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

[widgets] Minutes from 18 December 2008 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:44:49 -0500
Message-Id: <98ADC25B-709F-422C-8B34-FE1D37771EDC@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

The minutes from the December 18 Widgets voice conference 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 8 January 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

              Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

18 Dec 2008


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/18-wam-irc


           Art, Claudio, Benoit, Jere, Mike, Marcos, Mark, Thomas





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda review and tweaking
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]P&C spec and Last Call
          4. [8]DigSig Spec
          5. [9]Next F2F Meeting for Widgets group
          6. [10]AOB
      * [11]Summary of Action Items

Agenda review and tweaking

    AB: agenda is
    ... any change requests?

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

    CV: how about a short summary of the Security Workshop Dec 10-11

    AB: good idea; will add it to AOB
    ... any other change reqs?



    AB: this is the last VC in 2008
    ... any other annoucements?


P&C spec and Last Call

    AB: [13]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/
    ... Marcos, please summarize changes since Dec 11 CfC

      [13] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/

    MC: some changes in Section 8
    ... Still a few holes I need to patch today

    <tlr> huh? widgets call on for today?

    MC: Josh has provided some good feedback
    ... I think we can put in a reqest today

    AB: primarily editorial changes still need to be made?

    MC: yes
    ... some spelling checks and related tidying

    AB: please describe the Window Mode change you made today

    MC: no one has submitted any inputs for Window Mode
    ... Consequently, I added a warning to the spec

    <marcos> Warning: Feature at risk! This spec does not define the
    semantics of the window modes. We seek input regarding - what, if
    anything, should be specified in this spec versus what should be
    left as an imple detail. The widget element's mode attribute and
    associated window modes will be dropped without substantial evidence
    that they are needed.

    MC: And a request for feedbback

    AB: please read this new text
    ... any issues with this proposed text

    MP: we think defining modes in P&C spec
    ... we will submit input as part of the review process

    BS: I agree with MP

    CV: my recollection from last f2f meeting is that for v1 we would go
    with minimal mode

    MC: yes, but we never got any UCs or behaviour descriptions
    ... We also don't have a related requirement

    BS: so you want both a requirement and a proposal?

    MC: yes, that's correct

    AB: any other comments on the proposed Warning text?

    CV: what level of detail do you want for the requirment?

    MC: same level as we have in the Requirements doc

    CV: I think we need something like iconized, full screen, floating

    <Benoit> do we need to include all existing modes already?

    AB: perhaps we should add a request for Use Cases and Requirements
    to the new warning text

    MC: the various WUAs support different modes

    AB: sorry to interrupt but I want to postpone deep dive discussion
    on this topic
    ... What we need are specific: Use Cases, Requirements and
    prescriptive text
    ... That should be sent to the public mail list for discussion
    ... For the purposes of this meeting, we want to discuss if this doc
    is ready for LC or not

    BS: I want to understand what inputs can be relfected today

    MC: any substantial inputs should be sent after the review period

    JK: I just sent you the biblio info

    AB: I agree with Marcos
    ... any other comments
    ... I propose we publish a LCWD of the P&C spec
    ... any objections?

    MP: how long will the LC review period be?

    AB: it will end January 31
    ... any concerns about the Jan 31 date?
    ... it will give us 3 weeks before we have our next f2f

    BS: I suspect we will have more than one LC, right?

    AB: If we get substantial input on any part of the spec, a 2nd LC is
    ... any support to publish a LC?

    MC: I support

    BS: abstain

    JK: I support

    MP: VF supports it

    CV: we support it

    RESOLUTION: we will publish a LCWD of the P&C spec

DigSig Spec

    AB: questions for the XML Sec WG
    ... Mark closed this today, right?

    MP: yes; I submitted a response today

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

    AB: any other comments?


Next F2F Meeting for Widgets group

    AB: proposal is Feb 24-26 in Paris hosted by Benoit in Orange
    ... any concerns about that date?

    MP: I may have to leave early on the 26th but otherwise that's fine

    AB: we have an obligation to annouce f2f meetings 8 weeks in advance

    JK: do you have an agenda?

    AB: yes; skeleton at
    ... I think we'll have plenty to talk about
    ... are there any objections to the f2f during those dates and in
    that location?

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda


    AB: I will make an annoucement shortly


    AB: next Voice Conf is January 8
    ... regarding holidays, I'll be offline starting Dec 22 and return
    on Jan 5

    BS: I may have some conflicts on Jan 8 and Jan 15 but will try to

    AB: regarding Security Workshop
    ... the Team will create a Workshop Report and that will be
    available in January
    ... there was consensus to start two new blocks of work at W3C
    ... 1. is Device APIs i.e. JavaScript bindings to services such as
    contacts, PIM
    ... 2. Security Model
    ... there was some discussion about whether these work items could
    be done by WebApps or a new WG
    ... WebApps seems to have a pretty full plate already
    ... Mark, Marcos, anything to add?

    MC: I don't ahve anything to add

    MP: there were discussions about user interaction and how to present
    security info to the user
    ... in a usefule way
    ... especially on mobiles
    ... Lots of good discussions

    CV: thanks for those summaries
    ... what about managing APIs in terms of a framework?
    ... or was it more about vertical APIs?

    MC: regarding a framework, I proposed the one we are already
    specifying e.g. via the <feature> element

    CV: is this going to be UWA v2 or Geolocation API replication?

    MC: I don't think there will be any replication of work
    ... Nokia said they will submit their APIs

    TR: I think this isn't clear
    ... another topic is web apps versus widgets
    ... whatever is done for widgets should apply for web apps in

    <tlr> ... and with that, happy holidays ;-)

    TR: This could be something we need to consider in the context of
    the widget: scheme discussions

    AB: thanks very much Marcos for the great work you've done on the
    P&C spec

    [Lots of thanks for Marcos]

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 17:52:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:13 UTC