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

[widgets] Draft Minutes from 20 August 2009 Voice Conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:04:25 -0400
Message-Id: <5D10A6AE-4F9A-4580-AC69-B353F9EE7901@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the August 20 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 27 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

20 Aug 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-irc


           Art, Bryan, Marcin, Arve, Marcos





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization
          4. [8]P&C Test Suite status
          5. [9]View Modes spec:
          6. [10]View Modes spec: Proposal: split the specification, add
             new events
          7. [11]VM spec: Best practice and scalability
          8. [12]URI Scheme spec: next steps
          9. [13]AOB
      * [14]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <anne2> Marcos, public-webapps / whatwg ?

    Date: 20 August 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: draft agenda submitted on August 19 (
    41.html ). Since then there have been some comments on the A&E spec
    and View Modes (VM) spec.
    ... should we add A+E spec today or continue discussions on the mail
    ... any prefs?

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

    MH: I suggest using the mail list

    AB: any objections to that?

    [ None ]

    AB: we'll keep the agenda as is


    AB: the draft agenda agenda included 3 reminders/announcements. Does
    anyone have any short announcements they want to make?

    [ None ]

P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization

    AB: last week Marcin started a thread (
    44.html ) regarding IRI/URI normalization and the P&C Candidate.
    This email was sent to the I18N Core WG.
    ... Addison indicated the I18N WG would review the email
    ... but I don't think that has yet happened
    ... Marcin, do you want to discuss this today?

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

    MH: I don't know when they will review my email
    ... but Addison said they will review it
    ... I don't know when they have telcos

    AB: any followup for today?

    MH: I don't think so

    AB: do we defer discussion until I18N WG has responded?

    MC: yes; I have nothing to add today

P&C Test Suite status

    AB: Marcos sent an email about the P&C Test suite (
    71.html ) and he solicited comments/feedback. He also included a
    pointer to the P&C Test Suite Edition (aka TSE) (
    [18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html#prologue ).
    ... any comments for Marcos?

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html#prologue

    <Marcos> [19]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/

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

    AB: Marcos, can you give us an update of your related discussions
    with the MWTS WG?

    MC: all tests will go in the URI above
    ... this will be the template we use
    ... explains how to write a test
    ... Still hoping to get more guidance from MWTS WG
    ... Will try to minimize dependencies on other specs
    ... The tests will be targeted at the P+C UA
    ... Want to minimize resolution
    ... Working with Kai Hendry on structuring, verification, etc.
    ... Kai will make tests and so will I
    ... We will then verify each others tests
    ... Tests will only be added to the official test suite when someone
    has verified a test
    ... Others are free to write tests too and to verify them
    ... Opera will contribute tests but they need to be ported to our

    BS: how does one verify?

    MC: make sure it is written correctly i.e. the test actually tests
    the assertion
    ... this isn't pure science
    ... we must have someone else do the verificatin
    ... the TS is very important so we need to do it right

    AB: any comments or feedback for Marcos?

    BS: re the process, you automatically extracted the assertions,

    MC: yes

    BS: and that depends on some specific markup to work, right?

    MC: yes
    ... is that some W3C-specific mechanism?
    ... yes but any other spec writer could use this mechanism
    ... no magic is used

    BS: this is an interesting convention for others to use

    MC: agree

    AB: I agree this is a neat mechanism
    ... perhaps you can give a related talk at the November TPAC meeting
    e.g. a Lightning Talk

    MC: yes, I can do that

    BS: what's the prereq to make this work?

    MC: must read the spec at least once; use links to definitions

    AB: re the "minimize resolution", what do you mean?

    MC: want a test to test just one particular aspect of the UA
    ... want each test case to be as precise and targeted as possible

    AB: right, atomic test cases

    MC: will create a way to make it easy to download all the tests
    ... and a XML format that describes the tests
    ... that will also need review

    AB: are there any actions for the rest of u?

    MC: please start reviewing the TSE and send comments
    ... the test suite will meet Opera's needs; want it to also meet
    other's needs

    BS: I will certainly take a look at it

    AB: how many test cases are now verified?

    MC: none are yet verified
    ... I expect we will need at least 200 test cases
    ... I just uploaded the document yesterday
    ... We are being a bit cautious about the test cases as we want
    someone from MWTS e.g. Dom to give a "Blessing" before we start
    creating a bunch of tests
    ... I've been looking at a bunch of test suites e.g. CSS, Annes,
    ... We want to leverage as much "Collective Wisdom" as possible
    ... and thus get it right the 1st time

    AB: do you need someone to ping Dom about this?

    MC: I've already done that
    ... on the MWTS mail list for sure, perhaps public-webapps too
    ... I'll send another request today

    AB: this is excellent; thanks!

View Modes spec:

    AB: Marcin recently updated the View Modes (VM) spec (
    [20]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm/ ). Let's first see
    where we are the FPWD's ToDo list created by Robin a few weeks ago (
    18.html ). Based on that discussion, we will probably need to assign
    actions for some of the list items.

      [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm/
      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MH: several of these items are now done
    ... I am keeping a list; the rest should be done by tomorrow
    ... Event intitializers still needs to be discussed
    ... that thread was started by Cam and Robin
    ... need to copy some definitions and/or link to them

    AB: any comments about Marcin's status?
    ... do we want to cover
    64.html today?

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

    MC: yes; I think so

    MH: yes

View Modes spec: Proposal: split the specification, add new events

    AB: earlier today, Marcin submitted a proposal
    64.html to split the VM spec into two

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

    MH: there is some inconistency between VM and MQ spec
    ... I think it would be better to split the spec into two separate
    ... keep the MQ and Events together in a new spec
    ... Ch #3 of the current doc would go in one spec
    ... Ch #4 would go in the new spec

    AB: any feedback on splitting the spec?
    ... Given this proposal is very recent, I'm a little reluctant to
    make a decision on the split now
    ... OTOH, if this is blocking progress, we can increase the urgency
    of a decision

    MH: I'm OK with waiting

    AB: if we do a split, are you Marcin, willing to be the main Editor
    and driver?

    MH: yes
    ... the one spec probably will not be part of the Widgets 1.0 spec
    suite but the other will be

    AB: I'll respond to the proposal and ask WG members to submit
    feedback on the proposal by August 27

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow respond to Marcin's VM spec split [recorded
    in [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-394 - Respond to Marcin's VM spec split
    [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-27].

    MH: I will follow-up with my email with some more details and
    include CSS WG

    AB: good idea
    ... any other feedback on the spec split?

    MC: I have no objections to the spec split

    BS: I don't have a strong opinion;
    ... want to get a better understanding of what is put in the widget
    spec space versus the broader Web Apps use cases

    MH: CSS Media Queries is relevant here
    ... if the View Modes is part of the Widgets spec suite, reader will
    assume the context is for widgets

    BS: need to get a better understanding of what goes into the two
    different specs

    MH: think we need a separate document that ties all of the Widgets
    specs together


      [25] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#widgets-1.0-family-of- 

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow what is good way to capture the notion of
    "Family of Widget Specs"? [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-395 - What is good way to capture the
    notion of "Family of Widget Specs"? [on Arthur Barstow - due

    ications has 6 docs

      [27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#widgets-1.0-family-of- 

    AB: anything else on the spec split for today?

    cations has 7 docs

      [28] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-apis/#widgets-1.0-family-of- 

    [ No ]

VM spec: Best practice and scalability

    AB: earlier this week Richard Tibbett sent an email about the VM
    spec (
    67.html ) and I don't think anyone has yet responded.
    ... I believe Richard is a member of the WG
    ... one option is to postpone discussion until Richard can join us
    ... another option is to follow-up on the mail list

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

    MC: I prefer the mail list option

    AB: any other opinions?

    MH: mail list

    AB: all - please followup Richard
    ... email on the list

    BS: think we need some discussion Richard's email
    ... need more discussion about events and scalability

URI Scheme spec: next steps

    AB: the last publication of the URI Scheme spec was 18 June. What is
    the status of that spec (
    [30]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ ) and what are
    the next steps?
    ... I notice now that Robin isn't here
    ... We will postpone discussion unless someone has some urgent
    comments on this spec

      [30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/

    [ None ]


    AB: Marcos, any recent emails we want to discuss now?

    MC: not really

    AB: WebStorage?

    MC: WebStorage changing to arbitrary data will affect A+E spec
    ... the LCWD is no longer correct

    AB: that's not good

    MC: a lot of the related discussions are happening on the WHAT WG
    mail list
    ... which I don't follow
    ... nor the HTML5 list

    BS: what's the main change?

    MC: Storage used to just be Strings and now it can be anything
    ... that will affect implementation
    ... could in theory store the Storage or Window object
    ... need to understand the reason the spec was changed
    ... think there is a now a req to store structured data e.g. JSON
    ... originally, Storage was just for Strings

    BS: so now I could store an image?

    MC: yes, I think in theory that is now possible
    ... Look at the latest ED

    <Marcos> [31]http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/

      [31] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/


      [32] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/

    AB: so this has the potential to have a serious impact on the A+E

    MC: the spec will need to change
    ... not clear yet if that change will be considered Serious or not
    ... I need to learn more about "why" the spec changed

    AB: any other AOB for today?

    [ None ]

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow respond to Marcin's VM spec split [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow what is good way to capture the notion of
    "Family of Widget Specs"? [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 14:05:12 UTC

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