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

[widgets] Draft minutes from 20 May 2010 voice conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:58:59 -0400
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15A5BE67-E4D0-437E-91F8-24495E58212D@nokia.com>
The draft minutes from the May 20 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

  http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before May 27 (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

20 May 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0763.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Robin, StevenP, Josh, Kenneth, Marcos

    Regrets
    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda review
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Packaging and Configuration spec
          4. [8]Widget Interface spec
          5. [9]Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec
          6. [10]URI Scheme spec
          7. [11]View Modes Media Features spec:
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 20 May 2010

Agenda review

    AB: draft agenda was posted on May 19 (
    [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/07
    63.html ). Any change requests?
    ... we will add P&F WG's comment about VMMF LC

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0763.html

Announcements

    AB: deadline for comments re Digital Signatures for Widgets LCWD is
    June 1

Packaging and Configuration spec

    AB: on April 6 I asked the I18N WG to respond to the <span> and dir
    changes. On May 12 I asked them again (
    [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0002.htm
    l ). I haven't received any response.
    ... do you Steven know I18N WG's status on this?

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/ 
0002.html

    SP: no, but I'll find out

    AB: let's not block on this now and move to next topic

Widget Interface spec

    AB: we have one issue that is blocking moving the spec to PR
    ... ISSUE-116 "Need to flesh out the security considerations for the
    openURL method in the Widget Interface spec" (
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 )
    ... Marcos has already added some text

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116

    <Steven> i18n discussed it yesterday; Addison is actioned to reply,
    and will do so soon

    RB: think he is awaiting some response

    AB: thanks SP
    ... yes, there was some offlist discussion but I forwarded that
    discussion to public-webapps
    ... here is the thread I mentioned
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/05
    70.html
    ... how do we make progress on this issue?

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0570.html

    RB: the changes must be satisfactory to the comments
    ... then we can move to PR

    <scribe> ACTION: marcos to follow-up with TLR and Adam Barth re
    ISSUE-116 [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-550 - Follow-up with TLR and Adam Barth re
    ISSUE-116 [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-05-27].

    RB: do we need to move P&C fwd first?

    AB: no, I don't think so

Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec

    AB: there was a thread about Assertion ta-?? (
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/05
    69.html ) between Scott Wilson and Marcos

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0569.html

    MC: I made it clear what needs to be done
    ... I expect Scott to make the change

    AB: ACTION-539 - what WARP should or should not say for the default
    security model (
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/539 )

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/539

    RB: I responded to the thread
    ... if people aren't happy with it, we can change it

    MC: I don't think the model is clear enough

    RB: the model is to deny everything

    MC: if the WARP model applies, do not have a http origin

    RB: but the target is local widget

    MC: I agree that has always been the model
    ... but that needs to be more clear

    RB: so you want to say the model does not apply to non http origins

    MC: yes

    ACTION-539?

    <trackbot> ACTION-539 -- Robin Berjon to 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 (
    [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
    56.html ) -- due 2010-05-13 -- OPEN

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

    <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/539

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/539

    RB: ok, I'll take that

    AB: ACTION-546 - WARP spec: move the requirements to the beginning
    of the spec to be consistent with other widget specs (
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/546 )
    ... I don't feel strongly here

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/546

    RB: I'll do whatever the group wants

    MC: it really doesn't matter

    Kenneth: but if this is just a C&P, then go for it

    RB: it is a simple change
    ... just tell me where you want it

    AB: how about using P&C as the template

    RB: OK

URI Scheme spec

    AB: ACTION-526 - define the widget *URI* syntax in terms of RFC 3986
    ( [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526 )
    ... are there any concerns there Robin?

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526

    RB: no, I'll make that change
    ... I don't want to copy over the ABNF
    ... but describing syntax in in terms of 3986 make sense
    ... and 3987 IRI

    AB: ACTION-549 - URI scheme spec: add the requirement(s) this spec
    addresses e.g. R36 "Resolve Addressing Scheme"; identifying the
    requirements is mandatory for Candidate (
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/549 )
    ... there may other reqs too

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/549

    <darobin> ACTION: Robin to add requirements to Widget URIs based on
    what's in the requirements document [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-551 - Add requirements to Widget URIs
    based on what's in the requirements document [on Robin Berjon - due
    2010-05-27].

    AB: Marcos, do we have other requirements related to URI scheme?

    MC: no, I don't think so

    AB: ok, then ACTION-549 should be straight forward

View Modes Media Features spec:

    AB: the LCWD comment period ended May 18
    ... Review LC comments (
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-view-mode
    -20100420/ )

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 
view-mode-20100420/

    KC: I think the view modes are mutually exclusive
    ... but the spec is silent on that
    ... think should say they are mutually exclusive

    RB: that's fine by me

    MC: no comment
    ... haven't thought about it

    AB: can some UA actually do something with more than one?

    RB: don't think that would make sense

    KC: would expect inconsistent behavior if more than one is supported

    <darobin> "Each <a>view mode</a> is defined to be exclusive of the
    others." ?

    AB: arguments seem to be in favor of adding the clarification
    ... does anyone object to that clarification?

    MC: I need to think about the consequences
    ... I don't have any objections at this point

    AB: Robin, please go ahead and make that change

    MC: would be helpful to see the hole change in context

    <darobin> RB: done

    AB: the 2nd comment is from MC and he proposes a spec title change
    ... The 'view-mode' media feature
    ... comments
    ... any objections?
    ... so: The 'view-mode' Media Feature

    MC: yes

    RB: yes

    AB: so Robin, please make that change

    RB: done

    AB: ACTION-548 - VMMF spec: add the requirement(s) this spec
    addresses e.g. R39 "Display Modes" (
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/548 ); identifying
    the requirements is mandatory for Candidate

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/548

    <darobin> ACTION: Robin to add requirements to VMMF [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-552 - Add requirements to VMMF [on Robin
    Berjon - due 2010-05-27].

    AB: ACTION-530 - what is our time expectations/constraints re CSSOM
    spec? ( [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/530 )
    ... any feedback on our timing requirements for CSSOM spec?

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/530

    MC: I get the sense from talking to Anne that it is a couple of
    years out
    ... it is a difficult situation
    ... if people really want it, they will implement regardless of the
    spec status

    AB: we already have some dependencies on other HTML specs

    RB: implementors may be reluctant to implement it

    AB: so we either live this uncertainty or do the apis ourselves

    RB: a third option is to ask CSS WG to modularize those parts we
    need
    ... worth a discussion

    AB: yes, that may make sense

    RB: it is a bit of a toolbox

    AB: besides Marcos and Robin, are there others that would
    participate in the modularization discusion?

    MC: I think Kenneth has expressed interest in this area
    ... it would be good if Kenneth could help with the view mode api
    requirements
    ... and the CSSOM spec

    AB: can you confirm your interest in this area Kenneth?

    <kenneth> yes

    KC: yes, I can help

    AB: comments from WAI Protocols and Formats WG (
    [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/07
    71.html ). Note this email was after the comment deadline.

      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0771.html

    <kenneth> We are actually already discussing it and have some
    example implementation for WebKit already

    AB: it could be that "tactile" was accidentally included and this is
    a typo

    RB: I think Marcin copied it from somewhere else and he thought it
    meant "touch" devices
    ... but tactile is for Braille devices
    ... I think we should just remove it

    MC: I agree

    JS: agreed

    AB: any objections to removing the word "tactile"?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: the word "tactile" will be removed from the VMMF spec

    RB: I've made the change and will respond

    AB: I can add it to the CT doc

    RB: OK

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow VMMF spec: add the 19-May-2010 comment from
    Michael Cooper to the LC comment tracking doc [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-553 - VMMF spec: add the 19-May-2010
    comment from Michael Cooper to the LC comment tracking doc [on
    Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-27].

    AB: the next step is discussions about CR
    ... any comments about its readiness for CR?

    RB: need response from P&F first

    AB: ok, so then during our May 27, we should be ready to agree on
    publishing a Candidate

AOB

    AB: any thing for today?
    ... next call is May 27;
    ... Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow VMMF spec: add the 19-May-2010 comment from
    Michael Cooper to the LC comment tracking doc [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: marcos to follow-up with TLR and Adam Barth re
    ISSUE-116 [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Robin to add requirements to VMMF [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Robin to add requirements to Widget URIs based on
    what's in the requirements document [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [37]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([38]CVS log)
     $Date: 2010/05/20 13:54:17 $
      _________________________________________________________

      [37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [39]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/

      [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Present: Art Robin StevenP Josh Kenneth Marcos
Agenda: [40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJ
un/0763.html
Found Date: 20 May 2010
Guessing minutes URL: [41]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow marcos robin

      [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010AprJun/0763.html
      [41] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html

    End of [42]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

      [42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 13:59:49 GMT

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