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

[widgets] Draft Minutes from 17 September 2009 Voice Conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:58:54 -0400
Message-Id: <FF4751A1-26CC-4665-AE56-FD588FA2A40A@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the September 17 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

  http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-wam-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before 24 September 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

17 Sep 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JulSep/1090.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Marcin, Arve, Marcos, Robin, Benoit, Frederick, Wayne

    Regrets
           Josh, Bryan, Jere

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]P&C spec: Media Type status
          4. [8]P&C spec: URI/IRI normalization
          5. [9]A&E / Widget Interface spec: Comments on section 5.1
             protected preferences by Scott Wilson
          6. [10]A&E / Widget Interface spec: August 19 comment from
             Scott Wilson
          7. [11]URI Scheme spec
          8. [12]View Modes Media Features spec
          9. [13]AOB
      * [14]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 17 September 2009

    [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
    98.html

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JulSep/1098.html

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: the Draft agenda was sent on Sept 16 (
    [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
    90.html ).
    ... When we talk about the A&E/Widget interface spec, we will
    include a comment from Scott Wilson (
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
    98.html ) which is a reminder we haven't responded to an email of
    his from 19 August. Any change requests?

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JulSep/1090.html
      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JulSep/1098.html

    [ No ]

Announcements

    AB: reminder that Sep 20 comment deadline for WARP LCWD. Does anyone
    have any other short announcements?
    ... TPAC, please register ASAP

P&C spec: Media Type status

    AB: the P&C Candidate spec includes an ISSUE re registering the
    application/widget media type (
    [18]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20090723/#media-type ).

      [18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20090723/#media-type

    MC: I plan to get that soon
    ... I don't think it will affect testing

    AB: Do you need something from the rest us?

    MC: not really
    ... I think it's clear what is needed, I just need to do it
    ... If I need help, I'll ask

    AB: does anyone have relevant experience MC can leverage?

    RB: will use IANA or the W3C fast track?

    MC: W3C fast track

    RB: will this require changing the CR?

    MC: no I don't think so
    ... the RFC enumerates the requirements and I need to make sure the
    spec includes those

    AB: will you create a separate doc?

    MC: no I think an appendix of the P+C is OK

    AB: any other comments on this topic?

    [ No ]

P&C spec: URI/IRI normalization

    AB: last week we skipped URI/IRI normalization issue (
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item03 ) because
    Marcin was not on the call. After I published today's agenda, I18N
    Core WG responded to Marcin's query (
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
    99.html ). My interpretation of Addison's feedback is that we don't
    need to make any changes.
    ... Marcin, Marcos, is Addison correct there is no change required?

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item03
      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JulSep/1099.html

    MC: need to hear from Marcin

    MH: I accept the comments from the I18N WG
    ... percent encoding should not be used for IRIs

    AB: Marcin, please add to the minutes here

    <marcin2> Based on I18N comments I understand that the UTF8 usage in
    IRI is based on character entities and not pctencoding.

    MC: we may need to add a note to make things more clear
    ... Marcin did have a good point

    <marcin2> I can live with the fact that such an IRI - as it would be
    written into config.xml - would not be able to be copy-pasted into
    the browser to point to any resource

    AB: given the Note is non-normative, we will leave it to the Editor
    to add clarifying text

    MH: in email, MC suggested I create a widget but I don't think that
    is necessary

    MC: I will create a related test
    ... and add it to the test suite

    AB: any last comments on this topic?

    [ No ]

A&E / Widget Interface spec: Comments on section 5.1 protected
preferences by Scott Wilson

    AB: on Sept 13 Scott submitted a comment re section 5.1 (
    [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
    53.html ) and then yesterday he submitted a followup (
    [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
    97.html ). What is the status?

      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JulSep/1053.html
      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JulSep/1097.html

    MC: I think we have solved the problem Scott raised
    ... by using JS' getters and setters
    ... some recent additions to ES can be used
    ... the spec will need to use those
    ... I think Scott can now create a compliant client using JS

    AB: is there some additional followup that needs to be done?

    MC: yes; there are some additional clarification that need to be
    made
    ... but this is not a blocking issue
    ... must tighten up some additional text

    AB: thanks for working on this one

A&E / Widget Interface spec: August 19 comment from Scott Wilson

    AB: on August 19 Scott Wilson submitted the following comment (
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
    98.html ) and we have not yet responded.

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JulSep/1098.html

    <Viper23> hi

    MC: I still need to investigate Scott's Aug 19 email
    ... it is related to the structured clone thread I started re
    WebStorage spec
    ... we will need to take some text from WebStorage
    ... prefs attr needs some explicit behavior defined

    Arve: you mean do a Copy-Paste?

    MC: yes, that's what Hixie recommended
    ... see this thread
    [24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
    65.html

      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JulSep/1065.html

    Arve: I want to read Hixie's reply

    AB: so obviously there is still work that needs to be done on this
    spec

    Arve: I don't understand why Hixie doesn't want to specify the
    general behavior

    AB: can you follow-up Arve?

    Arve: yes

    AB: how much work needs to be done?

    MC: I think it can be ready soon

    RB: is the plan to go to a 2nd LC?

    MC: yes; but as short as possible

    RB: that means 3 weeks

    AB: seems like we should have a 1-week review after MC completes his
    changes

    MC: I don't think we need a whole week
    ... based on experience, we won't get feedback until we publish

    RB: I tend to agree we should just publish

    <Benoit> I agree as well

    MH: yesterday I commented on the latest ED rather than the LC

    MC: I haven't looked at your comments yet Marcin

    MH: there have not yet been any responses to my comments

    MC: I will respond to those comments on Sep 18

    AB: when do you think you can complete your edits?

    MC: Tueday 22 Sept

    AB: so then on Sep 24 we can make a decision on LC # publication

    RB: I can help; let me know what needs to be done

    AB: this would then mean a publication on the 29th
    ... not sure we can do better
    ... that then Plan of Record
    ... anything else on this spec today?
    ... since we will publish a new LCWD I don't think we need to
    complete the Comment Tracking document we created for the August 18
    LC.

    MC: I am also trying to get ready for the Sep 21-23 Widget Test Fest
    ... I've already added the TA ids
    ... hope they create some tests for this

URI Scheme spec

    AB: the URI scheme spec should be ready to publish as a LCWD (
    [25]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ ) if Robin
    updated the spec (
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item06 ).

      [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
      [26] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item06

    <darobin>
    [27]http://www.w3.org/mid/FF1199B3-7D6A-4481-A3F8-57F46E25D5A0@berjo
    n.com

      [27] http://www.w3.org/mid/FF1199B3-7D6A-4481- 
A3F8-57F46E25D5A0@berjon.com

    <darobin>
    [28]http://www.w3.org/mid/9C10B32C-7F49-4CD0-B929-2622077CDA7D@berjo
    n.com

      [28] http://www.w3.org/mid/9C10B32C-7F49-4CD0- 
B929-2622077CDA7D@berjon.com

    AB: Robin, please give us a quick status

    RB: have two major comments
    ... think the spec needs to be updated before we publish
    ... Jere's comment needs to be addressed
    ... think we may be mis-using the IRI spec
    ... these changes will take some time though
    ... the spec focues on abs URI
    ... but lacking some support for relative URIs
    ... Marcos also submitted some comment that need to be addressed
    ... I think this is going to take at leas one week
    ... It would be helpful for people to start discussing

    <darobin> """

    <darobin> So taking a different tack to defining the syntax, we
    could state that for a URI to be a valid widget URI, then it must
    match the IRI production in RFC 3987, with "scheme" being "widget".
    That pretty much makes us as safe as can be syntax-wise.

    <darobin> We then need a "Rule for converting the ipath-* bits to a
    file name field", and anything that cannot be converted is simply
    considered to resolve to nothing (the equivalent of a 404). This
    requires a bigger change than I'd hoped, but I think it's probably
    the right thing to do.

    <darobin> """

    <darobin> - should the requirements in WURI be moved to the
    requirements document

    <darobin> - HTML 5 origin issue

    RB: we need input on the above comments from Jere and Marcos

    AB: so it's going to be another week or two before we are ready to
    make a decision about LC ready

View Modes Media Features spec

    AB: we need to get the VMMF spec (
    [29]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-mediafeature.src.html )
    ready for FPWD as discussed last week (
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item07 ). Marcin,
    what's the status?

      [29] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm- 
mediafeature.src.html
      [30] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item07

    MH: what is required for FPWD?

    AB: I am not aware of any hard reqs
    ... are there any things you need to do?

    MH: needs a ToC

    RB: there are no absolute reqs for FPWD
    ... but want to think about IPR and exclusions
    ... by publishing a FPWD, the exclusion period starts
    ... the 2nd period starts when the LC is published
    ... want to make sure FPWD is as feature complete as possible
    ... at least mentions all of the features expected in the final
    Recommendation
    ... even a simple paragraph that isn't well-defined is OK

    MH: should we do a round of edits before we do a FPWD?

    RB: do you think it is feature complete?

    MH: yes
    ... but I will add a ToC

    AB: everyone should review the spec and submit comments by Sept 24
    ... let's plan to make a decision about FPWD during the Sep 24 call
    ... besides myself, can anyone else do a thorough review?

    RB: I will

    AB: anything else on this topic for today?

    MH: nothing from me
    ... note I will be traveling at this time next week

AOB

    AB: good luck to those attending the Widgets Test Fest next week.
    ... who's going?

    RB: me

    MH: me too

    AB: the meeting will be held in #wam?

    RB: yes

    AB: sorry I can't make it

    <Viper23> me

    AB: any other topics?

    MC: I won't be able to join next week

    Arve: I may not be able to join next week

    AB: Meeting Adjourned; next meeting is Sep 24

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 13:59:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT