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

Re: [widgets] Minutes from 5 March 2009 Voice Conference

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:03:08 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <607E86D0-CCD7-4BE7-946F-80A6870CF370@nokia.com>
To: "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
I updated the style for <code> items in the Digital Signature  
specification to brown.

Does this work better? It does not conflict with other color uses as  
far as I can tell.

Please look at
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/  (refresh)


regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:

> The minutes from the March 5 Widgets voice conference are available
> at the following and copied below:
>
>  <http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html>
>
> 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
> Approved.
>
> -Regards, Art Barstow
>
>    [1]W3C
>
>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                                - DRAFT -
>
>                        Widgets Voice Conference
>
> 05 Mar 2009
>
>    [2]Agenda
>
>       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0622.html
>
>    See also: [3]IRC log
>
>       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>           Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Marcos, Arve, David, Benoit
>
>    Regrets
>           Claudio, Bryan
>
>    Chair
>           Art
>
>    Scribe
>           Art
>
> Contents
>
>      * [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
>
>    <fjh>
>    [20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
>
>      [20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
> signatures
>
>    <fjh>
>    [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
>
>      [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
> signatures
>
> Review and tweak agenda
>
>    AB: agenda posted March 4 - is
>    [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/ 
> 06
>    22.html
>    ... 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/
> 2009JanMar/0622.html
>
>    [ None ]
>
> Announcements
>
>    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
>    FPWD
>
>    <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
>    agenda
>
> 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?
>
>    <fjh>
>    [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
>
>      [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
> signatures
>
>    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
>    same
>    ... 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
>    readability
>
>    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
>    concerns
>
> 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
>
>    <Marcos>
>    [27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#fallback-behavior-example
>
>      [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
>    help
>
>    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
>    namespace
>
>    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
>    namespace
>
> Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital
> signature.
>
>    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
>    [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#action01]
>
> 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
>    ...
>    <[31]http://www.w3.org/mid/9DD110C1-D860-40C9- 
> B688-2E08F4D86D20@w3.o
>    rg>
>    ... 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-
> B688-2E08F4D86D20@w3.org%3E
>
> Open Actions
>
>    AB: last week we created about 20 Actions and about 15 are still
>    open.
>    ... 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'
>    actions
>    ... Widget Actions are:
>    <[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8>
>    ... 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
>    priority
>
>    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
>
>    <fjh>
>    [33]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
>
>      [33] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
> signatures
>
>    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
>    <[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/0
>    044.html>
>    ... 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
>    week.
>    ... Does that seem like a fair characterization? Does anyone have
>    any other comments?
>
>      [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0044.html%3E
>
>    <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
>    list
>
>    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
>    [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#action01]
>
>    [End of minutes]
>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 16:04:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT