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

[widgets] Minutes from 12 March 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:23:19 -0400
Message-Id: <FA9A8AE5-E8A7-4A51-94BD-EA1D5EE588F3@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the March 12 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 19 March 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

12 Mar 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-irc


           Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Mike, Mark, Bryan, Arve, Marcos,

           Thomas, tlr




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]DigSig spec
          4. [8]Patent Disclosure for the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
          5. [9]A&E spec: Arve's proposed change to the A&E spec
             regarding preferences:
          6. [10]P&C spec - MaxF's comments
          7. [11]P&C spec - Mandatory config file:
          8. [12]Opportunities and ToDos; seeking volunteers:
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 12 March 2009

    <MikeSmith> wonderful

    <MikeSmith> timeless: you got another 10 minute before we start,

    <timeless> yeah, but otherwise i'll miss it

    <MikeSmith> . whois fjh

    <MikeSmith> Frederick?

    <timeless> gah, cgi:irc sucks:)

    <MikeSmith> timeless: it's just a proof of concept.. be glad that it
    exists at all

    <timeless> mikesmith: is this actually being logged?

    <timeless> if so, could you trim it? :)

    <MikeSmith> timeless: this channel not logged

    <JereK> Hi Marcos, do we still have sthg to do re #299? (the ISO
    8859-1 encoding?)

    <MikeSmith> ah, logged by RRSAgent

    <MikeSmith> yeah, I can trim it

    <Marcos> JereK: depends what you mean?

    <JereK> Max q'd the decision to use Latin-1, but didn't the I18N WG
    advise to do so?

    <Marcos> JereK: yes, I have followed what i18n said to do

    <Marcos> timeless: agreed

    <Marcos> timeless: P&C spec is all case sensitive now

    <JereK> Would've used UTF-8, but need to research why that was so...

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

    Date: 12 March 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: agenda posted on March 10:
    ... any change requests?
    ... what about Marcos' "Screenshots and case sensitive file names"

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

    FH: want to talk about a few other things re DigSig

    AB: OK


    AB: the only one I have is the next Widgets f2f meeting is June 9-11
    in London; host is Vodafone
    ... I will announce this meeting
    ... any other short annoucements?

    [ None ]

DigSig spec

    AB: two items related to DigSig spec
    ... ED is <[16]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/>
    ... first, any comments on "Identifier and Created Signature
    property" proposal by FH?

      [16] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/%3E
      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    FH: this is a response to Thomas' suggestion
    ... it was a good suggestion
    ... the time is wall clock; don't want to get too fine-grained
    ... but works at a rough level
    ... the identifier is per signer
    ... if people have suggestions, please let me know
    ... want to know if this OK to put in the ED or not

    MP: generally I think it is good
    ... some concernn about Created property
    ... I raised my concerns earlier
    ... I will respond to the list
    ... it's OK to have the timestamp there
    ... but validation should not be based on the timestamp
    ... because on mobile devices the date may not be correct e.g. if
    the user did not set the date and clock

    FH: so timestamp can't be used in verifcation?

    MP: yes, that's right
    ... think MUST is too strong for this property and prefer SHOULD
    ... the rest of the text looks good

    Bryan: on devices today I don't think the time is problem because
    can get network time

    MP: we see this as an issue at VF

    Bryan: are these legacy devices?

    Arve: inaccurate time is still a problem on some devices especiall
    in java environment
    ... date on devices isn't relevant to lots of people

    Bryan: we haven't seen this be a problem for several issues

    MP: don't want to confuse Created property with sig expiring

    FH: I'm OK with changing this to SHOULD
    ... can we accept my proposal with a SHOULD?

    MC: I'm OK with that

    FH: OK; I'll put the changes in
    ... I have added some processing from P&C
    ... need the file casing to match P&
    ... I will need to add casing support
    ... need clarification on ID use

    AB: I think it makes sense to send it to the list first

    FH: OK; will do

    AB: have we then discused
    684.html> ?

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

    FH: yes we have
    ... Josh and MC are OK with that

    MP: can't have just signature.xml i.e. no number

    FH: yes, that's OK

    MP: then must update the example

    FH: ok; will do

    AB: plan moving fwd is what FH?

    FH: I'll make the changes we agreedd and share the new draft before
    next meeting

    <mpriestl> I have some editorial comments that I'll send to list
    before the end of the week

    FH: are you comment substantial Mark?

    MP: they are nearly all Editorial and consistency
    ... there may be some susbstanative comments

    FH: depending on the nature of MP's comments, we may not be ready by
    Mar 19 to make a decision to publish

    AB: understood

Patent Disclosure for the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec

    AB: as you know, Apple disclosed a patent patent for the Widgets 1.0
    Updates spec
    ... The information I received indicates Apple is not willing to
    license that patent on a Royalty-Free basis.
    ... This raises some process-related issues for the WG; I think this
    is the first time WebApps has had to deal with a disclosure issue.
    ... I would like Doug or Mike to provide a short status and then
    want to provide an opportunity for people to ask questions.
    ... Mike, Doug, status please ...

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

    <fjh> next steps for Widgets Signature - integrate properties
    proposal into draft, changing MUST to SHOULD. Change file naming to
    be case sensitive. Fix example for naming, other editorial fixes.

    <fjh> Put proposal on list re ID and reference URIs, then upon
    comment, integrate into document.

