W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

[widgets] Minutes from 5 March 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:11:28 -0500
Message-Id: <50D6A823-220F-4352-8CBC-2FA9B9C60BB0@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the March 5 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 12 March 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

05 Mar 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-irc


           Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Marcos, Arve, David, Benoit

           Claudio, Bryan




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]DigSig + P&C synchronization
          4. [8]Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet
             required use cases and requirements;
          5. [9]Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets
          6. [10]Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML
             <access> and Widget <access> element.
          7. [11]Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to
             read digital signature.
          8. [12]Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail
             from Thomas:
          9. [13]Open Actions
         10. [14]June f2f meeting
         11. [15]TPAC meeting in November
         12. [16]Window Modes
         13. [17]Editorial Tasks
         14. [18]Anything Else
      * [19]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 5 March 2009

    <fjh> widgets signature editors draft update


      [20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- 


      [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- 

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: agenda posted March 4 - is
    ... the main agenda items are Open Issues. I only want to spend a
    few minutes on each of them to get a sense of where we are e.g.
    still Open, pending inputs, can be Closed. Any detailed technical
    discussions should occur on public-webapps mail list.
    ... Are there any change requests?

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

    [ None ]


    AB: I don't have any urgent announcements
    ... what about others?

    FH: please submit comments on XML Sig 1.1 drafts

    DR: I will respond to Art's BONDI 1.0 email so please look at that

    <fjh> please review XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties

    <fjh> [23]http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25

      [23] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25

    MC: I uploaded the Window Modes spec; would like to get that on the

DigSig + P&C synchronization

    AB: earlier this week Frederick asked me if the DigSig + P&C specs
    are now in synch, based on last week's discussions?


      [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- 

    AB: I believe the answer is yes.
    ... where are we on this?

    MC: FH and I talked about this
    ... I think this is mostly now addressed
    ... P&C has no real depedency on DigSig

    <fjh> marcos notes merged steps 4 +5, moved locating to dig sig,
    removed signature variable from p + c

    MC: I haven't completed the P&C changes yet
    ... e.g. renumber some steps

    <fjh> fjh notes revised text on locating to fit it within digsig but
    essence is same

    FH: I had to revise the location text a bit but the logic is the
    ... Josh asked about the sorting
    ... I need to think about that a bit more

    JS: need to clarify diff between "9" and "009"
    ... we can take this discussion to the list

    FH: I agree we need more rigor here

    MC: I agree too
    ... need to address case sensitivity too

    AB: can we point to some existing work?

    FH: I don't think this is a big issue and agree we can discuss on
    the list

    AB: what needs to be done then?

    FH: I need to make a few changes to DigSig and MC needs to do a bit
    more on P&C

    JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding

    MC: I can help with that

    FH: I'll take a pass at that

    DR: re the ell curve issue, I have asked OMTP to provide comments by
    March 9 so I should have data for the WG by Mar 12

Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use
cases and requirements;

    AB: do we now consider this issue adequately addressed to close it?
    ... <[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19>
    ... my gut feel here is this is now addressed and we can close it.
    ... any comments?

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19%3E

    MC: the DigSig enumerates reqs it addresses
    ... it's a bit out of sync
    ... we need to sync the Reqs doc with the DigSig spec re the reqs
    ... so I think we can close it

    AB: any other comments?

    FH: not sure how much synching we need to do on the reqs
    ... I do think we can close this issue

    RESOLUTION: we close Issue #19 as the spec now adresses the original

Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets

    AB: are there still some pending actions and input needed?
    ... <[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/80>
    ... what is the plan for the next couple of weeks?

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/80%3E

    MC: I added a new example to the latest ED
    ... I still have some additional work on the model
    ... I talked with JS earlier today
    ... I'm still uneasy re the fwd slash "/"
    ... we must maintain the semantics of URI
    ... Need to understand if we can do it without the leading /
    ... and to still have the fallback model


      [27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#fallback-behavior-example

    AB: note there are related actions 298 and 299
    ... are there other inputs you need?

    MC: by the end of the day I hope to have something to share with
    Jere and Josh

    JK: I will review it later and send comments

    AB: we need not just Editors but technical contributors too

    DR: it would be helpful if MC could identify areas where Bryan can

    AB: any other comments on #80?
    ... we will leave that open for now

Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML <access> and Widget
<access> element.

    AB: What, if anything, should be done?
    ... <[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82>

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82%3E

    MC: re last Topic, Jere, please consider XML Base when you review
    the new inputs

    JK: yes, good point and that should be reflected in the spec

    MC: this can be conceived of as a virtual file system at the
    conceptual level

    JK: don't want the spec to specify a file system

    MC: agree; I was just using that as part of my mental model

    <JereK> I thought it was just shuffling URLs also in impl

    AB: re #82 was not discussed in Paris
    ... what are people thinking?

    MC: I think we can close this since we are using a separate

    Arve: agree

    AB: other comments?
    ... I completely agree

    <timeless> "namespaces will save us ;-)"

    AB: propose we close this with a resolution of "we address this by
    defining our own namespace"
    ... any objections to this proposal?

    <JereK> or "believe in namespaces or not" :)

    RESOLUTION: close Issue #82 - we address by defining our own

Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital

    AB: What is the status of this issue and is this against P&C spec of
    DigSig spec?
    ... <[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/83>
    ... did you create this Marcos?

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/83%3E

    MC: yes. It was raised by Mark

    FH: this issues identifies an potential attack

    AB: is this something we must address in v1?

    MC: yes. Need a 1-liner in the DigSig spec

    FH: I don't quite understand the issue though

    MC: me neither

    FH: we already have some security consids
    ... I recommend we get some more information from Mark

    AB: so we need to get more info from Mark?

    MC: yes

    FH: I don't understand the real threat scenario

    MC: me neither

    JS: same with me

    FH: I suggest this be closed unless we have new information and ask
    Mark to provide more information

    DR: or could leave it open until Mark responds

    AB: we'll leave it open for now and I'll take an action to ping Mark
    for more information on the threat scenario

    <scribe> ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about
    the real threat scenario re Issue #83 [recorded in

Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail from Thomas:

    AB: Thomas submitted some comments against Req #37 and I don't
    believe we have yet responded
    ... perhaps we should take the discussion to public-webapps and drop
    it from today's agenda. OK?
    ... any comments?

      [31] http://www.w3.org/mid/9DD110C1-D860-40C9- 

Open Actions

    AB: last week we created about 20 Actions and about 15 are still
    ... To continue to make good progress on our specs we need to
    address these actions ASAP
    ... Please review the actions and address any assigned to you.
    ... Also do indeed feel free to submit inputs to address others'
    ... Widget Actions are:
    ... Let me know if you want agenda time for any of these Actions

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8%3E

June f2f meeting

    AB: re location, we now have three proposals: Oslo/Opera,
    Edinburgh/OMTP and London/Vodafone. That's certainly sufficient to
    close the call for hosts.
    ... re the dates, June 2-4 are preferable.
    ... it will of course be impossible to satisfy everyone's #1

    DR: June 2-4 conflicts with OMTP meeting

    AB: we should also be as Green as we can as well as to try to
    minimize travel costs and simplify logistics for everyone, including
    those attending from other continents

    <fjh> that first week of june is not good for me

    AB: are there any other conflicts with June 2-4?
    ... are there any conflicts with June 9-11?

    <abraun> there are always places in North America. I can think of
    one place with lots of hotels ;)

    DR: not from OMTP's side

    MC: that's OK with Opera

    AB: anyone else
    ... it looks like June 9-11 then is best
    ... any comments about the location?

    <timeless> abraun: there's already SJ later in the year

    <timeless> so i think the us is out for this meeting

    DR: We are happy to cede with Dan's offer to host in London
    ... I think London is probably the most cost effective

    JS: housing in London can be very expensive
    ... I assume Edinburgh would be cheaper
    ... I expect to pay for this trip out of my own pocket


      [33] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- 

    Arve: lodging in London is not cheaper than Oslo

    DR: London is an inexpensive hub to get to
    ... i think airfare costs will dominate the overall cost of travel

    MC: we can live with London
    ... but want to host the next meeting

    AB: any other comments?

    JS: I need to check another calendar

    AB: I will make a decision in a week or so
    ... the leading candidate is London June 9-11

    JS: I just checked, no conflicts that week

TPAC meeting in November

    AB: Charles asked everyone to submit comments about the W3C's
    proposed TPAC meeting in November
    ... see
    ... I think the general consensus is: a) it's too early to make a
    firm commitment; b) we support the idea of an all-WG meeting; c) if
    there are sufficient topics to discuss then we should meet that
    ... Does that seem like a fair characterization? Does anyone have
    any other comments?

      [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/ 

    <Marcos> ?

    <arve> did everyone, or just us get dropped from the call?

    <timeless> just you

    <arve> our call appears to be up, but we can't hear

    AB: Charles and I need to report to the Team by the end of next week
    ... again that November TPAC meetingn is in Silicon Valley

    JS: if Moz has a meeting I can piggy-back then that would increase
    my probability of attending

    FH: XML Security is tentatively planning to meet at TPAC on Thursday
    Friday, so to avoid overlap can Widgets meet Mon and Tue

    AB: I think the most we can report to the Team is "Yes, we
    tenatively have agreement to meet during TPAC"

Window Modes

    <Marcos> [35]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html

      [35] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html

    AB: this is Excellent Marcos!

    MC: give the credit to Arve :)

    AB: so this captures last week's strawman?

    MC: yes

    Arve: it also includes some interfaces

    MC: the APIs will be moved to the A&E spec
    ... it will only contain the defn of the modes and the Media Queries

    BS: this is a good start

    AB: anything else on this topic Marcos?

    MC: we will work on this over the next few weeks and get it ready
    for a FPWD

    AB: so a FPWD in the beginning of April?

    MC: yes, that would be ideal

Editorial Tasks

    DR: I asked OMTP members if they can contribute
    ... we have an offer from Bryan and ATT
    ... they want to know specifics

    AB: that's a good idea
    ... I want to first talk to the editors

    DR: OK. I will also see if I can get more support

    AB: any other comments on this topic?

Anything Else

    DR: I just responded to Art's BONDI Release Candidate e-mail
    ... we have extended the comment period to March 23
    ... the comments should all be public

    JS: I tried to submit feedback and I ran into problems with OMTP's
    web site
    ... it would be really good if the comments could be sent to a mail

    DR: if you send me the comments that would be good

    JS: OK; will do but not this week

    AB: is the URI of the public comment archive available?

    DR: yes Nick sent it to public-webapps
    ... depending on the comments we will determine our next step
    ... the next OMTP meeting is the following week

    AB: thanks for the update David
    ... anythign else?
    ... Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about the
    real threat scenario re Issue #83 [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:12:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:14 UTC