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

RE: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December

From: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 23:58:39 +0100
To: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FAA1D89C5BAF1142A74AF116630A9F2C28942D7998@OBEEX01.obe.access-company.com>
Hi Art, Robin, Marcos,

Thanks for your comments.
Here is the consolidated answer.

Just to clarify:
I do not think that we should be so strict about the dates regarding the arrival of the comments.
The flexibility is already present for many of the WebApps WG's specifications.

>>I believe all of the comments submitted during the LC#1 comment
>>period (that ended 20-Sept-2009) were addressed. Since you indicate
>>otherwise, please clearly identify any comment submitted during the
>>LC comment period that was _not_ addressed.
Yes, as far as I can tell all the comments provided in the LC#1 period were already addressed.
It is my oversight to name the comments that arrived later as received within LC#1 period.
I have just assumed that all comments - also those received after LC period - should be addressed.

As indicated earlier in this mail thread, the comments that in my opinion need technical answers stem from the mail thread [1].
They arrived after LC#1.

Technically the comments in [1] are about the flexibility of expressing the URIs by means of a pattern.
[2] from Scott Wilson backs it up, although we seem to agree that regular expression is better name for the syntax.
[3] from Stephen Jolly is about local network.
[4] from Phil Archer about using POWDER.
[5] from Bryan Sullivan about semantics of the special value U+002A ASTERISK (*).

Some other comments started in [5] were already addressed.

>From the comments [1]-[5] I derive that the general use case that people are asking for from WARP is the ability to flexibly (by some pattern / regexp) define the value of @origin attribute that later is to be applied to define some kind of local or private network, either by means of domain names (addressed in the current WARP based on the @subdomains attribute) or by IP addresses (not possible to realize efficiently based on the current WARP).
Given the above use case, I think that the special value "local" could address it and together with @subdomains attribute covers all but one ([5]) from the above comments.

In the light of LC#2 it seems that the my comments to CfC could be summarized as:

Do the comments that arrived after the LC#1 deadline have to be repeated by their authors to get into LC#2 review (I assume not, but it is unclear to me).
If not, then I assume they will be addressed in the LC#2 and I should not worry.
Additionally, I may be (again) wrong, but I assume that LC#2 should start once the group internally is aligned with regard to the already received comments.

>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/
>This draft does not meet my expectations and we will _not_ publish a document that includes a copy of all of the WARP spec.
>
>It would be helpful to have a clear definition of at least: the problem statement, use case(s), requirement(s), security considerations,
>proposed syntax and semantics, UA processing model.
I slightly improved this document: added processing model and security considerations.

> It will be potentially extremely short.
The delta spec will come shortly (depending also on further discussion on the topics in this mail thread, maybe it could be addressed during LC#2?) and will contain the diff between WARP and WARP4U.

Thanks for your patience in addressing my concerns,
Marcin

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1202.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0019.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0011.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0042.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0437.html

Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452  |  Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:Art.Barstow@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:00 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December

On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:22 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:

> Our motivation is that the comments received during the LC#1 were
> not all addressed.

I believe all of the comments submitted during the LC#1 comment
period (that ended 20-Sept-2009) were addressed. Since you indicate
otherwise, please clearly identify any comment submitted during the
LC comment period that was _not_ addressed.

-Art Barstow


________________________________________

Access Systems Germany GmbH
Essener Strasse 5  |  D-46047 Oberhausen
HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda

www.access-company.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:59:43 GMT

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