codify it
    ... any comments on the proposal

    <marcos> MC: do we really need <author img="">?

    AB: without a compelling use case, I favor removing syntax
    ... do you have enough feedback, Marcos?

    MC: yes
    ... we may want to expand on this in V2 but I will remove it now

    AB: any problems or issues with that?

    [None]

Window Mode

    AB: Marcos proposal:
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/04
    03.html
    ... this has been an open issue for a while
    ... we discussed it in Mandelieu for example

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2008OctDec/0403.html

    Arve: it is a hard prob
    ... Opera has a notion of window modes
    ... Perhaps it should be deferred to v2
    ... It needs to be in some spec but perhaps not the P&C spec

    AB: what would we do, syntactially then, for the author?

    <marcos> MC: syntactically, <widget mode="someMode">

    MC: in the spec we list the mode values but not the behavior

    Arve: I don't see the need for a default
    ... letting the impl decide can lead to some probs
    ... e.g. a mobile impl may default one way and desktop default a
    different way
    ... could specify the first four opts and then let the impl decide
    the default
    ... I could reply with some info about our impl

    MC: yes, please do

    JS: with the N97, there are things on the home screen that looks
    like widgets

    AB: I don't know if S60 widgets has support for this semantics

    [ Discussion about sizes for widgets ]

    MC: I can check with Orange to see what they have

    JK: I will check S60 and report back if I find anything useful

    MP: if I find some useful info I will submit it
    ... what do you expect to specify in the P&C spec, Marcos?

    MC: we need some more information than what I included in my e-mail

    AB: what do you plan to do in the next few day?

    MC: I will flesh out the definitions of these modes and refine their
    names

P&C Last Call

    AB: our plan for several months now is to publish a LCWD of P&C spec
    by the end of 2008

    <arve> ArtB: sorry about interrupting, but I have a hard deadline
    for now, as I have a train to catch

    AB: I want to know what people think here

    MC: I do indeed want to publish the LC this year

    <arve> I support as-is with the changes outcome of this call

    Arve: yes, I do support publishing a LC if it reflects today's
    discussion

    MP: will there be a review period from the 11th to 17th?

    AB: yes

    MP: If something on the feature element comes out of the Security
    WS, I'd like an opportunity to reflect that in the LC doc

    AB: understood

    MP: given this, I support LC

    JK: no specific opinion; need to abstain but generally positive
    ... need to look at the I18N part

    JS: I need to look at it

    MC: if Jere can look at the I18N stuff, that would be good
    ... there is one error I need to fix but otherwise it is stable
    ... I would appreciate it if we could get a complete review of the
    spec prior to going to LC

    JS: ping me on Monday or Tues and I'll try to do it

    AB: plan is to begin a CfC on Dec 11, end it on Dec 17 and submit
    pub request on Dec 18

Widget Testing

    AB: does anyone object proposed directory for the test suite?
    ... Marcos, have you looked at the test?

    MC: yes, some; need to do more research
    ... want to make sure Kai is interpreting the spec correctly

    AB: I'll respond to Dom that we prefer using the widgets CVS
    directory as opposed
    ... any objections?

    [None]

Next f2f Meeting

    AB: start thinking about the end of Feb
    ... any other topics?
    ... Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:14:46 GMT

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