    AB: reminder that these minutes are Public

    <MikeSmith> shepazu: ping

    MS: I will not talk about anything that is not Public

    AB: we are not going to discuss the details of Apple's patent

    MS: W3C has a clear process to follow when disclosures like this are
    ... Patent Policy w3c patent policy
    ... we will start a Patent Advisory Group
    ... we will meet weekly
    ... with a new mail list
    ... we will try to resolve the issue ASAP
    ... but there is some overhead to start the PAG
    ... and that process is started


      [20] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec- 

    DS: we hope to avoid distracting from other work
    ... we also hope to avoid delaying the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
    ... the outcome of the PAG may effect the Updates spec
    ... It is certainly theoretically possible for Apple to change its
    position and offer RF licensing terms for this patent
    ... there could also be some prior art that affects the outcome
    ... Historically, some PAG outcomes have been effected by prior art

    <fjh> uhh, marcos, p + l says "All reserved file names must be
    treated as case insensitive" in 6.3?

    DS: One thing that is problematic is the reluctance of PAG members
    to actually read the patent

    <Marcos> fjh: will fix

    DS: We will try for the best outcome possible

    AB: I don't have anything else to add re the process
    ... any questions?

    Bryan: what's the issue with reading the patent?

    DS: there is no issue from the W3C's perspective
    ... anyone should feel free to read the patent
    ... your company may not want you to read it?

    Bryan: why not?

    DS: if one intentionally infringes a patent there can be even more
    damages assessed
    ... I'm talking about triple damages

    <Marcos> fjh: fixed... but not checked in

    Bryan: what is the problem with talking about some details?


      [21] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec- 

    <MikeSmith> [[

    <MikeSmith> The PAG is composed of:

    <MikeSmith> Advisory Committee Representatives of each W3C Member
    organization participating in the Working Group (or alternate
    designated by the AC Rep)

    <MikeSmith> ]]

    <MikeSmith> (plus others)

    <MikeSmith> [[

    <MikeSmith> W3C Member participants in the PAG should be authorized
    to represent their organization's views on patent licensing issues.
    Any participant in the PAG may also be represented by legal counsel,
    though this is not required. Invited experts are not entitled to
    participate in the PAG, though the PAG may chose to invite any
    qualified experts who would be able to assist the PAG in its

    <MikeSmith> ]]

    [ Art discusses some of the potential outcomes as defined in the W3C
    Patent Policy ]

    DS: Apple could identify those part of the spec covered by their

    AB: I want to close this discussion soon
    ... any other questions?

A&E spec: Arve's proposed change to the A&E spec regarding preferences:

    AB: Arve proposed a change to the A&E spec regarding the preferences
    ... see
    ... Are there any comments on this proposal?
    ... It appears we can move directly to a resolution that Arve's
    proposal is accepted

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

    <arve> ACTION-233 and ACTION-313

    Arve: that would mean the two related actions can be closed 233 and

    AB: any objections to this proposal?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: Arve's March 5 preferences proposal is accepted

P&C spec - MaxF's comments

    AB: MaxF submitted a bunch of comments on the P&C spec
    676.html>. It appears they are all good comments and Marcos has
    already addressed them in the latest ED. Is that correct Marcos? Is
    there anything we need to discuss today re Max's comments?

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

    MC: we're good; no need to discuss

P&C spec - Mandatory config file:

    AB: Marcos made a proposal the config file be Manadatory via
    ... There appears to be some confusion about whether this is being
    done solely for security reasons. What is the status of this Marcos?

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

    MC: issue is about identifying a package if it's missing its mime

    Arve: the file extension isn't a good way to determine content types

    AB: does Ranier object to the proposal?

    MC: need to determine if it is mandatory or not

    AB: should the config.xml file be mandatory?

    <Bryan> +1

    MC: yes

    Bryan: yes

    <mpriestl> Vodafone is still assessing the proposal

    JK: this is a good thing to have
    ... similar to l10n issues in that it uses a fallback

    <mpriestl> sure

Opportunities and ToDos; seeking volunteers:

    AB: in response to Bryan's email regarding helping with Editorial
    tasks, I enumerated some open opportunities and "todos" via
    ... is anyone willing to take the lead on any of these items?

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

    Bryan: I will provide some input on the list

    AB: the Opera guys are already doing so much work

    JK: where are we on the URI scheme?
    ... for example is tag: still in consideration?

    MC: I think we need to mint our own scheme
    ... I think we need to make a decision and make it soon
    ... was hoping for some input from Josh

    Josh: I can't provide input today

    AB: we really need someon to step up and take the lead

    JK: is this about more evaluation or about writing a new spec?

    AB: my take is we have done our evaluation; we don't believe any
    existing scheme covers all of our constraints and use case and that
    we need a new scheme

    Bryan: does this mean a new IETF spec?

    AB: good question; I think it is within IETF's domain to define new

    Bryan: if we agree a new scheme is needed and I think there is, does
    that mean someone must create an IETF draft and follow through?

    AB: I don't have definite answer
    ... need input from Mike or Doug

    MS: yes, IETF is the prefered process
    ... we may be able to define the scheme ourselves
    ... The process of registering the scheme isn't that bad

    Bryan: do you have an example of that being done before in the W3C?

    MS: no, I don't have an example

    <scribe> ACTION: Barstow work with Mike to determine if the widget
    URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF
    proces must be used [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Work with Mike to determine if the
    widget URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the
    IETF proces must be used [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-03-19].

    Bryan: I think we should be able to share some work with OMTP re
    widget testing
    ... also think security is an area where can work with OMTP

    AB: are there any other high priority items that are not included in
    this list and not recorded elsewhere (e.g. in the Issues and Actions

    [ None ]

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

    <scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Barstow work with Mike to determine if the widget URI
    scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF proces
    must be used [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 14:24:20 UTC

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