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

[widgets] Draft Minutes for 15 October 2009 Voice Conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:59:24 -0400
Message-Id: <33D11DF7-2BC0-49CC-9B23-8B90039016C9@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the October 15 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 22 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

15 Oct 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-wam-irc


           Art, Marcin, Arve, Marcos, Robin, David

           Frederick, Josh




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Announcements
          2. [6]Review and tweak agenda
          3. [7]P&C spec: Issue #93 - deprecated, grandfathered, and
             redundant tags should be skipped
          4. [8]P&C spec: ABNF changes for Valid Zip Relative Path
          5. [9]P&C spec: what's blocking LC#3 publication?
          6. [10]TWI spec: Action 411 - need a definition of Widget
          7. [11]VMMF spec: Comments from Marcin:
          8. [12]Continue technical discussions on WARP, URI, Updates,
             VM-I, etc. on public-webapps
          9. [13]AOB
      * [14]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 15 October 2009

    <Marcos> +marcos

    <arve> marcos is physically present


    AB: #1 reminder October 27 is the deadline to submit publication
    requests before the TPAC publication moratorium begins.
    ... #2 yesterday I created a wiki to track implementations of the
    widgets specs (
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetImplementation ).
    Everyone in the WG is welcome to edit and help maintain this
    ... any other announcements?

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

    [ None ]


      [16] http://samaxes.svn.beanstalkapp.com/ 

    MC: this work by Samuel and Daniel is part of our annoucements
    ... they would like to join WebApps as Invited Experts
    ... they are conducting some widget compatibility work
    ... have an intern that run the tests
    ... I think this data will be useful

    Arve: what does Present Techn do?

    MC: they are based in Portugal; do a lot of stuff
    ... one thing is building mobile web sites
    ... they want to understand who supports the W3C's widgets specs
    ... they want to know exactly which features are implemented by the
    various vendors
    ... they will help me with testing
    ... but they will NOT do their own independent impl

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow follow-up with Team about how to get
    Present Technologies participating in WebApps' Widgets work
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-419 - Follow-up with Team about how to get
    Present Technologies participating in WebApps' Widgets work [on
    Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-22].

    AB: has this work been announced on the Public mail list?

    MC: no, not yet
    ... I need to do some work first
    ... I am having massive probs with CVS on W3C server

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: I submitted a draft agenda on Oct 14 (
    72.html ). Any change requests?

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

    [ None ]

P&C spec: Issue #93 - deprecated, grandfathered, and redundant tags
should be skipped

    AB: last week Marcos agreed to pursue Issue #93 (
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/93 ); see also
    Action #413 ( [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/413
    ). Marcos, what's the status? This should be closed before we
    publish the next LCWD.

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/93
      [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/413

    MC: this has been implemented in the TSE
    ... I'm not entirely comfortable with the text in the spec
    ... should ignore propr tags

    AB: could you cite the text in a public mail list?

    MC: yes

    AB: then we can presumably come to consensus on the text

    MC: I'll do that today

    AB: anything else on Issue #93 for today?
    ... let's err on the side of caution here

    <Marcos> the text is question is: "If this range begins with the
    subtag "i", "x", or the range is marked as "deprecated" in the IANA
    Language Subtag Registry, skip all the steps in this algorithm
    below, and move onto the next range. "

    AB: let's continue on the mail list

    MC: definitely check the TSE version

P&C spec: ABNF changes for Valid Zip Relative Path

    AB: earlier this week Marcos proposed a revised ABNF for a valid Zip
    Relative Path (
    49.html ). What is the problem that requires this bug fix?

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

    MC: when paths are checked, the CR's BNF wasn't quite correct for
    lang tags

    AB: has anyone reviewed the changes?

    MH: I will review it
    ... by tomorrow at the latest

    MC: I ran a bunch of tests

    AB: where is the lang-range rule copied from?

    MC: it is modified because we only support lower case
    ... CP437 allows upper case and we don't want that

    AB: "*-c*" is valid?

    MC: yes, that is valid

    AB: wanted to know if you were codifying a registry?

    MC: the registry is constantly changing

    AB: these changes will eliminate some refs?

    MC: yes; additionally the prose and BNF match whereas in the CR they
    were not in sync

    AB: can anyone else commit to a review?

    [ None ]

    AB: I did a quick review and didn't notice any issues

    MH: in case #4, what is "ext"?

    MC: the prose clarifies this
    ... I did some tests on MacOS and Windows
    ... but if have ".filename", need prose to handle that case
    ... gets too messy to cover that case with BNF

    MH: is ".something.ext" a file or an extension?

    <Marcos> something.x

    MH: that is the main problem
    ... the BNF I created addressed that case

    <Marcos> ".something.ext" = extension

    <Marcos> "something." is file name

    <Marcos> ".something" is file name

    <marcin> filename.something.ext : what is extension here?

