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

[widgets] Draft Minutes for 10 December 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:48:52 -0500
Message-Id: <305FB3DE-6E1E-4CD8-AC79-9E4349BD80C1@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the MMM DD 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 17 December 2009 (the  
next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be  
considered Approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

10 Dec 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-irc


           Art, Marcin, SteveJ, Arve, David, Marcos, Robin





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak the agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]TWI spec: LC#2 comments
          4. [8]TWI spec: Normative References that are Work In Progress
          5. [9]TWI spec: CfC to publish Candidate Recommendation
          6. [10]WARP spec: getting wide review of the 8-Dec-2009 LCWD
          7. [11]Widget URI spec
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> Scribe: ArtB

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    Date: 10 December 2009

    <Marcos> be there in 1 sec

Review and tweak the agenda

    AB: the draft agenda was posted on 9 December (
    02.html ). Any change requests?

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

    DR: would like to add PAG

    AB: OK, will add to AOB section
    ... any other change requests?

    [ None ]


    AB: the only announcement I have is that there will be no call on
    Dec 24 or Dec 31, thus the last call for 2009 will be on December 17
    and we will resume on January 7.
    ... any other annoucements?

    [ None ]

TWI spec: LC#2 comments

    AB: the comment period for TWI LC#2 ended December 8. The only
    comment was from Kai Hendry. Marcos and Robin responded to Kai's
    comment and Kai indicated the group's response was satisfactory.
    ... does anyone have any concerns about the way the comments were
    handled (
    pis-20091117/doc/ )?

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 

    [ None ]

TWI spec: Normative References that are Work In Progress

    AB: the TWI spec has 3 normative references that are work in
    progress: HTML5, Web IDL and Web Storage. This means TWI spec cannot
    be promoted to Recommendation until these references are "more
    mature", apparently Proposed Recommendations.
    ... there was a related discussion about this (e.g.
    57.html ) and the policy, is defined by the Process Document and the
    Transition Rules.
    ... does anyone have any concerns or questions about this?

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

    [ No ]

TWI spec: CfC to publish Candidate Recommendation

    AB: given we have addressed all of the TWI LC comments, it appears
    the TWI spec is ready for Candidate. Any comments about that?

    <darobin> +1 for CR

    <darobin> yes!

    <steve> yes

    <marcin> yes

    AB: proposed Resolution: the TWI spec is ready for publication as a
    Candidate Recommendation. Any objections?

    [ No ]

    RESOLUTION: the TWI spec is ready for publication as a Candidate

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a Transition Request to publish a CR
    of the TWI spec [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-467 - Submit a Transition Request to
    publish a CR of the TWI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].

    AB: thanks to the Editors of the TWI spec - Marcos, Arve and Robin!

WARP spec: getting wide review of the 8-Dec-2009 LCWD

    AB: Besides DAP WG, are there any other WGs or external groups we
    want to ask for comments re 8-Dec-2009 LCWD?
    ... Note it is very important we get as much review as possible.
    Additionally, proof of wide review is a requirement to progressing
    to Candidate Recommendation.
    ... is this something BONDI will reviewing?

    DR: yes, more than likely BONDI will review it

    AB: do you need me or Team to ask them?

    <darobin> should we ask the new security list?

    DR: no, I will do that

    RB: perhaps we should ask the new security IG

    AB: that's a good point; I'll send a request

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow ask public-web-security to review WARP LC
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-468 - Ask public-web-security to review
    WARP LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].

    AB: anything eles on WARP spec for today?
    ... perhaps SteveJ and Marcin can use this time

    SJ: I just send an email to the public list

    MH: I can provide some info to SJ re discussions related to the
    "local" WARP requirement

    RB: I think Arve has ideas as well
    ... it would be good to get some input from Opera

    SJ: any feedback on what Opera has done would be useful

    <arve> We'll call in again

    Arve: I just started to read SJ'e email
    ... I authored the doc from Opera
    ... but not sure that feature should be supported
    ... think defn of local should be up to the local admin
    ... not clear what should happen with IPv6

    SJ: there is an RFC for IPv6
    ... I'll send it to the list
    ... IPv6 is of course more complicated

    Arve: what's the use case for knowing what is local and what is not?

    SJ: there are some networks with no DNS or know IP addresses
    ... but WARP requires an IP address

    <darobin> for the record, I think that SJ's use case is definitely a
    good one

    SJ: therefore as a widget developer cannot address those hosts

    Arve: can use "*"
    ... in this case

    <marcin> [19]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862#section-5.3

      [19] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862#section-5.3

    Arve: the network becomes complicated i.e. the context of what is

    SJ: yes, could use "*"
    ... but the UA may not support it
    ... especially in a mobile net with operator restrictions
    ... it would also give access to *any* IP address on the Internet

    Arve: I think most devs will use no access or "*"

    SJ: not sure that's going to be the case

    <marcin> [20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/ says:

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

    SJ: I am mostly interested in the mobile case

    <marcin> The use of the character string "local" is intended to
    efficiently and interoperably specify the hosts belonging to the
    local network. It is assumed that the lack of such a possibility
    would result in the extensive usage of the U+002A ASTERISK (*)
    special value and thus could result in the access request policy
    model being ineffective.

    MH: I just put my comments in IRC
    ... they cite the draft I created a while ago
    ... I think SJ's comments are captured in my draft
    ... Need to limit the network somehow and we need to get agreement
    on the "how"
    ... Needs to work with VPN networks too
    ... need to distinguish Internet and Intranet

    Arve: why is local/private/Intranet so important it needs to be
    ... local network is configurable on the handset

    MH: primary use case here is widget I want to run at home that only
    works on devices in my home
    ... e.g. to display images from a UPnP server
    ... If I use "*", it contradicts the whole use case as it opens to
    the entire Internet

    Arve: I have an argument against that

    DR: need to support defensive depth

    <steve> is mDNS sufficiently well-standardised? ISTR it's only an
    informational RFC, but I might be wrong

    MH: need to add more semantics to <access> element

    Arve: not sure we it makes sense to separate local and remote on IP
    ... think it opens too many holes

    SJ: I'd like to understand those holes

    <darobin> +1 on SJ making a proposal

    <marcin> +1

    <arve> +1 on proposal

    SJ: I'll follow-up on the mail list

    <darobin> I think that mDNS is reasonably well understood, but let
    me check

    AB: good; let's continue this topic on the list

    <timeless_mbp> there are certainly 3-4 useful mDNS impls

Widget URI spec

    AB: after I submitted today's agenda, Larry Masinter responded to
    several of Robin's replies. The comment tracking doc is (
    ri-20091008/doc/ ).

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 

    <darobin> ah, there appears to be Service Location Protocol (SLP) on
    standards track

    AB: Robin, do we want to discuss any of Larry's emails today?

    RB: I haven't looked at LM's emails in detail enough to discuss
    ... hope to respond by tomorrow

    AB: OK

    <timeless> Zakim: aabb is also me

    AB: anything else on LM's comments or the Scheme spec for today?

    [ No ]

    AB: given LM's new emails, we won't discuss CR for Scheme spec today


    AB: next call is December 17
    ... David, you wanted an update on the WARP PAG?

    <Marcos> +q about publishing updates

    DR: activity for a PAG should happen within 30 days
    ... would like to know if there is any status to share?

    <Marcos> +q

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow ask Team to provide WARP PAG status to the
    WG [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-469 - Ask Team to provide WARP PAG status
    to the WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].

    DR: would like that to go out by tomorrow

    <marcin> mDNS will require some implementation, "local" does not

    DR: if that is possible

    <marcin> trying to make it simpler

    MC: I didn't see Updates on the agenda

    AB: my recollection is you Marcos agreed to have Updates ready for a
    new WD pub by 17 Dec

    MC: OK, I can do that

    <steve> apologies - WUA?

    AB: I will try to get the CR for the TWI spec published this year,
    but timing wise, that may not be possible
    ... are there any other docs we will try to publish by Dec 18?

    MC: only the Updates spec and TWI CR

    RB: perhaps URI spec but not clear we can do that

    AB: anything else on publications?

    [ No ]

    AB: any other AOB topics?

    [ No ]

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

    <darobin> ooh, I forgot to ask!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow ask public-web-security to review WARP LC
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow ask Team to provide WARP PAG status to the WG
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow submit a Transition Request to publish a CR of
    the TWI spec [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 14:49:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:21 UTC