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

[widgets] Draft Minutes for 12 November 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:22:12 -0500
Message-Id: <D05F231F-6DF0-4003-82C7-5B2F80C66070@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the November 12 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

  http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before 19 November 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

12 Nov 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0631.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Marcin, Marcos, Arve, Robin, David_Rogers

    Regrets
           Frederick, David

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]P&C spec: Constrained specification of <icon>
          4. [8]P&C spec: Candidate publication plans
          5. [9]TWI spec: test suite status
          6. [10]TWI spec: Call for consensus to publish LC#2
          7. [11]VM-MF spec: issues by Magus
          8. [12]VM-MF spec: more precision on full screen
          9. [13]VM-MF spec: security considerations by Davi
         10. [14]WARP spec: IRI normalization
         11. [15]WARP spec: comments from Bryan
         12. [16]WARP spec: local addresses and UPnP
         13. [17]URI Scheme spec: LC comment processing
         14. [18]AOB
      * [19]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 12 November 2009

    <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

    <trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing
    Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel'
    (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)

    trackbot, associate this channel with #webapps

    <trackbot> Associating this channel with #webapps...

    <Marcos> yikes!

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: draft agenda submitted on Nov 11 (
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/06
    31.html ).
    ... One change request is to add a third topic for the VM-MF spec
    "more precision on full screen" (
    [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/05
    41.html ).
    ... another change request is to talk briefly about our plans for
    the P&C Candidate #2
    ... and we will drop 5.b since David won't be here and we'll discuss
    that topic on next call if it remains open
    ... any other change requests?

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0631.html
      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0541.html

    [ None ]

Announcements

    AB: any short announcements? I don't have any

    [ None ]

    <marcin> Agenda point 5. should point to:
    [22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/

      [22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/

P&C spec: Constrained specification of <icon>

    AB: during last week's f2f meeting we discussed an <icon> issue that
    Magnus raised (
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
    45.html ). Since then, one of his colleagues expanded on their
    concern via (
    [24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/05
    67.html ).
    ... Marcos and I discussed this issue in IRC earlier today. The P&C
    spec doesn't actually specify what a WUA will do with the icon
    elements. Thus, it seems like the text about the optional width and
    height attributes only applying to formats with "intrinsic"
    width/height can be removed.
    ... what do people think about this issue?

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0445.html
      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0567.html

    MC: I don't think removing the text would be problematic
    ... but I want to review it more thoroughly
    ... now, width and height processing is limited
    ... WUA are free to interpret w/h as they want
    ... thus I think we should remain silent on what the WUA does with
    these two attributes

    AB: Marcin, any comments?

    MH: I haven't looked at it yet

    AB: the action now is for people to respond on the mail list
    ... Marcos, will you do that?

    MC: yes, but need to check again the proposal
    ... my gut feel is that we should leave this to impl
    ... but if we delete those two statements, I don't think it will
    affect implementations

    AB: agree on the "will not affect impls"

P&C spec: Candidate publication plans

    AB: LCWD#3 comments end on 19 November
    ... assuming we get no major comments, we will want to publish CR#2
    ASAP

    MC: yes, that's correct

    AB: I need to schedule a director's call
    ... I started that process
    ... tentative dates are Nov 23-25 range

    MC: those dates are OK with me

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow schedule a Director's Call for P&C CR #2
    [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-451 - Schedule a Director's Call for P&C
    CR #2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].

    RB: we can go to CR while the CfE period is in effect but we can't
    go to PR until CfE ends

    AB: good; I'll clarify that with the Team
    ... best case is we enter CR in November
    ... CfE ends 28 December
    ... still need to determine interop plans

TWI spec: test suite status

    AB: Marcos, you wanted to give a short status on TWI test suite

    MC: I've started working on it
    ... but haven't uploaded test cases yet

    <Marcos> [26]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/test-suite/

      [26] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/test-suite/

    MC: ignore the doc's title
    ... but this document includes the test file template
    ... we can gain from the P&C experience
    ... should be easier to create tests
    ... and provide better feedback on Pass/Fail
    ... If people have feedback, please send it!

    AB: this is excellent
    ... to clarify, you are OK with going to LC now but don't want to
    enter CR until the test cases are completed?

    MC: yes, that's correct

    AB: anything else on the test suite for today?

    MC: no, not for now
    ... there are only about 10 testable assertions in the spec
    ... thus I think there will only be 30-40 test cases
    ... so realtively small compared to P&C test suite

    AB: ok; good

TWI spec: Call for consensus to publish LC#2

    AB: last week I sent a heads-up that today we would discuss whether
    or not the TWI spec ( [27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api )
    is ready to be published as a new LC (LC#2). Comments?

