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

[widgets] Draft Minutes for 19 November 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:04:39 -0500
Message-Id: <210C4FD4-8574-4B95-9286-9FFFC166393A@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the 19 November 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 3 December 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                           Widgets Voice Conf

19 Nov 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-wam-irc


           Art, Arve, Robin, David, Marcin, Steven, Marcos, Frederick,
           Suresh, Benoit, Doug, Chitturi




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda review
          2. [6]Announcements:
          3. [7]P&C spec: LCWD#3 comment period ends 19 November
          4. [8]P&C spec: CfC to publish CR#2
          5. [9]WARP spec: Patent exclusions by Apple ; PAG & Next steps
          6. [10]WARP spec: comments
          7. [11]URI Scheme spec
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    Date: 19 November 2009

    <drogersuk> I can't hear anything either

    <arve> neither do I

    <drogersuk> that's better

    <arve> now, I'm at least hearing ArtB talk

    <Steven> Doug and I keep ending up on the same call, but no one else

    <marcin> Marcos, :)

    <Marcos> Marcin, quickly check out the email I just sent you

    Steven, Doug - we're all here on 9231

    <Steven> Doug and steven on a separate call again

Agenda review

    AB: draft agenda is
    ... any change requests on the agenda?

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

    <marcin> Marcos, long email :). I think option 3 should win, but I
    need to check what parameters we may have. I will respond shortly.

    AB: any change requests on agenda?

    [ None ]

    MC: can we add Marcin's regarding P&C?

    AB: yes


    AB: No Voice Conf on 26 November; next one will be 3 December
    ... Reminder: last day to request publications for 2009 is Friday 18
    ... WebApps has been asked to submit comments re OASIS' Packaging
    spec for ODF for Office Apps spec; see (
    [15]http://www.w3.org/mid/4B016692.2090408@w3.org ) for details
    ... Doug, anything to add?

      [15] http://www.w3.org/mid/4B016692.2090408@w3.org

    DS: they are using ZIP too

    AB: if there are comments, send them to the OASIS list

    DS: if need clarification on list, let me know

    AB: any other annoucements?

    [ None ]

P&C spec: LCWD#3 comment period ends 19 November

    DS: I am on the ODF Tech Committee
    ... my main reason is SVG
    ... but I can be a pipe for other ODF comments

    SP: I will also join the ODF TC but not as a W3C rep

    AB: November 19 is the last day to submit comments re P&C LC#3 (
    [16]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20091029/ ).
    ... the comment tracking document is (
    0091029/ ). Marcos, that document must be up to date before the
    Director's call.
    ... the Director's call is tentatively set for Nov 23
    ... Marcos, which comments still lack a WG response? My count is 5
    total: 2 from Marcin (
    11.html and
    50.html ), 1 from Ericsson (
    67.html ), 1 from Scott Wilson (

      [16] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20091029/
      [17] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 
      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w

    ebapps/2009OctDec/0808.html ) and 1 from Benoit (
    69.html ) .

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

    AB: let's make sure we are all on the same page re these comments
    ... what's the plan to populate the CT doc?

    MC: I'll start tomorrow
    ... Benoit's is open

    <scribe> ACTION: benoit close the loop on your P&C comment [recorded
    in [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-458 - Close the loop on your P&C comment
    [on Benoit Suzanne - due 2009-11-26].

    AB: it appears Ola is OK with your response Marcos?

    MC: yes

    AB: we need closure on Scott's comment

    <scribe> ACTION: wilson close the loop on the author element
    discussion [recorded in

    <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - wilson

    <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or
    username (eg. awilson2, swilson3, ChrisWilson)


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

    AB: Scott proposes support for multipe authors?

    MC: no, he was just asking how to do that
    ... I don't think it was a spec comment

    <scribe> ACTION: marcos seek clarification with Scott Wilson re his
    intent for multiple authors [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-459 - Seek clarification with Scott Wilson
    re his intent for multiple authors [on Marcos Caceres - due

    AB: re Marcin, his comment #1 was bug fixes and editorial, right?

    MC: yes

    MH: yes

    AB: then we have closure on that
    ... what about MH comment #2?

    MC: param ambiguity at the end of a mime type decl
    ... e.g. charset
    ... can also use <content> to declare mime type
    ... not sure which one wins

    AB: will this require a new LC to fix?

    MC: it should not
    ... break any impls
    ... I've clarified the behavior

    MH: I don't think we need another LC
    ... I do think it is a bug
    ... I think we can resolve this over email shortly
    ... think the registration is also a bit buggy

    <Marcos> 1. kill the parameter bit - using the ABNF you suggest

    <Marcos> 2. say that it is allowed, but left up to the

    <Marcos> 3. say that parameter is allowed, but if it includes an

    <Marcos> parameter, then @encoding beats it (or the other way

    AB: does anyone have any additional comments on MH's comments?

    <Marcos> <content src = "start.php"

    <Marcos> type = "text/html;charset=Windows-1252"

    <Marcos> encoding = "ISO-8859-1" />

    AB: is the WG being asked to choose one of these opts?

    RB: I think #3 is the most logical

    MC: yes, I agree with #3

    <marcin> +1 for 3, but I - as author - would be kind of crazy
    putting two different values there :). Maybe I would like to crack
    the WUA?

    AB: any other opinions?
    ... I think we need some time to review the proposals
    ... not sure we can agree on this call

    Arve: agree we need some time
    ... what are the security implications of these opts?

    MH: think we should continue on email

    RB: don't think we are adding new security concerns (that are
    already there)
    ... I don't think this is a big issue
    ... want to decide now

    AB: I heard MC, MH and RB voice support for #3

    Arve: if I have to choose now, I'd say #3

    DS: no opinion

    AB: is #3 a bug fix or a substantive change
    ... I'm hearing that MH, MC, and RB say it is a bug fix
    ... is that correct?

    <marcin> yes

    MC: yes

    RB: yes

    MH: yes

    DS: would it change impls?

    MC: no, don't think so

    DS: based on MC's description, this would be a class #2 change thus
    would not require going back to LC

    AB: draft proposal to accept proposal #3 above
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: group agrees to proposal #3 in MC's response to MH's
    comment #2 email re P&C LC#3

    AB: are there any other LC#3 comments?

    MC: there is something else in MH's email
    ... re references to media type RFCs

    MH: W3C media type reg says use RFC 2046 should be used for regis
    ... but 2046 says use 2048
    ... I think this is a W3C and IETF process issue

    MC: let's see what IETF says about our registration

    AB: are there any other comments from MH we need to discuss today?

    MC: our use of SNIFF spec is questioned by MH
    ... I think we are using it OK
    ... but need to hear from Marcin

    AB: Marcin, can we live with what is in the spec now?

    MH: yes
    ... SNIFF spec is still a WIP

    MC: my proposal is to work with Adam Barth to make sure we are
    aligned with SNIFF
    ... on the P&C side, I don't think the proc model will change

    MH: yes, I agree
    ... we may need to ask Adam to make some changes/additions

    AB: any other issues from Marcin?

    MC: no

    MH: no

    AB: you two, MC and MH, please get closure on your emails so we have
    public record of agreement

    MC: I've already changed to the spec

    <Marcos> [27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/

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

    AB: anything else re LC#3 comments?
    ... the deadline is today

P&C spec: CfC to publish CR#2

    AB: on November 23 we have a call scheduled with the Director but
    that will be postponed if comments/issues are still open.
    ... I think we the best we can do now is to record a resolution to
    publish CR but with a proviso
    ... Proposed Resolution: the group agrees to publish CR#2 of the P&C
    spec provided no substantive and unresolved issues are raised on Nov
    ... any comments?

    MC: we've addressed all comments submitted
    ... we have made no substantive changes since LC#3 was published
    ... think we are ready to go to CR

    RB: I agree with Marcos

    AB: anyone else have comments on CR#2 readiness?
    ... any objections to the proposed resolution above?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish CR#2 of the P&C spec
    provided no substantive and unresolved issues are raised on Nov 19

WARP spec: Patent exclusions by Apple ; PAG & Next steps ..

    AB: last week Apple excluded two of the patent applications from the
    W3C's Royalty-Free Licensing Requirements for the WARP spec (
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/p73 )
    ... this presumably means a new PAG will be created
    ... Doug and/or Steven, do you have any information to share?

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/p73

    SP: PLH will talk to Rigo today; want to start the PAG in about
    1-weeks time

    AB: wow; that would be excellent

    RB: indeed

    DR: these are patent applications, not patents
    ... anyone can go to USPTO and present prior art

    DS: does anyone know if there is precedence for excluding patent

    AB: I am not aware of that, in the context of patent apps

    DS: wondering if one could take someone to court for infringing on a
    patent app

    <scribe> ACTION: doug I will follow-up with the IE we had for the
    Updates PAG [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-460 - I will follow-up with the IE we had
    for the Updates PAG [on Doug Schepers - due 2009-11-26].

    AB: Rigo reported to me "Participants in the Webapps WG are free to
    contact the USPTO to oppose the application if they are aware of
    prior art."
    ... as we already know, we may continue to work on the WARP spec
    i.e. work do not need to pause nor stop our work on WARP

    RB: I think we should insist on continuing

    DS: re USPTO, does it have to be prior art or can "obvious" be

    DR: need to ask Rigo

    AB: thanks DS and SP for your info

WARP spec: comments

    AB: several discussion re WARP are continuing on the mail list:
    Robin (
    45.html ) and Bryan (
    57.html ).
    ... and yesterday, RIM started a new thread (
    74.html ). Implementing that proposal could affect the P&C such that
    a new LC would need to be published.
    ... my short summary re WARP is the main tension is if the
    intentionally simplistic model as reflected in the latest ED (
    [33]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ ) is sufficient or do
    we accept some set of the additional features/proposals e.g. UPnP
    addresses, RIM's proposal, Bryan's proposal, etc.
    ... an additional consideration is, given related patents in this
    area, is it wise to increase the scope and hence attack surface for
    "non-friendly" patents.

      [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [33] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/

    MH: re UPnP, I think it needs to be addressed
    ... it would be bad to exclude the UPnP use cases
    ... if we don't address these UCs, the spec is dead for UPnP usage
    ... the WARP spec could say local net traffic is out of scope;
    doesn't say it is excluded though

    <Zakim> darobin, you wanted to propose a general approach

    AB: MH says UPnP needs to be supported
    ... what do others think?

    RB: I think the door for new features is already closed
    ... a lot of people like JIL are waiting for it
    ... I propose no new features for WARP
    ... we can make some changes e.g. some refinements
    ... If there is a need for additional features, they can be done in
    a branched spec e.g. WARP 2.0

    SC: being a newcomer, I'm not sure about the scope
    ... we think it is vauable to have our proposed feature in the
    ... don't feel too strongly about 1.0 vs 2.0
    ... we should try to address the high priority features

    RB: I'm fine with the new features, just want them in 2.0

    SC: what is the impact on the features being added
    ... will it really add a bunch of time versus starting with a new
    2.0 spec
    ... concerned about the review cycles

    RB: can get a 2.0 spec started rather quickly

    SC: I think what I proposed is useful

    RB: would you be willing to edit 2.0 spec if group agrees?

    SC: I'd consider it
    ... If we want new features, then we need to assign an Editor?

    RB: yes

    AB: yes, that is the case

    MH: re UPnP, I proposed a special value of local
    ... I also proposed that local nets are out of the scope

    <Marcos> +q

    MH: I don't think there any objections to my local networks proposal
    ... think the BBC use case should be in 1.0

    <arve> what about the current incarnation _prevents_ uPnP from

    RB: I think it should be in a separate spec

    MC: the main use case is using HTTP to get stuff from the web
    ... My proposal is we create a new Doc like "widget access for UPnP"

    <darobin> +1 to WARP4U

    MC: and we do something like that for other protocols

    <Suresh> If we are talking about just a few weeks or so and see good
    use cases, I would encourage inluding the new features in 1.0

    Arve: I agree with MC
    ... UPnP belongs in a separate spec
    ... there a other things to consider re UPnP in the context of
    ... think UPnP needs its own spec

    AB: MH, are you interested in driving a UPnP + WARP spec?

    MH: maybe; but think WARP should explicitly say UPnP is out of scope

    Arve: but there's a bunch of stuff out of scope

    AB: we could add a ref to a WARP4U spec

    Arve: would that require a re-charter?

    AB: I had not thought about the Charter implications; good point;
    ... that is something we need to consider

    <arve> [Clarification: we need to consider whether re-chartering is
    necessary, I'm not saying it is so]

    SC: if there is a way to proceed without changing the Charter and
    referencing Editor's Drafts even if informative, seems like a good
    way forward

    <darobin> RB: I don't think it would imply a re-charter

    <darobin> MH: me neither

    SC: want to make sure though that we can get things out quickly

    DS: what is the time scale for WARP v2?

    RB: as soon as an ED is ready

    AB: first need to know if anyone is willing to commit to driving a
    WARP4U spec

    DS: we will re-Charter in June
    ... but may need to re-Charter earlier
    ... and at that time, could add the UPnP+WARP then
    ... but the work could proceed before the Charter

    <Marcos> AB: lots of poeple agreed in the summer that we are feature

    <Marcos> AB: the market is adopting our specs already

    <Marcos> AB: we agree that that new features are important but
    should be added to a new docuemnt

    <Marcos> AB: To have new features

    <darobin> AB: in order for us to go down the path of a new spec, we
    need an editor

    SC: what is the next pub plan for WARP?

    RB: LC#2

    <Marcos> SC: can we have a summary?

    <Marcos> SC: I might be able to commit

    <Marcos> SC: I have a question. Right now it's an editor's draft?

    <Marcos> DB: it's in last call

    <Marcos> SC: it it progressing to CR

    AB: yes, that's correct

    SC: I'm willing to take an approach where we create new Drafts for
    new Features

    <Suresh> and having informative references from the WARP 1.0

    MH: I already proposed text to handle local traffic
    ... I could put that in a new ED
    ... and then ED I create WARP4U
    ... could then in WARP spec, refer to WARP4U

    RB: ok, we could do that i.e. add an Informative Ref to WARP4U
    if/when it exists

    MH: that's not acceptable
    ... want to have an explicit statement that UPnP is not in scope for
    WARP and it is defined in WARP4U
    ... I can create an ED of WARP4U
    ... let's discuss over e-mail

    RB: need to discuss Bryan's email

    <darobin> RB: we should discuss Bryan's suggestion that by default
    instead of excluding everything we should allow the same sutff that
    browsers do, e.g. images from anywhere

    RB: if we do what browsers do, we don't need WARP at all
    ... but I don't think that's what people want

    MC: we do need it for cross-origin access because a widget doesn't
    have an orgin like a browser's web page
    ... HTML5 defines behavior if have HTTP origin but is silent on
    Widget origin

    RB: that would require a bunch of mapping

    MC: right; that's why we have the WARP spec

    RB: need to be careful with white-lists

    <Suresh> WARP = whitelist,

    MC: need to align with Web security model

    AB: have recent changes been made?

    RB: not since the call for review
    ... propose we reject Bryan's proposal and move to LC#2

    AB: any comments on Robin's proposal?

    RB: if someone wants to implement BS' model, they could define it in
    a new spec

    SC: do we need a resolution on how to handle new features via new
    ... I get the sense new features aren't acceptable
    ... Given this, should we capture the process for new features e.g.
    as a resolution?

    RB: I'm OK with that
    ... but would be concerned about adding Informative Refs to the new

    SC: right, Informative for now but eventually could become Normative
    ... would like a resolution

    AB: draft resolution: new features for WARP will be handled via new

    <darobin> +1

    <marcin> -1 for this text, refinement is needed

    <Suresh> new features for WARP will be handled via new documents

    SC: want to add something about references

    <Suresh> New features for WARP will be handled via new documents and
    informatively referenced from WARP 1.0

    AB: any objections to SC's modified resolution?

    RB: yes, want to say "Informatively Referenced when the docs are

    AB: IOW, FPWD is an entrance block
    ... SC, is that qualification acceptable?

    <marcin> this delays the other specs allowing WARP to block the
    other texts

    <marcin> therefore the scope of WARP must be precisely defined

    SC: so EDs cannot be referenced?

    RB: they shouldn't be

    DS: that's not true

    RB: well, I think they shouldn't be

    SC: I want to address the LC comments and keep the work going

    <Marcos> -q

    RB: I can live with Informative refs to EDs if the group agrees to
    move those specs fwd

    <marcin> it is still not clear what the relation is between WARP and
    the other texts

    AB: the maturity level for Informative refs is quite low, correct

    DS: yes

    AB: proposed resolution: New features for WARP will be handled via
    new documents and informatively referenced from WARP 1.0

    RB: that's OK "as long as the group agrees they are mature enough"

    AB: any objections?

    <Suresh> world is not perfect:-)

    MH: yes
    ... unclear about relationship to WARP and new text

    RB: that's up to the new spec

    MH: WARP must state what it is about

    AB: what specifically do you object to re the wording of the
    proposed resolution

    MH: I object because you think UPnP must be part of WARP 1.0
    ... no, that's not quite right

    Arve: I do not think we have agreement yet on the definition of

    BS: may be able to find a defn in UPnP

    Arve: UPnP's defn of local is only good for IPv4
    ... thus we don't have agreement on local

    AB: unable to reach consensus; must stop for today

URI Scheme spec

    AB: earlier today Robin began responding to Larry Masinter's
    comments (
    31.html ) . I believe LM was only person to submit comments for the
    LC ( [35]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/ ).

      [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [35] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/


    RB: I want to start a CfC on WARP LC#2

    AB: I think we need to try again to get consensus before we make a
    CfC for LC#2
    ... Next call will be December 3 - NO CALL ON NOVEMBER 26!
    ... meeting adjourned
    ... please continue WARP discussions on the mail list

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: benoit close the loop on your P&C comment [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: doug I will follow-up with the IE we had for the
    Updates PAG [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: marcos seek clarification with Scott Wilson re his
    intent for multiple authors [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: wilson close the loop on the author element discussion
    [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 16:05:49 UTC

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