W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

[widgets] Draft minutes from 6 May 2010 voice conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:03:02 -0400
Message-Id: <E1C1E7FC-86C8-46D0-9041-96DA4AE8AB3A@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the May 6 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

  http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before May 13 (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

06 May 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0445.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Marcos, Frederick, Arve, Kenneth, Josh

    Regrets
           Robin, Marcin

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Digital Signature spec
          4. [8]Packaging and Configuration spec
          5. [9]Widget interface spec
          6. [10]WARP spec
          7. [11]URI scheme spec
          8. [12]View Modes
          9. [13]Requirements doc
         10. [14]Moving from CVS to DVCS
         11. [15]AoB
      * [16]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: draft agenda posted on May 4 (
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    45.html ). Any change requests?

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0445.html

Announcements

    AB: Reminder: comment period for 15-Apr-2010 LCWD of Digital
    Signatures for Widgets spec ends May 6:
    [18]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/
    ... Reminder: comment period for 20-Apr-2010 LCWD of View Mode Media
    Feature spec ends 18-May-2010:
    [19]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-view-mode-20100420/

      [18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/
      [19] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-view-mode-20100420/

    <Marcos> /me tlr, right. We do another LC.

Digital Signature spec

    AB: Marcos submitted some comments against the 15-Apr-2010 LCWD (
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/03
    92.html ).
    ... do any of the changes affect an implementation? Do we need to
    publish another LCWD?
    ... I gather we'd prefer not to publish another LC but we also agree
    that it would be good to get review on the changes

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0392.html

    <tlr> For the record, I'm in favor of doing another LC.

    FH: I think we should publish another LC
    ... we need to get review of the changes
    ...

    MC: I can live with another LC
    ... we can use it to continue to work on the test suite

    <fjh> additional proposed change before last call
    [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    99.html

      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0499.html

    AB: OK, so we will indeed publish a new LC
    ... also have a comment from Andreas (
    [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    81.html )

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0481.html

    FH: we need to make that change
    ... but it won't affect an implementation
    ... we should make that clarificatin

    AB: Marcos, have you looked at this comment from Andreas?

    MC: yes, I think that was the intention

    <fjh> ggest we change 3a from "The URI attribute ..." to be "For

    <fjh> references that are not same-document references, the URI
    attribute..."

    AB: can that change be added to the spec today?

    MC: yes

    AB: propose we publish a new LC with Marcos' changes plus an edit to
    address Andreas' comment
    ... any objections to that proposal?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: we will publish a new LC of widget-digsig with Marcos'
    changes plus an edit to address Andreas' comment

    AB: LC comment tracking doc:
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-d
    igsig-20100415/ but since we are going to publish another LC, I
    don't see a need to track comments for the 20-Apr-2010 LC
    ... anything else for DigSig?

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 
widgets-digsig-20100415/

    FH: status should say it is a revision

    MC: yes, I'll add that

    <scribe> ACTION: marcos notify Art when the widget-digsig LC is
    ready for publication [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-536 - Notify Art when the widget-digsig LC
    is ready for publication [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-05-13].

    AB: thanks guys!

    FH: thanks Marcos

    MC: when will LC period end

    AB: if the 3-week LC starts May 11, then the comment period will end
    on June 1

Packaging and Configuration spec

    AB: Marcos, what is the status of tests for the <span> element and
    dir attribute?

    MC: we are waiting on closure for the I18N WG
    ... still haven't heard from them
    ... missing about 1/2 of the tests for the override

    AB: I thought we had closed the loop with them

    MC: they went quiet; don't know if that means they agree
    ... need to decide if the I18N tests become part of the main test
    suite

    AB: if we do that, we loose some of our 100% implementations
    ... is that correct?

    MC: yes

    AB: I'm opposed to doing it then

    MC: agree, the I18N tests are separate from the core test suite
    ... an impl Should be able to handle the I18N stuff
    ... but we can't put UI reqs in the spec

    AB: first step is getting closure from I18N WG

    MC: we can't go to PR without 2 I18N impls

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow ask I18N WG if they approve the span and
    dir changes [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-537 - Ask I18N WG if they approve the span
    and dir changes [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].

    AB: ACTION-533 "P&C spec: re the dir attributes "lro" and "rlo"
    values, need to define these or add a reference to their
    definitions" ( [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/533
    )
    ... Marcos and I talked about this in IRC last
    ... week without any resolution
    ... are these override values used much in HTML?

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/533

    Arve: no, don't think so

    Kenneth: no, not much use

    MC: get them for "free" via unicode
    ... the idea is to say something like: see Unicode's bidi algorithm
    for more info about the overrides

    AB: OK, so there is agreement something needs to be added

    MC: yes, I'll address this action

Widget interface spec

    AB: ISSUE-116 "Need to flesh out the security considerations for the
    openURL method in the Widget Interface spec" (
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 ).
    ... MC proposed text here:
    [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    39.html
    ... that text looked OK to me

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116
      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0439.html

    MC: a question is whether or not this becomes normative
    ... I also asked Adam Barth about that

    AB: did Adam respond?

    MC: not yet
    ... and TLR was wondering about Adam's feedback

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow follow up with Adam Barth re
    [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    39.html [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action03]

      [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0439.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-538 - Follow up with Adam Barth re
    [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    39.html [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].

      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0439.html

    AB: my gut feel is to make that text non-normative

    MC: TLR was inclined to make it Normative

    AB: I would like that spec to remain in Candidate

    <arve> no comments from me

    MC: I agree

    <kenneth> none from me either

WARP spec

    AB: note, that Robin isn't here
    ... are there any developments on the test suite?

    MC: I am not aware of any work on the WARP test suite

    AB: is some additional text needed re the default policy (
    [32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    56.html )
    ... this thread was started by Scott Wilson
    ... Marcos' replies provided good info
    ... do we need some new text about default policy?

      [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0456.html

    MC: I think we should wait for Robin's input here
    ... need to have more discussion especially re embedded widgets
    ... embedded widgets get their origin from the Web page
    ... we need a spec about what happens here i.e. Web sec model or
    Widget sec model

    <scribe> ACTION: robin work with Marcos on what WARP should or
    should not say for the default security model re AB: is some
    additional text needed re the default policy (
    [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    56.html ) [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action04]

      [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0456.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-539 - Work with Marcos on what WARP should
    or should not say for the default security model re AB: is some
    additional text needed re the default policy (
    [35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    56.html ) [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-05-13].

      [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0456.html

URI scheme spec

    AB: without Robin, we won't do a deep dive today
    ... ACTION-526 "Widget URI scheme: define the widget *URI* syntax in
    terms of RFC 3986 per
    [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/01
    41.html" ( [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526 )
    ... ISSUE-16 "Do widgets need their own URI scheme?" (
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/16 )
    ... what do we do with this Issue?
    ... should we just close it?
    ... we have a spec which certainly implies we need it

      [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0141.html
      [37] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526
      [38] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/16

    MC: yes, I would close it

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow close Issue-16 base on the widget: URI
    scheme LC [recorded in
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-540 - Close Issue-16 base on the widget:
    URI scheme LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow can tracker be rigged so that the assignee
    is sent an e-mial when an action is created? [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-541 - Can tracker be rigged so that the
    assignee is sent an e-mial when an action is created? [on Arthur
    Barstow - due 2010-05-13].

View Modes

    AB: ISSUE-97 "How is ViewModes DOM related to CSSOM?" (
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97 ).
    ... we have decided to use CSSOM spec
    ... and not a View Modes API spec
    ... thus I think we can close this

      [41] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97

    MC: agree

    <kenneth> im fine with closing it

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow close issue-97 given the WG's decision to
    use CSSOM [recorded in
    [42]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-542 - Close issue-97 given the WG's
    decision to use CSSOM [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].

    AB: ACTION-535 "VMMF spec: respond to CSS WG re timeline for the
    CSSOM spec" ( [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/535
    ). Discussion with CSS WG is public (
    [44]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hypertext-cg/2010AprJ
    un/0005.html ). We are asked about timelines.
    ... does anyone have any input on the timelines for CSSOM?

      [43] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/535
      [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hypertext-cg/ 
2010AprJun/0005.html

    MC: no; but think we need to submit our use cases
    ... to the CSS WG
    ... I sent them to Robin
    ... He gave me some feedback
    ... I need to integrate that feedback and then send them to the CSS
    WG

    AB: ok, we will leave this open for now

Requirements doc

    AB: It's now over one year since the Widget Requirements doc was
    last published. As such it is out-of-date with our specs as captured
    in ACTION-534 "Widget Reqs: update to include latest versions of
    specs (TWI, WARP, VMMF, P&C, etc.)" (
    [45]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/534 ).

      [45] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/534

    MC: I need to update some refs
    ... and do some edits
    ... After we are done the widgets specs we can publish it as a WG
    Note
    ... I can identify those reqs we met and those we do not meet

    AB: what do you mean by "done" here
    ... do you mean LC or CR?

    MC: I don't think there is anything to be gained by publishing it

    AB: do we have some reqs in specs that point to the Reqs doc but
    aren't actually in the Reqs doc?

    MC: yes, there probably are some of those
    ... so in that case, a new pub would make sense

    AB: I understand there are priorities but keeping specs in sync with
    Reqs doc would be good

    MC: we do need to update the refs
    ... it would be some make work

    AB: it is the only spec that still includes 1.0

    <kenneth> it did cause me some confusion in the beginning :-)

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow review the Reqs doc and update refs
    [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-543 - Review the Reqs doc and update refs
    [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].

Moving from CVS to DVCS

    AB: Marcos proposed moving the widget specs from CVS to DVCS (
    [47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    41.html ). So far the comments have been positive.
    ... in principle this is OK but support it IFF old links point to
    the new stuff
    ... have you done a trial?

      [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0441.html

    MC: no but I know Robin is using the system

    AB: I assume in the long term it will save us time
    ... like bulk checkins

    JS: easy to do things like directory deletes

    MC: also easier to do branches

    JS: slight syntax diff between Mercurial and git

    <timeless_mbp> there are minor command differences between hg and
    git

    <timeless_mbp> but conceptually they should be feature equivalent

AoB

    AB: Next voice conference is May 13
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow ask I18N WG if they approve the span and dir
    changes [recorded in
    [48]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow can tracker be rigged so that the assignee is
    sent an e-mial when an action is created? [recorded in
    [49]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow close Issue-16 base on the widget: URI scheme
    LC [recorded in
    [50]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow close issue-97 given the WG's decision to use
    CSSOM [recorded in
    [51]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow follow up with Adam Barth re
    [52]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    39.html [recorded in
    [53]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow review the Reqs doc and update refs [recorded
    in [54]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action08]
    [NEW] ACTION: marcos notify Art when the widget-digsig LC is ready
    for publication [recorded in
    [55]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: robin work with Marcos on what WARP should or should
    not say for the default security model re AB: is some additional
    text needed re the default policy (
    [56]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    56.html ) [recorded in
    [57]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action04]

      [52] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0439.html
      [56] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0456.html

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 14:04:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT