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

[widgets] Draft minutes from 17 June 2010 voice conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:04:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4C1A2B7A.3060604@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the June 17 Widgets voice conference are 
available at the following and copied below:

  http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webapps mail list before July 1 (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

17 Jun 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1058.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Marcos, StevenP, bryan_sullivan, Bryan, Frederick

    Regrets
           Robin

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Digital Signature spec
          4. [8]view-mode Media Feature spec
          5. [9]Packaging and Configuration spec
          6. [10]Widget Interface spec
          7. [11]AOB
      * [12]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: yesterday I sent a draft agenda to the list (
    [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/10
    58.html ). Any change requests?

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1058.html

Announcements

    AB: any short announcements?

Digital Signature spec

    AB: later today we will discuss publishing a CR with the Team (
    [14]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ ). We have 1 hour for
    two specs.
    ... I expect most of the discussion to focus "what's changed?".
    ... since CR#1 was published, we effectively applied two Change
    Requests: the first included moving from C14N 1.0 to 1.1 and some
    other fixes and the second change request fixed a few bugs and
    increased the spec's "testability".
    ... the changes between July 2009 CR and April 15 LCWD are briefly
    summarized in the status section (
    [15]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status )
    and more details can be found in the following thread (
    [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/00
    54.html ).
    ... hoping FH could lead that discussion
    ... since FH isn't here now, I follow-up with him about the call

      [14] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
      [15] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status
      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0054.html

    MC: yes, FH should be on the call to talk about those changes

    AB: the changes between the 15 April LCWD and 11 May LCWD are
    summarized in the 11 May LC (
    [17]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/#changes-si
    nce-last-publication- ).
    ... while we wait for FH to join, any other issues or concerns re
    DigSig?

      [17] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/#changes-since-last-publication-

    MC: I feel confident about this

    AB: again the changes between July 2009 CR and April 15 LCWD are
    briefly summarized in the status section (
    [18]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status )
    and more details can be found in the following thread (
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/00
    54.html ).

      [18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status
      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0054.html

    FH: yes, I will be there
    ... have any issues been raised?

    AB: not that I know about
    ... anything else on digsig

view-mode Media Feature spec

    AB: re today's CR (
    [20]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/CR.html ) call
    with the Team, are there any concerns or issue?
    ... Robin is not likely to attend the call but Marcos agreed to take
    the lead

      [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/CR.html

    MC: I looked at the disposition of comments and don't see any issues

    AB: anyone have concerns about the view-mode spec?

Packaging and Configuration spec

    AB: Marcos added text re "Changes Since Last Publication" (
    [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/pub/#changes-since-last-publi
    cation ). Any comments?

      [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/pub/#changes-since-last-publication

    SP: no concerns

    AB: we need to talk about Normative References and PR. The [Sniff]
    spec is a Normative Reference. Does this block us from publishing a
    PR?
    ... I want to understand if this is a problem?

    SP: if it is a WIP we have a prob

    AB: what is the process here?

    SP: a normative ref should be in step with the spec to be published
    ... it can be one step behind but only briefly

    AB: the ref is:

    [[

    [SNIFF]

    Media Type Sniffing. A. Barth and I. Hickson. IETF. November 5, 2010
    (Work in Progress).

    ]]

    <Steven>  [22]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-05

      [22] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-05

    AB: what does this mean Steven?

    SP: not sure about the status of this spec

    AB: I don't know about the IETF process

    SP: yes, I haven't referenced IETF WIPs so I don't know how this is
    handled

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow work with StevenP re the [Sniff] IETF
    reference in the widget packaging spec [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-561 - Work with StevenP re the [Sniff]
    IETF reference in the widget packaging spec [on Arthur Barstow - due
    2010-06-24].

    AB: Marcos, are there any other references issue for P&C spec?

    MC: Widget DigSig but that will soon be CR
    ... CSS21 is still a CR
    ... I think Sniff spec is the only issue

    AB: we will wait to hear from the Team on how we deal with Sniff
    spec

Widget Interface spec

    AB: The TWI spec ( [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ ) has
    a Normative dependency on Web IDL.
    ... and we also have no active Editor for Web IDL

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

    MC: one idea is to use OMG IDL
    ... that was used previously
    ... we don't really need Web IDL
    ... we can use prose instead
    ... the interface is so simple
    ... In this case, TWI spec doesn't really win anything by using Web
    IDL

    AB: I came to the same conclusion
    ... my pref would be to not add a new ref but to update the spec
    directly
    ... by that I mean do not reference OMG IDL
    ... I noticed only 3 Web IDL refs: ReadONly, Supplemental,
    NoInterfaceObject
    ... and I think we could simply cut-and-paste some definitions and
    hence not need the reference

    MC: yes, I agree

    <bryan_sullivan>  +1

    AB: we can create a new section that includes these defs and just
    explain that since Web IDL isn't ready, we copied the definitions we
    need

    MC: yes, could do that

    BS: yes, that makes sense to me
    ... but we do need to address the Web IDL Editor issue

    AB: yes, agree
    ... if we go that route to add definitions into the spec, will that
    require going back to LC?
    ... I think the precedence we've followed to date is that if we just
    do a cut-and-paste, we haven't really changed anything that would
    affect an implementation
    ... thus, no need to go back to LC

    MC: sounds good

    SP: I think that would be OK
    ... I don't think it would change any software
    ... so that's OK with me

    MC: yes, agree

    AB: so the consensus is that cutting and pasting definitions from
    Web IDL to the TWI spec would not require a new LC

    SP: I talked to Ian Jacobs - don't make normative references to
    unstable materials
    ... in this case, Sniff may change
    ... thus it needs to be stable

    MC: I would argue Sniff is already widely implemented
    ... it has been part of the Web Platform for a long time
    ... We can get some status from Adam
    ... I think it is good and matches reality

    <scribe>  ACTION: Marcos determine the status of IETF's Sniff spec
    [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-562 - Determine the status of IETF's Sniff
    spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-06-24].

    SP: formally, CSS2.1 is also a problem case for Widget P&C spec
    ... the mis-match must be brief
    ... want the references to be at equal states

    MC: P&C references CSS pixels
    ... I don't think we want to copy that entire section of CSS2.1

    <scribe>  ACTION: marcso work with ArtB and SteveP re P&C's reference
    to CSS2.1 [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot>  Sorry, couldn't find user - marcso

    AB: does anyone know the plan for CSS2.1 to go to PR?

    MC: I don't know if it ever will go to PR
    ... since it will need thousands of tests

    <Marcos>  [27]http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units

      [27] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units

    MC: we can copy some text re pixels

    AB: I thought a spec could be parked in PR even though its refs were
    not yet in PR

    SP: no, that's not the way it works
    ... A person couldn't really vote on a spec if it is in PR if its
    refs were not stable
    ... if a ref is not stable, it can still change

    MC: we do have an "out" for P&C and CSS2.1 because CSS2.0 includes
    the identical text for pixels

    AB: the Widget Interface normative refernces HTML5
    ... so we'll need to think about that as well as Web Storage
    ... we also still have ISSUE-116 (
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 ) open.

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

    MC: nothing new to report on that
    ... expect some progress next week

    AB: last call for spec discussions for today ...

AOB

    AB: Calls during the summer and summer holidays. In general, I don't
    want to have a call if lead Editor isn't available.

    <Steven>  Regrets for next week, 29 Jul, and the first three weeks of
    Aug

    AB: make the next call July 1
    ... re planning, roadmap, ToDos, etc., see the Action list and
    PubStatus page (
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Widget_Specificati
    ons )

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Widget_Specifications

    SP: we are still waiting for WARP PAG to conclude, right?

    AB: yes
    ... anything else for today?

    <Steven>  [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/

    MC: what about a widget conformace checker?

    AB: if it is non-normative, we can publish it

    SP: yes, agree

    MC: OK, I may bring this up later

    AB: that would be a great idea
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with StevenP re the [Sniff] IETF
    reference in the widget packaging spec [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos determine the status of IETF's Sniff spec
    [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: marcso work with ArtB and SteveP re P&C's reference to
    CSS2.1 [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action03]

    [End of minutes]
    
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 14:05:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:39 GMT