      [27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api

    [ None ]

    <darobin> +1

    AB: proposed resolution: the group agrees The Widgets Interface spec
    is ready for LCWD publication
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: the group agrees The Widgets Interface spec is ready for
    LCWD publication

    AB: do we want a 3-week comment period?
    ... given this is LC#2, I think 3 weeks is OK

    MC: ok with me

    AB: any other feedback?

    MH: ok with me too

    AB: we will use a 3-week comment period
    ... who should we ask to review this LC?
    ... Marcos, do you recall who we asked to review the 1st LC?

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow determine the list of reviewers for TWI
    LC#2 [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-452 - Determine the list of reviewers for
    TWI LC#2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a publication request for TWI LCWD
    #2 [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-453 - Submit a publication request for TWI
    LCWD #2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].

    <scribe> ACTION: marcos prepare TWI spec for LCWD #2 publication on
    Nov 24 with a comment period ending December 15 [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-454 - Prepare TWI spec for LCWD #2
    publication on Nov 24 with a comment period ending December 15 [on
    Marcos Caceres - due 2009-11-19].

    MC: can we get it published sooner

    AB: oops, that's my mistake; the pub date will be Nov 17
    ... and the 3-week comment period will end Dec 8
    ... Thanks for catching that MC!

VM-MF spec: issues by Magus

    AB: on November 2 Magnus submitted an email re viewmode issues (
    [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
    46.html )
    ... my comment on point #1 is that the titles for the views carry
    quite a bit of historical baggage
    ... and thus are somewhat confusing

      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0446.html

    Arve: re point #1
    ... this is a legacy issue
    ... Opera's initial impl only supported one mode

    AB: would you please Arve, respond to point #1 on the mail list?

    Arve: yes, will do

    ACTION Arve respond to point #1 in
    [32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
    46.html

      [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0446.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-455 - Respond to point #1 in
    [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
    46.html [on Arve Bersvendsen - due 2009-11-19].

      [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0446.html

    AB: re point #2, is that in scope for VM-I spec?

    MH: yes, it is

    <marcin>
    [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/00
    47.html

      [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0047.html

    MH: I submitted an email about this
    ... we need to discuss what the view modes mean
    ... in my email I deteremined quite a large number of possible
    values
    ... I agree "all" could be removed
    ... it is the same as not specifying any

    <Marcos> +q

    <Marcos> -q

    AB: re point #3, Marcos responded but Magnus did not reply

    Arve: re point #2, the VM spec doesn't include any sec
    considerations
    ... and that's a bug, especially for full screen

    <drogersuk> David here

    <drogersuk> I proposed some security considerations

    AB: we will discuss VM-MF sec concerns next week

    <drogersuk> I'm here - happy to discuss now

    <drogersuk> can't join the call though

    david - can you join the call next week?

    I'd rather discuss this when we can talk about it. OK?

    <drogersuk> yes but I'd prefer we agree this now

    <drogersuk> I put it into the F2F and that was over a week ago

    we decided at the beginning of the week to not include this today

    <drogersuk> Why?

    because "I'd rather discuss this when we can talk about it."

    <drogersuk> ok, let me leave the meeting and join the call

    <drogersuk> let's do it now

    Arve: I will respond to Magnus mail

    AB: OK

VM-MF spec: more precision on full screen

    AB: an old thread was re-started about the viewmodes, in particular
    the full screen mode (
    [35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/05
    41.html ). Marcos, Robin?
    ... where do we stand on this?

      [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0541.html

    MC: I think we agree we need to define base semantics to each mode
    ... with each mode there are some potential security implications
    ... our discussion was about to what level of detail the modes must
    be defined

    RB: nothing else to add; agree with Marcos' summary

    AB: have we captured all of the relevant properties?
    ... is the set of properties complete?

    MH: we may have some issues with full screen and the properties

    <marcin>
    [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/00
    47.html

      [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0047.html

    MH: we may need another property
    ... we have one media feature now but maybe we need more than one
    ... otherwise, we may have some border cases that aren't defined

    MC: at the f2f I proposed a viewport media rule
    ... I need to formalize that proposal
    ... I don't understand the interactivity proposal

    <marcin> arve, probably yes

    Arve: re interactivity, either the media is interactive or not (e.g.
    print or screen)
    ... think we should ask AnneVK
    ... not sure how to specify this or if we should specify it

    AB: can you Arve chat with Anne about this?

    Arve: yes, ok

    AB: so there is an open action for all to continue discussions and
    for Marcin to drive toward closure on the open issues

    MH: yes, and I will start by removing all to align with P&C

VM-MF spec: security considerations by Davi

    <Marcos> d

    AB: View modes security considerations; David Rogers (2-Nov)
    [37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
    38.html
    ... David?

      [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0438.html

    DR: this is an input for the VM-MF spec

    MH: I can add this info

    DR: I presented it at the f2
    ... not clear why we need to wait for ratification

    AB: the general process is if there is no discussion on an input
    then we add it to the agenda

    MC: have you looked at the sec consids in the P&C spec?

    DR: yes; tried to align it with what is in the P&C spec
    ... understand we want a sec consids section per spec

    <Marcos>
    [38]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#media-type-registration-for-
    applicationw

      [38] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#media-type- 
registration-for-applicationw

    MC: we had to do it for P&C because of the IETF req for that info be
    in the P&C for the MT reg

    DR: I will need to look at it

    MC: the deadline is Nov 19
    ... for P&C LC#3 comments

    DR: does anyone object to my input?

    MC: we have no objections
    ... think we need considerations per view mode
    ... i.e. "these are the sec consids" for fullscreen, etc.
    ... we can build on your input

    DR: I'm happy if the Editor will add my input

    AB: anything else on this topic?

WARP spec: IRI normalization

    AB: on November 2, Dom submitted two comments re the WARP spec (
    [39]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
    42.html and (
    [40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
    43.html ).
    ... any feedback on Dom's comments?

      [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0442.html
      [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0443.html

    ACTION darobin respond to Dom's two comments about WARP submitted on
    Nov 2

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-456 - Respond to Dom's two comments about
    WARP submitted on Nov 2 [on Robin Berjon - due 2009-11-19].

    MC: are there any updates to WARP spec?

    RB: not since TPAC

    MC: when will it be ready for review?

    RB: please review ASAP

    AB: last week I sent out a call for comments
    ... we can set aside a big chunk of time on Nov 19 for WARP if
    needed

WARP spec: comments from Bryan

    AB: on November 2, Bryan submitted some comments re WARP (
    [41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
    37.html ). Marcos and Bryan have been going back and forth on this.
    ... without Bryan here, not sure we should deep dive on this

      [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0437.html

    MC: Marcin also responded

    MH: yes, I did

    MC: would be good if Robin also responded

    RB: yes, I'll get to that

    AB: let's skip this topic for today ...

WARP spec: local addresses and UPnP

    AB: on November 2, Marcin submitted some comments comments re WARP
    and local addressees and UPnP (
    [42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
    56.html )

      [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0456.html

    MH: we talked about UPnP a bit during last week's f2f meeting
    ... we may want to add some additional support for local hosts
    ... support private IP ranges
    ... local nets with IPv6 can be problematic
    ... IPv6 provides a means to know if an address is local
    ... want to make the spec future-proof

    AB: who can we ask to review this proposal?

    MH: perhaps some IETF people

    Arve: I think we need an agreement within the group before talking
    to IETF
    ... I need some time to understand MH's proposal

    AB: can you get some comments within 1 week Arve?

    Arve: yes

    AB: all should send comments to the list
    ... if needed, we can discuss this next week
    ... anything else on this topic?

    [ No ]

URI Scheme spec: LC comment processing

    AB: the LC comment period for the 8-Oct-2009 URI Scheme LC (
    [43]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/ ) ended on
    November 10. I believe there was only one comment. Robin, what's the
    plan for responding?

      [43] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/

    RB: yes, just the one comment from Larry Masinter
    ... I haven't yet responded to him but will do so

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow create a Comment Tracking Doc for the
    8-Oct-2009 Widget URI LC [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-457 - Create a Comment Tracking Doc for
    the 8-Oct-2009 Widget URI LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].

    AB: after Robin replies to LM, please follow-up if you have
    additional comments

AOB

    AB: I don't have anything for today. Does anyone have any AOB for
    today?

    [ No ]

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow create a Comment Tracking Doc for the
    8-Oct-2009 Widget URI LC [recorded in
    [45]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow determine the list of reviewers for TWI LC#2
    [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow schedule a Director's Call for P&C CR #2
    [recorded in
    [47]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow submit a publication request for TWI LCWD #2
    [recorded in
    [48]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: marcos prepare TWI spec for LCWD #2 publication on Nov
    24 with a comment period ending December 15 [recorded in
    [49]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action04]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 15:23:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT