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

[widgets] Draft Minutes for 3 December 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:14:25 -0500
Message-Id: <B2F774F7-1C06-42AF-862F-29D80CE8A566@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the 3 December Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

  http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before 10 December 2009 (the  
next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be  
considered Approved.

-Art Barstow

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

03 Dec 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/1089.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Arve, Marcos, Marcin, Suresh, Robin, Steven

    Regrets
    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           ArtB

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]the Widget Interface (TWI) spec
          4. [8]WARP: CfC to publish LC#2
          5. [9]WARP spec: post-LC#1 comment handling
          6. [10]URI Scheme spec: LC comment processing
          7. [11]View Modes Interface (VMI) spec
          8. [12]Updates spec:
          9. [13]AOB
      * [14]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <scribe> Scribe: ArtB

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    Meeting Widgets Voice Conference

    Date: 3 December 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: agenda posted on 2 December (
    [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/10
    89.html ). Any change requests?

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/1089.html

    [ None ]

Announcements

    AB: 1) reminder that December 18 is the last day to request a
    publication for 2009. 2) December 8 is the last day for comments on
    TWI LC#2.
    ... any other short announcements?

    [ None ]

the Widget Interface (TWI) spec

    AB: LC#2 comment period ends Dec 08. The comment tracking (CT)
    document is (
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-a
    pis-20091117/ ).
    ... The TWI spec has several Editors. Who is going to take the lead
    on the CT document?
    ... or share the responsibility?

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 
widgets-apis-20091117/

    MC: I can maintain it
    ... would like some help from ArtB
    ... don't expect too many comments

    AB: It is theoretically possible for a CR to be published in 2009
    but IFF we are able to respond to complete the round-trip with all
    Commentors by Dec 10 and we could get approval from the Director by
    the 18th.

    MC: I would like to try to do this
    ... we already have the test suite

    AB: in the best case scenario, on Dec 10 we would be in a position
    to agree to publish a Candidate of the spec.
    ... anything else on TWI for today?

    [ No ]

WARP: CfC to publish LC#2

    AB: the CfC to publish WARP LC#2 ended 2 December (
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/10
    06.html ). There were no objections to that CfC thus this CfC has
    "passed" and later today I will submit a publication request for
    this LC.
    ... In Marcin's response to this CfC he asked for some clarification
    on the commenting process (
    [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/10
    98.html ). Let's discuss that now.
    ... First, let me re-state one of WebApps' mantras: "WebApps
    welcomes and encourages comments for all of its specs at any time."
    ... naturally, there is some tension between actually completing a
    spec and reflecting ongoing feedback. Completing a spec can be
    impossible if the comment deadline isn't fixed.
    ... on July 9 (
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-minutes.html#item06 ) we agreed
    the WARP spec met the Last Call requirements and the comment period
    for LC#1 was 7 weeks (more than twice the required 3-weeks).
    ... There has been no indication the people who participated in that
    agreement have changed their position. I do not generally support
    re-visiting Resolutions unless there is overwhelming support for
    doing so from the people who agreed to a Resolution.
    ... So, before we move to the next topic re "handling post-LC#1
    comments", does anyone have any comments?

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/1006.html
      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/1098.html
      [19] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-minutes.html#item06

    MC: no comments from Opera

    AB: anyone else?

    SC: no comments

    MH: no comments

    AB: the CfC included the resolution so need to capture it here
    ... re the LC#2 comment period end date, I propose Jan 13. Any
    objections to that?

    <darobin> +1

    [ No objections ]

    <darobin> ACTION: Robin to prepare LC#2 draft for WARP [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-463 - Prepare LC#2 draft for WARP [on
    Robin Berjon - due 2009-12-10].

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a pub request for WARP LC#2 with a
    comment end date of Jan 13 2010 [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-464 - Submit a pub request for WARP LC#2
    with a comment end date of Jan 13 2010 [on Arthur Barstow - due
    2009-12-10].

WARP spec: post-LC#1 comment handling

    AB: during the last call we discussed how to handle "post LC#1
    features" ( [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-wam-minutes.html#item06
    ). Since then, Marcin created an input for the "local" feature.

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-wam-minutes.html#item06

    <Steven> Apologies for lateness

    AB: I responded (
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/10
    85.html ) with a list of information that should be included in his
    proposal. I think Marcin is now "aligned" with the rest of us on
    this re what we expect for the "local" proposal.

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/1085.html

    MH: yes
    ... I will add some sec considerations
    ... re use cases and requirements
    ... think they are the same as what we have in WARP
    ... or in the Widgets Reqs doc

    <Suresh> Can someone please post the link to Marcin's draft?

    MH: not sure what we expect for reqs and use cases

    RB: re reqs and UCs, we agreed we would be put them in the Widgets
    Reqs doc

    <marcin> [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/

      [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/

    MH: if we want to handle the reqs this way, is that problematic?

    RB: no, we just need to republish the Reqs doc
    ... it's not a big deal to re-publish it

    MH: so it's just a matter of editing it?

    MC: on 24-Jan-2010, I plan to repub the Widgets Reqs

    MH: could be a problem with timing

    RB: don't think we need to publish Reqs whenever we add some new
    ones to the ED

    AB: think it would be helpful if MH submitted "local" reqs to the
    list

    MC: we must have the reqs documented because Director will ask for
    them when we try to enter CR

    AB: good point MC!
    ... is it clear on how you are to proceed with the "local" proposal?

    MH: yes; if I have any questions, I'll ask RB and MC

    SC: re the process
    ... the local feature will be in a separate track e.g. 1.1?

    MC: no, it will be in a separate spec
    ... that will extend the semantics of the WARP spec
    ... the way P&C was written, it is easy to add new features via new
    specs

    SC: so we are not positioning WARP as 1.0?

    MC: no, we are going to remove 1.0 from the WARP title

    SC: so, it will be a stand-alone spec which will go along the Rec
    track separately

    Arve: yes, the local spec will only depend on WARP

    MH: can the "local" feature be re-submitted as a comment during the
    LC#2 comment period

    MC: if can be submitted as a comment
    ... but I think we want it to be a separate spec
    ... We agreed to feature completeness last July

    <darobin> +1

    MC: don't want to add new features

    Arve: agree with MC
    ... do not want to add new features to WARP

    AB: from a process perspective, and adhereing to previous
    agreements, I agree with MC, Arve and Robin

    RB: we made commitments to external parties and they expect it to
    ship

    MC: we are NOT saying we don't want new features spec'ed
    ... on the contrary, we want WARP to continue and the other features
    to continue

    Arve: yes, we want this features to continue independently

    <arve> Arve: Opera has running code and a document we will submit
    for review concerning local service discovery

    <arve> Arve: the spec is agnostic WRT to the underlying technology

    <darobin> [not to interrupt, but VF wants this feature too  just
    not to slow down publication]

    SC: re the feature I proposed, I understand we want them spec'ed in
    a separate spec

    AB: that is correct

    MH: I understand Suresh is working on a different proposal
    ... wondering if we should combine our proposals or keep them
    separate?
    ... If we align around "local"
    ... we can assume the local support will be quite fast
    ... Whereas, Suresh's proposal could take longer to get consensus
    ... Suresh, what are your thoughts on how you are going to proceed?

    SC: since we still a bit early, I would prefer to keep them separate
    at least for now
    ... but depending on how things go, it may sense to merge them
    ... but lets wait and see
    ... I hope to get a proposal out this month

    MH: what do others think?

    RB: I think the "local" could be relatively easy to put in a
    separate spec
    ... it could be that Suresh's proposal would make more sense for a
    WARP 2.0
    ... but until I see the proposal, it's hard to say

    Arve: "local" is a difficult term to define
    ... it is relative to where the device is e.g. behind a firewall or
    not
    ... not sure we want to down the path about hardcoding network
    policies
    ... don't want to add definition of "local" to WARP

    MH: I agree there is no general defintion of "local"
    ... need to consider home networks too

    <arve> No, the definition of local falls over even on IPv4

    MH: not sure we need to define it precisely though for the purposes
    of this spec
    ... don't want to block widget functionality
    ... agree local can mean different things in different contexts e.g.
    mobile, corporate, etc.

    AB: my proposal is to continue discusssion of "local" on the mail
    list
    ... any open questions about how to handle new features proposed
    after LC?

    MH: is there some precedence to follow?

    AB: we are required to follow the Process Document
    ... I think what we are saying with WARP is we will follow the PD
    quite closely
    ... I can believe there are some cases where the group agreed to do
    things a bit "differently" but would expect there have been
    unanimous support for doing that
    ... do we need a resoulution on how we are going to handle post-LC#1
    comments for WARP?

    <Suresh> It would help to avoid rediscussion

    MH: we've agreed new features will be handled via new specs

    AB: Draft Resolution: feature requests beyond the scope of WARP LC#1
    will be handled via new specs
    ... any objections?

    <darobin> +1

    MH: is this in general or just WARP?

    AB: this resolution is for WARP
    ... any objections to that resolution?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: feature requests beyond the scope of WARP LC#1 will be
    handled via new specs

URI Scheme spec: LC comment processing

    AB: the LC comment period ended 10 November. The comment tracking
    document is: (
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-u
    ri-20091008/ ). Robin asked Larry Masinter when we can expect a
    response (
    [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/08
    32.html ). Robin, what's the status?

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 
widgets-uri-20091008/
      [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009OctDec/0832.html

    RB: I have not heard back
    ... not sure what to do

    AB: I'm not sure either
    ... Stephen, are you on the call?

    SP: a couple of weeks is usually enough
    ... but should send him a message that clearly states if you
    something like "no response will be considered assent"

    RB: I've done that

    AB: I'm a little hesitant about this; OTOH, we can't go unbounded

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Robin and WebApps Team Contacts
    re getting Larry Masinter to reply to Robin's comments [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-465 - Work with Robin and WebApps Team
    Contacts re getting Larry Masinter to reply to Robin's comments [on
    Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-10].

    AB: if we don't get a response, we will move that doc to the next
    stage
    ... and that could mean that on December 10 we agree to move to URI
    Scheme to Candidate
    ... anything else on this spec for today?

    RB: it has already been implemented

    AB: widgeon?
    ... any other?

    RB: not that I know about
    ... it is easy to implement

View Modes Interface (VMI) spec

    AB: we still don't have a FPWD of the VM-I spec (
    [28]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-interfaces.src.html ).
    What is the priority of this spec and what needs to be done before
    we can publish the FPWD?

      [28] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-interfaces.src.html

    MH: I edited it recently
    ... I have removed some bugs
    ... the ToC is there; date is updated
    ... the structure resemlbes D3E spec
    ... since they are similar "in nature"
    ... think it is ready for FPWD
    ... need to sync with VM-MF
    ... I want to consolidate design between VM-MF values and properties
    with VM-I

    AB: what do others think about FPWD readiness?

    MC: working with VF, we may have some additions we'd like to make
    ... I'll provide a URI to those comments

    <Marcos> http:/lab.vodafone.com/w3c/vmmf-20091201.html

    AB: given Opera and VF have input and Marcin wants to do some
    consolidation work, it doesn't sound like we are ready for FPWD
    ... I would prefer to publish FPWD when the scope, at least at the
    high-level, is complete

    MH: that's OK with me

    SC: looking at VM ChangeEvent,
    ... are we talking about landscape and portrait?
    ... Not clear it's ready to be published

    MC: take a look at the proposal I just dropped in
    ... it defines the view modes a better
    ... my proposal is there for the WG to consider
    ... We may want to use some of the text
    ... Need to nail-down what the VMs mean at the semantic level

    AB: given all this, it seems like spec won't be ready for FPWD until
    Jan/Feb

    MH: why didn't you publish this doc on public-webapps

    <scribe> ACTION: Marcos send a link to the Opera+VF view modes input
    to public-webapps [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-466 - Send a link to the Opera+VF view
    modes input to public-webapps [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-12-10].

Updates spec:

    AB: the Updates spec was last published over one year ago (
    [30]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ). What is the plan
    a new publication?

      [30] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/

    MC: I want to have a new draft ready by Dec 17
    ... need to look at core use cases
    ... there are a lot of issues e.g. when DigSig is used
    ... need to think about scope
    ... and whether or not DigSig is handled

    SC: what is the status of the PAG?

    MC: the PAG finding is online
    ... can find the results there
    ... the PAG recommended some changes
    ... the next WD will include those recommendations

    AB: yes, the recommendations are about how to avoid the patent
    ... anything else on Updates for today?

    [ No ]

AOB

    AB: next meeting is 10 December

    MC: I have been working on the P&C Impl Report
    ... building some infra to reuse with other specs
    ... after I get things setup, want to get alignment so we can reuse
    editing patterns
    ... and hence reuse the tools

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

    <Steven> Regrets from me for rest of the month

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow submit a pub request for WARP LC#2 with a
    comment end date of Jan 13 2010 [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Robin and WebApps Team Contacts re
    getting Larry Masinter to reply to Robin's comments [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos send a link to the Opera+VF view modes input to
    public-webapps [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Robin to prepare LC#2 draft for WARP [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 15:15:23 GMT

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