W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

[widgets] Draft Minutes for 1 October 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:24:59 -0400
Message-Id: <8F7276F1-F610-435B-8AA9-A1673044EBF5@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the October 1 D 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 8 October 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                           Widgets Voice Conf

01 Oct 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-irc


           Art, Marcin, Frederick, Robin, Steven, David, Benoit

           Josh, Arve, JereK




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]DigSig spec: Test Assertions and Test Suite Status
          4. [8]P&C spec: Test Suite questions
          5. [9]P&C spec: bug in Rule for Identifying the Media Type of
             a File
          6. [10]P&C: Proposal to move Conformance Checker assertions
             from P&C spec to another doc
          7. [11]P&C: Test suite status
          8. [12]P&C: Next steps & planning
          9. [13]TWI spec: Closing widget Interface issues
         10. [14]TWI spec: TWI and View Modes
         11. [15]TWI spec: A&E LC comments
         12. [16]TWI spec: Status of LC comment responses and their
         13. [17]View Modes Media Feature Spec
         14. [18]Widget URI spec
         15. [19]AOB
      * [20]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 1 October 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: Agenda posted Sep 30 (
    93.html ). Any change requests?

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

    [ None ]


    AB: any short announcements? Reminder to register for the Nov 2-3
    f2f meeting and TPAC (
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/ )
    ... any other?

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/

    SP: please do register; early bird registration is Oct 5

DigSig spec: Test Assertions and Test Suite Status

    AB: earlier this week Dom sent an update on the DigSig Test Suite (
    68.html ). He and MWTS continue to do good work including a DigSig
    Test Plan ( [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/tests/ ).
    Is there anything else to add re this test suite?

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/tests/

    FH: it seems we can use assertions for syntactic checking, and then
    compare signature values for signature generation and verification
    ... not sure on the goal

    AB: would you please FH ask your question re goal on the mail list?

    FH: yes; and I'll add something to the IRC log

    AB: anything else on the DigSig test suite?
    ... any info to share on who is implementing this spec?

    <drogersuk> zakim unmute drogersus

    <drogersuk> zakim unmute drogersuk

    RB: is Nokia implementing it?

    <drogersuk> grr zakim

    AB: I am not aware of any information Nokia has made about
    implementing widget specs

    DR: I think you can search the lists
    ... think the question could be answered by looking at the mail
    ... is Nokia implemmenting the DigSig and can you Art find out?

    AB: I answered the first part of the question
    ... I can find out what has been stated publicly about what we are

    DR: that would be good
    ... there is a fair amount of info

    <drogersuk> no

    <drogersuk> google

    <drogersuk> :-)

    DR: not sure about DigSig spec but probably more about P+C spec

    AB: I am not aware of any public statements that Nokia has made
    regarding implementing Widget specs


      [25] http://bondisdk.limofoundation.org/docs/Signing_a_Web_Widget/

    <drogersuk> Please can you go away and find out?

    AB: David, please enter your question into IRC

    <drogersuk> If you can make a public statement in relation to
    implementation of digsig

    AB: AFAIK, Nokia employes are not allowed to make public statements
    about their implementation plans

    DR: ok; that's what I was asking

    <drogersuk> thanks

    AB: anything else about impl?

    RB: Aplix has released some info
    ... it supports signing

    FH: it would be good to have a list of links

    RB: yes, of course
    ... Marcos, are you implementing DigSig?

    MC: not sure
    ... we can only confirm we are implementing P+C
    ... I can check though

    AB: FH, as to your question, see
    ... we can add new info

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting

P&C spec: Test Suite questions

    AB: Marcos sent an email that enumerates spec redundancies that were
    found during the test fest (
    77.html ). He agreed with all but one of the redundancies.
    ... if anyone disagrees with Marcos' proposals, send your feedback
    to public-webapps
    ... I think there was exchange between RB and MC on one of them
    ... your proposals seemed reasonable to me

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

    <darobin> should we look at agreeing on
    88.html ?

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

    MC: need to say what to do if zip isn't labeled
    ... should it be a must if from hard disk

    RB: but if on the disc, system could give you something different
    than if from the net

    MC: do we make this a must?

    RB: I don't feel strongly on this

    AB: so wrt ta-VngNBkhUXz, leave it as is?

    MC: yes

    AB: any objections?

    [ None ]

    AB: what about ta-HTgovPjElK?

    RB: it is redundant
    ... we can try to create something like an Acid test
    ... we can keep it

    MC: I don't think we want Acid tests at this point

    <drogersuk> That is potentially on the table for the future in MWI

    RB: we need feedback from implementors
    ... I think we just keep

    MC: I agree

    AB: any disagreements?

    [ No ]

P&C spec: bug in Rule for Identifying the Media Type of a File

    AB: Marcos identified a bug in the ABNF for zip relative paths (
    75.html ). Marcin proposed a fix.
    ... have you looked at Marcin's patch?

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

    MC: could change the prose instead of changing the ABNF
    ... option #2 is to just change some prose

    AB: options are to change the ABNF or the prose and there are two
    ways to handle it via prose changes

    MH: I don't think we need to update the prose but do need to change
    the ABNF

    MC: agree the ABNF has an ambiguity
    ... think we need to change ABNF and prose

    MH: I am OK with modifying both
    ... i.e. add sniffing

    AB: would like MC and MH to work on a proposal and submit it to the

    MC: OK; I'll do that

    <scribe> ACTION: Marcos submit a proposal to address the Rule for
    Identifying MT of a file bug [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-408 - Submit a proposal to address the
    Rule for Identifying MT of a file bug [on Marcos Caceres - due

P&C: Proposal to move Conformance Checker assertions from P&C spec to
another doc

    AB: since we are not aware of any implementations of the Conformance
    Checker requirements, Marcos proposed (
    76.html ) they be moved into a separate spec. Any comments on this
    ... does anyone object to this proposal?

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

    RESOLUTION: P&C Conformance Checker requirements will be removed

    AB: we can figure out later how to handle it


      [32] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html

    MC: it's already in a new standalone doc

P&C: Test suite status


      [33] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html

    AB: Marcos, Kai, Dom, et al. have done some good work on the P&C
    test suite (
    ackaging_and_Configuration_spec ). What's the status of the test

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/ 

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8
    agenda [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-409 - Add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct
    8 agenda [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-08].

    MC: all of the tests were verified during the test event
    ... that means someone checked each of them
    ... I now to copy them into the master XML file
    ... and check for consistency
    ... also need to remove some redundant assertions

    AB: what type of time frame?

    MC: about a week
    ... there are about 160 tests

    AB: are there still some TAs that are outside our repo?

    MC: no, I was told they are now in w3 domain

    AB: cool; last comments?

P&C: Next steps & planning

    AB: we've had a couple of thread related to next steps for P&C,
    latest one is (
    99.html ). The fact is, sufficient issues have been identified in
    CR#1 that we must go back to Working Draft.
    ... although in theory we could skip CR#2, I am reluctant to do so
    as I indicated in (
    99.html ). Any comments on that?

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

    RB: I don't see any value in skipping CR#2
    ... same timeline diff

    <drogersuk> Art you stated that you don't know that anyone is
    implementing P&C - there are some public statements about that

    RB: we should go to CR ASAP

    DR: we have quite a few implementations we know about
    ... e.g. Microsoft
    ... we know Opera has implemented
    ... we think Nokia has as well

    AB: re the plan going forward, according to Dom, we can publish a
    new LC before CR#1 ends. This seems like a process bug to me because
    I think a reasonable interpretation of "a PR will not be published
    before Nov 1" is "I have until October 31 to submit comments about
    CR#1". As such, I'm concerned that publishing CR#2 on or before Oct
    31 could mean we miss comments.

    DR: how long is CR#2?

    RB: we must go to LC
    ... LC starts an exclusion period that lasts 8 weeks
    ... shortest LC period is 3 weeks

    DR: is this a sequential period?

    RB: during the exclusion period we can pub a new CR but we cannot
    exit CR

    BS: not sure about exclusion period

    RB: the only exclusion we have is on Updates spec
    ... DR was aksing about timeline

    <drogersuk> what would be the earliest date we could exit LC#2

    <drogersuk> a date to aim for

    RB: when ever we publish LC, we can expect to exit CR at the
    earliest about 8 weeks after entering LC

    <drogersuk> for CR

    <Steven> CR can be zero length

    DR: if we publish LC next week, earliest we can exit CR is 8 weeks

    <drogersuk> So realistically we're looking at about Christmas eve?

    <drogersuk> A nice Christmas present?

    <drogersuk> lol

    AB: on the other hand, we all want P&C to continue to progress ASAP
    ... what needs to be done before we can publish a new LC?

    MC: we need to add fxes for ABNF
    ... need to remove redundancies
    ... before we publish a new doc want to have TS completed

    AB: note we must also address all other comments that came in during
    the CR e.g. the WAI P+F WG

    RB: we must address all comments before LC

    AB: agree

    <drogersuk> Art - I just noticed you're attributing some of Robin's
    comments to me :-) RB and DR

    AB: here is a pointer
    ... please respond to WAI comments
    ... anything else on P+C for today?

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets/PandC- 

    <Marcos> ACTION: Marcos to respond to
    43.html [recorded in

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

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-410 - Respond to
    43.html [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].

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

    RB: have we agree to a timeline for P+C?

    AB: AFAIC, we should publish a new LC when we are ready

    RB: Marcos, how much time do you think you need?

    MC: I will try for 1-week

    AB: I know I want some review time
    ... what do I review?
    ... is the TSE going to be the main spec?

    MC: yes but without the styles

    <Marcos> [42]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html

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

    AB: so everyone should start reviewing the TSE

TWI spec: Closing widget Interface issues

    AB: the Instance versus Origin issue has plagued this spec for quite
    a while now (
    56.html ). It appears there is now agreement to use Instance and to
    remove the dependency on Origin as defined in the Widget URI scheme
    ... so we now need to agree on a defn of Instance, correct Marcos?

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

    MC: yes that's true

    AB: what is the plan for a proposed definition?

    MC: I will check in changes soon

    RB: this change is OK with me

    MC: TWI has no dependency on URI spec
    ... defining Instance is a bit tricky

    <scribe> ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of
    Widget Instance [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-411 - Submit a proposal for the definition
    of Widget Instance [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].

TWI spec: TWI and View Modes

    AB: last week Marcin sent an email about TWI and View Modes spec (
    03.html ).

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

    MH: I have an answer to the main question
    ... it will need some discussion when we get to VM-I spec

    AB: anything else on this for today?

    [ No ]

TWI spec: A&E LC comments

    AB: Marcin sent two sets of comments re the TWI LC spec: (
    80.html ) and (
    81.html )
    ... do we have consensus yet?

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

    MH: localization is still open
    ... and don't have consensus on features
    ... I still need to follow-up

    <marcin2> I plan to respond to

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

    RB: I think we should push this to v2

    MH: I think there are use cases for these
    ... think we should follow-up on the list

TWI spec: Status of LC comment responses and their tracking

    AB: Marcos, what is the status of the TWI LC comment tracking doc (
    pis-20090818/ )?
    ... you want to maintain this doc even though we will publish a new

      [49] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 

    MC: yes; I think we need to do this because we may not get any
    comments during LC#2

    AB: so you will add all of the data?

    MC: yes
    ... there are only 3-4 threads

    AB: anything else on TWI for today?
    ... if we want to get a new LC before TPAC, we just have a few weeks

    6. View Modes Media Features spec:

View Modes Media Feature Spec

    AB: we still haven't published a FPWD of VM-MF spec. I think it is
    particularly urgent to get something published before we republish
    P&C spec so we have a "real" spec to reference (not just some ED).
    Robin sent some comments (
    n.com ).
    ... where are we?

      [50] http://www.w3.org/mid/ 

    MH: I tried to address his comments
    ... I agree with all of them
    ... I changed the layout quite a bit, especially Section 3
    ... I will continue to work on it

    <darobin> +1

    AB: you think it is ready now for FPWD?

    MH: yes; want to get Public feedback now

    AB: if we were to record consensus now that it is ready for FPWD,
    then it could be published by Oct 6 and that would give MH some time
    to add prose.
    ... is this what we want to do?

    RB: yes; works for me

    MC: good plans

    MH: yes, OK

    AB: propose VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD

    <darobin> [51]http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules

      [51] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules

    AB: I think MC and RB can help with pub rules

Widget URI spec


      [52] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/Overview-LC.html

    RB: I re-wrote it entirely
    ... it's much better
    ... think it is ready for LC

    MC: think it's good and fun to read
    ... it address the concerns I had

    AB: any other feedback?
    ... I haven't looked at it yet and want to review it
    ... how about we give people until Tues morning to submit comments
    and if none are submitted, I'll submit a Trans Req for LC?

    RB: OK with me

    MC: OK

    RESOLUTION: we will publish a LCWD of the Widget URI scheme spec if
    no major issues are raised by Oc 6


    AB: any topics?

    [ None ]

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of Widget
    Instance [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos submit a proposal to address the Rule for
    Identifying MT of a file bug [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos to respond to
    43.html [recorded in

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

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 14:25:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:20 UTC