W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

[widgets] Draft Minutes from 13 August 2009 Voice Conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:32:25 -0400
Message-Id: <870436BA-6E84-4E9D-9673-F431ED874E9F@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the August 13 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 20 August 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

13 Aug 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-wam-irc


           Marcin, Art, Marcos, Arve, Bryan, Josh





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]A&E spec: proposal to publish LCWD
          4. [8]P&C: Test suite dependency on A&E spec
          5. [9]P&C: Candidate "Bug Alerts"
          6. [10]Issue #93: deprecated, grandfathered, and redundant
             tags should be skipped.
          7. [11]Issue #94: Try to fallback to default start files when
             src path is invalid or not existing
          8. [12]Issue #95: Conformance checker behavior intermixed with
             UA behavior
          9. [13]View Modes spec
         10. [14]AOB
      * [15]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Title: Widgets Voice Conf

    Date: 13 August 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: draft agenda (
    74.html ) posted 12 August. Any change requests?

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

    [ None ]


    AB: any short announcements?

    [ None ]

A&E spec: proposal to publish LCWD

    AB: during our last call on July 30 we said that today we would
    determine if there was consensus to publish a LCWD of the A&E spec (
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-wam-minutes.html#item03 ). What is
    the status Marcos? Latest ED is:
    ... is July 30 the latest?

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-wam-minutes.html#item03
      [18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

    MC: yes

    AB: MC, you have an issue about the A+E?

    MC: yes; showNotifcation
    ... do we want this in a new spec?
    ... some discussion on WHAT-WG list
    ... some want showNotification in its own spec

    Arve: I think it should be place in its own spec
    ... since it is not related to widget packaing
    ... would be a good separation of concerns
    ... not clear if it belongs in HTML5 or not
    ... but tend to think a sep spec is best

    MH: what about getAttention?

    MC: they could be merged into one spec

    Arve: disagree; diff use cases for the two
    ... but could specify both APIs in the same spec

    MH: BONDI module UI
    ... handles softkeys, vibration, etc.
    ... think showNot and getAttention should be defined together

    BS: getAttention not covered
    ... good question about where to put UI functions
    ... I do agree try to minimize the number of specs

    MC: so BS, should these UI APIs be removed from A+E?

    BS: should be consistent with other specs
    ... if no other UI APis in the widget spec suite it may make sense
    to put them in a sep spec

    AB: I don't feel strongly about keeping them or removing these two
    UI APIs

    Arve: I feel strongly they should be in a separate spec

    MC: they prolly shouldn't have been there to begin with
    ... think there should be a stand alone spec for these UI-related

    AB: a concern I have is who will drive these two APIs fwd

    MC: we can ask Hixie to put them back in HTML5

    BS: could get DAP involved

    AB: I'm hearing these APIs are of broad enough interest to separate
    them from the A+E spec and the widget spec suite

    BS: but it is still within scope for WebApps, right?

    AB: yes
    ... I don't want these APIs to ping back and forth with the HTML WG
    ... want an Editor that is committed to driving them

    MC: we took HTML5 as a basis and then started adding widget stuff on
    top of it

    Arve: I understand one UC from Google is to use this with Worker

    MC: yes; so they have some different reqs

    Arve: yes; non-trivial to address a broad set of reqs

    <arve> s/worker threads/background workers/

    <arve> [this is even more complicated]

    BS: I think the UI part of DAP is related

    MC: since these APIs were removed from HTML5, a lot of the landscape
    has changed
    ... there may now be enough interest for HTML5 to take these back

    AB: one way fwd is to remove them and ask HTML WG to take them back
    ... if HTML WG doesn't want them, we will need to find someone in
    ... or possibly DAP WG

    Arve: I don't think DAP is right, but WebApps is OK if HTML WG
    doesn't want them

    BS: I have some concerns about them going to HTML5
    ... related to timing and complexity
    ... not sure they will address windows reqs
    ... so an issue is where are the experts and the resources?

    MC: yes; but HTML5 plans to go to LC in a month or two

    AB: does anyone object to removing these two APIs from A+E?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: the showNotification and getAttention APIs will be
    removed from the A+E spec

    AB: MC or Arve, can you take an Action to talk to Hixie about HTML
    taking these two functions?

    MC: yes

    <scribe> ACTION: caceres talk to Hixie and HTML WG about taking the
    getAttention and showNotification APIs [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-389 - Talk to Hixie and HTML WG about
    taking the getAttention and showNotification APIs [on Marcos Caceres
    - due 2009-08-20].

    AB: are there any other issues blocking a LCWD of A+E?

    MC: no
    ... I will remove these two APIs

    Arve: I have a comment about open
    ... the method is about opening a Locator not an Identifier

    MC: I want to imply any URI can be loaded

    Arve: all URLs are URI
    ... but not vice-versa

    MC: look at the examples: sms: tel: feed: ...

    MH: need to have consistency
    ... URI, URL, IRI, ...

    MC: can't use "IRI" because that is "W3C Speak"

    MH: but the description needs to be consistent

    MC: I can live with URL but I don't like it

    AB: is there a precedence we should consider?

    MC: at least 3 other widget engines use openURL

    AB: my preference is to use openURL
    ... can you live with it MC?

    MC: yes; I'll change it

    AB: why is license not included?

    MC: I don't feel strongly about it

    AB: seems like it should be there for completness

    MC: I could add it; could also add license HREF

    <Marcos> readonly attribute DOMString license;

    <Marcos> readonly attribute DOMString licenseHref;

    MC: the licenseHref can have some probs

    Arve: could also have multiple licenses

    MC: yes; not clear which would be authoritative

    <arve> what about readonly attribute LicenseCollection license;

    Arve: would prefer to not handle license at all for API and Events
    ... could define formal grammar for licenses

    AB: I don't want to go down that rathole
    ... one option is to leave License out of the spec and to see if
    there are any objections during the LC review period


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

    AB: my inclination is to leave the spec as is ; OK?

    MC: yes

    AB: are there any objections to publishing a LCWD of the A+E spec
    with the agreed changes today?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: the WG agrees to publish a LCWD of the A+E with the
    changes agreed during the 13 Aug 2009 Voice Conf

    <scribe> ACTION: Caceres notify Art when A+E LCWD is pub ready
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-390 - Notify Art when A+E LCWD is pub
    ready [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-08-20].

P&C: Test suite dependency on A&E spec

    AB: first P&C topic is the question about whether or not the P&C
    test suite can have a dependency on the APIs and Events spec (
    22.html ). Marcos and Scott Wilson exchanged some emails on this.

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

    MC: there is a tradeoff between having a simpler test suite for the
    P+C spec if the test suite can use the A+E spec
    ... don't want to have to add a bunch of extra steps for simple

    AB: I don't see a problem with such a dependency
    ... what do you need Marcos, a resolution?


      [23] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.src.html

    MC: I am working with Kai on the templates
    ... we now have about 80 tests

    AB: are these templates all new?

    MC: yes; did them very recently
    ... I have been working with the MWTS on this
    ... there are 114 testable assertions
    ... we will create one or more tests for each assertion
    ... this helps us understand if assertions are testable or not

    <Marcos> [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/test-suite.xml

      [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/test-suite.xml

    AB: this looks real good Marcos!

    MC: I think this is going to work quite well
    ... it will also help us find issues in the spec
    ... I want to talk about how to track bugs
    ... Marcin found a bug too

    AB: what is the status of Kai's prior work?

    <Bryan> I have to drop for another call. I sent a mail closing

    MC: he is updating those tests to use the new template

    <Marcos> [25]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/

      [25] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/

    MC: they will be moved into our CVS repository

P&C: Candidate "Bug Alerts"

    AB: Opera has submitted three "Bug Alerts" against the P&C Candidate
    and each of these has been captured as Raised Issues (
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues ). Let's go through
    these quickly and at a minimum determine if there is an issue or
    ... I want to postpone process related discussions until we have a
    Team Member on the call

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues

Issue #93: deprecated, grandfathered, and redundant tags should be

    AB: Issue #93 ( [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/93
    ). The original email is (
    52.html ).

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/93
      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: this is definitely a bug

    AB: one question I have is why deprecated subtags should be ignored

    <Marcos> i-hello

    <Marcos> "i, hello"

    <Marcos> "/i"

    AB: there a bunch of subtags that begin with "x"
    ... dozens were added 29 July 2009
    ... do you mean "x-..."?

    <Marcos> x-

    MC: yes, I mean "x-"

    AB: I'm not convinced we have a serious bug here

    MC: agree; we do have some redundancies we need to address

    AB: my recommendation is to move from RAISED to OPEN
    ... and during impl phase we need to get feedback from the
    ... OK?

    MC: yes

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow move Issue #93 to OPEN state [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-391 - Move Issue #93 to OPEN state [on
    Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-20].

    AB: anything else on #93?

    [ No ]

Issue #94: Try to fallback to default start files when src path is
invalid or not existing

    AB: Issue #94 ( [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/94
    ). The original email is (
    ... you want to withdraw this one Marcos?

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/94
      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: yes

    AB: so we should close this as not an issue?

    MC: yes; and Josh agreed

    AB: any objections to closing this?

    [ None ]

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow close Issue #94 - this is not an Issue - it
    is a Feature! [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-392 - Close Issue #94 - this is not an
    Issue - it is a Feature! [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-20].

Issue #95: Conformance checker behavior intermixed with UA behavior

    AB: Issue #95 ( [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/95
    ). The original email is (
    52.html )

      [33] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/95
      [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: want to reject features of ZIP that are not universally
    ... want to remove this to allow future UAs to still work
    ... so its a bit of future proofing
    ... then a CC could warn the author about such features

    AB: I agree it is a bug
    ... and would keep it open for now

    MC: don't want the UA to be a CC

    AB: I agree that isn't good
    ... so you indeed want to remove that quoted sentence from the spec,

    MC: yes

    AB: my proposal is to move to Open state and ask implementors for

    MH: no comments now on this

    AB: any objections to my proposal?

    [ None ]

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow move issue #95 to the Open state [recorded
    in [35]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-wam-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-393 - Move issue #95 to the Open state [on
    Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-20].

    AB: anything else about the P+C for today?

    [ No ]

View Modes spec

    AB: we still don't have a FPWD of the View Modes spec despite the
    P&C CR defining the list of modes (
    [36]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-wm/ ). On July 15
    Robin published a ToDo list (
    18.html ).
    ... We also discussed this spec on July 30 (
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-wam-minutes.html#item05 ) and
    clarified that Marcin can edit this spec as needed. What's the
    status and in particular, what remains to be done before we can
    publish the FPWD?
    ... I think we need to make this spec a High Priority

      [36] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-wm/
      [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [38] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-wam-minutes.html#item05

    MH: I will update the spec this week or next

    AB: OK
    ... let us know if you need help

    MH: will do

    AB: anything else on View Modes spec for today?

    [ None ]


    AB: I don't have anything for today
    ... anyone else?

    [ No ]

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow close Issue #94 - this is not an Issue - it is
    a Feature! [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow move Issue #93 to OPEN state [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow move issue #95 to the Open state [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Caceres notify Art when A+E LCWD is pub ready
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: caceres talk to Hixie and HTML WG about taking the
    getAttention and showNotification APIs [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 14:34:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:18 UTC