    MC: "ext" is the extension in that case MH
    ... please read the prose as well as the new BNF

    MH: the ABNF is ambiguous
    ... can't write a parser
    ... only the "." is a problem

    MC: want to leave the BNF as is and clarify in prose the one case

    AB: is the proposal already in the TSE?

    MC: yes, that's correct

    <Marcos> 9.1.10 Rule for Identifying the Media Type of a File

    AB: so the task then is to review this new section in the TSE
    version - DO NOT USE THE CR!
    ... anything else on this topic for today?

    [ None ]

P&C spec: what's blocking LC#3 publication?

    AB: it would be good to publish LC#3 before the TPAC publication
    ... besides Issue #93 and BNF, anthing else?

    MC: yes, I found a couple of bugs
    ... Rule for finding a file within a widget
    ... but I fixed that
    ... the prose had a bug

    AB: that is an important part of the proc model

    <Marcos> 9.1.3 Rule for Finding a File Within a Widget Package

    <Marcos> is buggy

    AB: would you please send an email that summarizes the bug and the

    MC: yes
    ... I am feeling quite comfortable about republishing

    AB: what about the "Fail encrypted archive" thread?
    ... my gut feel is that we should just leave the text as is given
    how late in the process we are
    ... what do people think about leaviing it as is?

    RB: I can live with either option

    MH: I think this is a big topic
    ... If we want to go quickly, we should leave it as is

    MC: I can live with leaving it as is

    AB: I propose we record an agreement to leave the spec as is re
    encryption fail
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: leave the widget encryption fail text as is

    AB: when do expect it to be ready to publish?

    MC: as soon as MH completes his review of the BNF, it will be ready

    AB: it seems like the earliest we will be able to record agreement
    on publishin LC#3 is Oct 22
    ... any comments on that?
    ... that would mean LC#3 of the P+C will be published Oct 27

TWI spec: Action 411 - need a definition of Widget Instance

    AB: Marcos, what is the status of Action #411 (
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/411 ) - "Submit a
    proposal for the definition of Widget Instance"?
    ... who is willing to help (
    [23]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ )?
    ... can you work with Scott Wilson on this?

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/411
      [23] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

    MC: yes, I can

    AB: what's the priority?

    MC: I can take on TWI tasks after P+C is done

    <arve> ArtB: apparently, you are making noise :D

    <marcin> I put myslef on mute usually

    <marcin> ohh

    MC: I need to complete P+C tests
    ... I can work with Scott
    ... not sure I can meet the pub deadline of Oct 27 for the TWI spec
    ... if Robin can help, that would be good

    RB: most of time is now dedicated to DAP

    AB: other than the Instance definition, what else needs to be done?

    MC: I'm not sure

    AB: if there is anything that I can or others can do to help, please
    let us know

    MC: best thing to do is to review what's there
    ... if we are going to make another LC, then I guess we don't need
    to work on the DoC document

    AB: the precedence is to skip the DoC doc if we know we are going to
    publish a new LC
    ... but I agree it would be ideal to create the DoC
    ... anything else on TWI for today?

    [ No ]

VMMF spec: Comments from Marcin:

    AB: Marcin submitted some comments re the VMMF spec (
    47.html ). We won't discuss those comments here but please follow-up
    on the Public mail list
    ... this is an important document
    ... I wonder if BONDI has any input on the VMMF spec?

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

    DR: I'll check

    AB: thanks

Continue technical discussions on WARP, URI, Updates, VM-I, etc. on

    AB: we've skipped several specs today.
    ... sorry to put Robin on the spot, but what's the status and plans
    for WARP?

    RB: I have made some changes
    ... I haven't checked them in yet
    ... think a new LCWD will be needed
    ... two classes of comments: 1) scope; 2) what are the limits
    ... need to clarify what a URI needs to do; may want to match what
    CORS does
    ... need to reflect Marcin's and Dom's comments as well as some
    stuff from Marcos
    ... Hopefully, will have something to review by next week
    ... not sure about the BBC comment re local network

    <darobin> [25]http://www.w3.org/mid/4AC4BA41.3070702@rd.bbc.co.uk

      [25] http://www.w3.org/mid/4AC4BA41.3070702@rd.bbc.co.uk

    RB: what is described seems useful but not sure what we should do
    about it
    ... really want others to submit feedback for that use case

    AB: so everyone, please review this other use case and provide
    ... sorry to put Marcin on the spot, but what's the status and plans
    for VM-I?

    MH: I have been focusing on Media Feature
    ... will start on the Interfaces spec
    ... there are bugs that need to be fixed
    ... think MF is higher priority

    AB: any comments for Marcin?
    ... I tend to agree MF is higher priority


    AB: does any AOB for today?

    [ None ]

    AB: Meeting adjourned; next call will be Oct 22

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow follow-up with Team about how to get Present
    Technologies participating in WebApps' Widgets work [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 14:00:33 UTC

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