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

[widgets] Draft minutes from 27 May 2010 voice conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:50:49 -0400
Message-ID: <4BFE78B9.9010007@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 June 3 (the next Widgets 
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved.

-Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

              Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

27 May 2010


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0849.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-irc


           Art, Marcos, StevenP, Wonsuk_Lee, Josh





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Packaging and Configuration spec
          4. [8]Widget Interface (TWI) spec
          5. [9]View Modes Media Features spec
          6. [10]GZIP and widget packaging
          7. [11]AOB
      * [12]Summary of Action Items


    <Marcos>  There is a first time for everything

    <trackbot>  Date: 27 May 2010

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

    <scribe>  Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

    <Steven>  02Wonsuk Lee01

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: I posted the draft agenda yesterday (
    49.html ). Arve asked me in IRC to add gzip discussion (

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0849.html

    39.html ) and we will add that to the AOB agenda item.

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0839.html

    MC: Arve isn't here today
    ... so he may not join the call

    AB: if he joins us, we can discuss it
    ... any change reqs?

    [ None ]


    AB: June 1 is the deadline for comments for 11-May-2010 LC of
    Digital Signatures for Widgets (
    [15]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/ )

      [15] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/

    WL: I am from ETRI in Korea
    ... I am Editor in W3C
    ... in the MAWG
    ... also participate in DAP WG
    ... also interested in WebApps WG
    ... as well as HTML5

    AB: thanks for that intro; welcome

Packaging and Configuration spec

    AB: Richard Ishida submitted 5 comments I18N-related comments last
    week. Marcos, what is the status?
    ... any discussion?

    MC: they are all addressed
    ... I took all of his suggestions
    ... re #20, they originaly recommended using xml:lang

    AB: were all of the changes Editorial?

    MC: yes
    ... #20 would be substantial but they said they did NOT expect us to
    change the spec

    AB: that is consistent with my interpretation
    ... On May 20 Richard indicated (
    l ) Addison is going to respond to our request asking if the I18N WG
    is OK with our changes (or not). I still haven't received a response
    from him
    ... I followed up with Addison yesterday (
    l ) and still no response.
    ... is Addison I18N WG chair?

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0032.html
      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0044.html

    SP: yes

    AB: the P&C's PR is blocked on this
    ... anything you can do Steven to get Addison to reply would be very
    much appreciated

    SP: I'll do my best

    AB: have you heard anything from Addison, Marcos?

    MC: no

    AB: we'll have to leave this as an open action
    ... anything else on P&C spec for today?

    [ no ]

Widget Interface (TWI) spec

    AB: as we know, the PR for the TWI spec is blocked on ISSUE-116 (
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 ) and ACTION-550
    ( [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/550 ) re Security
    Considerations for the openURL method.
    ... any status to report on this, Marcos?

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116
      [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/550

    MC: I still need to follow-up

    AB: is there anything you need from the rest of us?

    MC: no, I don't think so
    ... I just need to restart the conversation
    ... Adam is suggesting what I think the spec already says
    ... so we may have general agreement
    ... I don't want to remove the method

    AB: what about enumerating the schemes?

    MC: I don't think we want to do that
    ... a UA can support any number of schemes
    ... don't want to limit UAs flexibility
    ... not clear where the spec boundary should be when it comes to
    things like the cost to a user to use a particualar scheme

    AB: I tend to agree with you and thought your proposal was
    ... Nevertheless we do need to get consensus on the text

    MC: yes, agree

    AB: anything else on TWI for today?

    MC: no, don't think so

View Modes Media Features spec

    AB: VMMF ACTION-552 - Add requirements to spec - must be fixed
    before next publication (
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/552 )
    ... the reqs are mandatory before going to Candidate
    ... Robin knows this and is plannign to do the editorial work
    ... the 3 commentors on the LC replied they are OK with our
    responses (
    -20100420/doc/ )
    ... as such, I think the spec is ready to publish as a Candidate

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/552
      [21] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-view-mode-20100420/doc/

    MC: I agree

    AB: any other comments re VMMF and it being "CR worthy"?
    ... I think it is ready
    ... there is just one assertion re UA behavior

    MC: yes, true
    ... there could be a set of tests per mode

    AB: proposed resolution: the group agrees the VMMF spec is ready for
    Candidate Recommendation
    ... any objections?
    ... I support CR

    MC: I support it

    <wonsuk>  I support it as well

    SP: fine by me

    WL: support it as well

    RESOLUTION: the group agrees the VMMF spec is ready for Candidate

    AB: any thoughts on the length of the Candidate?

    MC: I would go with the minimum
    ... there are already several impls that support the modes
    ... probably need about 20 tests

    AB: I don't think a CR has a minimum period

    MC: probably should say at least one month

    AB: OK, so 4 weeks after the CR is published
    ... we need to add requirements
    ... the SotD needs to reflect CR
    ... we should also create at least a stub Implementation Report

    <Marcos>  MC: this is the requirement

      [22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#display-modes

    <scribe>  ACTION: marcos create an Implementation Report doc for the
    VMMF spec [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-555 - Create an Implementation Report doc
    for the VMMF spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-06-03].

    <scribe>  ACTION: robin notify ArtB when the VMMF is ready for a
    TransReq [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-556 - Notify ArtB when the VMMF is ready
    for a TransReq [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-03].

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow work with StevenP to schedule a Candidate
    call with the Director [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-557 - Work with StevenP to schedule a
    Candidate call with the Director [on Arthur Barstow - due

    AB: anything else on VMMF for today?

    MC: there is a redirect problem: "I just noticed that
    /TR/widgets-vmmf is not redirecting to /TR/view-mode. To avoid
    confusion, can you please make sure it does."

GZIP and widget packaging

    AB: the original thread on widget packaging and GZip started on
    April 28 with an email by Gregg Tavares (
    49.html ). A point of interest is a stream-able format.
    ... since then, Doug started some renewed discussion (
    39.html ) perhaps because of Google's announced a way to package Web
    Apps in Chrome browser.
    ... note WebApps proposed charter extension (
    s ) includes a "Widgets Embedding" deliverable that, if approved by
    the Director, could potentially be used to rationalize at least part
    of these use cases "a mechanism to allow embedding of packaged
    applications within other Web content, such as referencing via the
    HTML object element"
    ... without Arve here, we won't do a deep dive
    ... but we can talk about it

      [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0349.html
      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0839.html
      [28] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html#deliverables

    MC: if we do another format, P&C should be split up
    ... put the config file in a separate spec
    ... and packaging seperate

    AB: it is an interesting idea and one we should discuss
    ... but I don't think it should be done before P&C goes to PR
    ... we should complete P&C before doing any kind of splitting

    MC: Arve is suggesting separating configuration doc from the
    packaging mechanism


      [29] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026506.html

    MC: some related discussions in WHATWG channels

    AB: oh, this is interesting, I hadn't seen this

    <Marcos>  MC: this is also quite relevant to the debate

      [30] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026503.html

    AB: I do like the idea of separating the config data from the
    packaging mechanism

    <timeless_mbp>  hsivonen's message is

      [31] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026503.html

    AB: this is good info Marcos
    ... I think we should plan to add this topic to the June 3 call
    ... anything else on this topic for today?


    AB: any other topics for today?

    MC: I've done some more work with a QA colleague on the I18N tests
    ... we have about 1/2 of them ready
    ... will submit to CVS
    ... there is an open question about licensing
    ... we now have a script that adds the license

    AB: is that what Rigo suggested?

    MC: yes, we are following Rigo Wenning's recommendation

    AB: ok; excellent
    ... notify me when you have checked in one of these test cases as
    I'd like to see how the licensing is done
    ... next call is June 3; there will be no call on June 10.
    ... depending on the nature of any comments we receive for the
    Digital Signature for Widgets LC, we may be in a position on June 3
    to discuss publishing a Candidate of that spec
    ... that would give us 5/7 widget specs in Candidate

    MC: perhaps we can do a combined Director's call

    AB: I thought of that too

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow work with StevenP on the logisitics of two
    CRs during the same Director's call [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-558 - Work with StevenP on the logisitics
    of two CRs during the same Director's call [on Arthur Barstow - due

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with StevenP on the logisitics of two CRs
    during the same Director's call [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with StevenP to schedule a Candidate call
    with the Director [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: marcos create an Implementation Report doc for the
    VMMF spec [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: robin notify ArtB when the VMMF is ready for a
    TransReq [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2010 13:51:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:25 UTC