W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

[widgets] Draft minutes from 11 February 2010 voice conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:13:44 -0500
Message-Id: <A498CC66-1FD9-4E79-8520-6E1552113195@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the 11 February Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

  http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before 18 February (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  
Approved.

-Art Barstow

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

              Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

11 Feb 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0532.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Robin, Bryan, StevenP, Marcos, Arve, Doug

    Regrets
           Stephen_Jolly, David_Rogers, Marcin_Hanclik

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]P&C spec: Important Test Suite Updates
          4. [8]P&C spec: Action-486: Create ITS test case(s) for the
             P&C test suite
          5. [9]Widget Interface spec: openURL() security considerations
          6. [10]Widget Interface spec: general comments by Cyril
             Concolato
          7. [11]Widget Interface spec: window object comments by Cyril
             Concolato
          8. [12]TWI spec: test suite
          9. [13]AOB: charter renewal
         10. [14]AOB: ISO's MPEG-U and Widgets
      * [15]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 11 February 2010

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

    Date: 11 February 2010

    <Marcos> member:Zakim, +1.479.524.aaaa is me

    <scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

    <Marcos> bah

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: yesterday I sent out the draft agenda for this meeting (
    [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/05
    32.html ). Are there any change requests?
    ... we will add MPEG-U discussion to AOB (
    [17]http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-u/pt1.zip )
    ... we will drop 5.a discuss Action-490 (
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/490 ) since I
    hoping to get to it before this meeting but did not and thus have
    nothing to report.
    ... any agenda change requests?

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0532.html
      [17] http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-u/pt1.zip
      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/490

    [ no ]

Announcements

    AB: two normative refs in Widgets DigSig to XML Signatures specs
    entered LCWD on Feb 4 (
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/05
    31.html ). Any other short announcements?

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0531.html

P&C spec: Important Test Suite Updates

    AB: last week Marcos mentioned he would add a new test case to the
    P&C test suite. He has done that (
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04
    85.html ). Thanks Marcos! What is the status of people running this
    new test?

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0485.html

    MC: it has been run by Aplix, BONDI, Wookie have all run this new
    test and passed it

    AB: wrt the P&C Interop Report, are we back to 3 impls that pass
    100% of the test suite?

    MC: yes, that is correct

P&C spec: Action-486: Create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite

    AB: Marcos, what is the status of the P&C ITS testing and Action-486
    ( [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/486 )?

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/486

    MC: I haven't done that yet

    AB: do you need some help wrt coordinating with the I18N WG?

    MC: no, I just need to create the test or tests
    ... it's not that much work
    ... I don't think it should block us from going to PR

    AB: I agree but we know the Director has indicated he would like to
    see that test
    ... do you need an impl of ITS to test the tests?

    MC: yes, that is correct
    ... I am not aware of any impl that will support it
    ... it is indeed optional

    AB: would like SP to help us with the process here

    SP: if it is optional then there should be at least one impl
    ... with something like this, not sure what to suggest
    ... to go to REC with an unimplemented feature would mean the
    feature is at risk

    AB: but what about going to PR?

    SP: should try to find something that can do something with the test

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow work with MC and the Team to determine how
    to test the P&C ITS test(s) [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-491 - Work with MC and the Team to
    determine how to test the P&C ITS test(s) [on Arthur Barstow - due
    2010-02-18].

    SP: input mode on XHTML Basic, we did find an internal impl we could
    use
    ... without revealing confidential info
    ... [so there is a precedence that could be followed]

    MC: could it be placed in Widgeon Robin?

    RB: if you want to do so :-)

    MC: just need to insert the right unicodes

    RB: agree it could be done but I don't have the bandwidth to do it
    ... it is OSS so anyone can do the impl

    SP: I think that would be fine

    RB: agree it would take care of the process
    ... not sure though about how useful it is

    SP: may not have one complete impl for PR but all features must be
    implemented by some set of the impls
    ... need to show it is implementable, not necessarily implemented

    RB: we have tighter constraints

    MC: we said all MUST assertions must have tests
    ... support for ITS is Not Mandatory
    ... it wouldn't harm the spec if it was removed

    AB: to wrap up, I have Action-491 and I'd like to be in a position
    next week during our call to deteremine if we have consensus to move
    P&C spec to PR
    ... anything else on P&C for today?

Widget Interface spec: openURL() security considerations

    AB: earlier this week Marcos proposed some security considerations
    text (
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/05
    01.html ) for the openURL method.

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0501.html

    MC: we proposed some text
    ... Adam raised some good issues
    ... want to wait for additional feedback
    ... would be good to hear from TLR

    AB: other than chasing down Adam, et al., is there anything else you
    need from the group?

    MC: no, that's it

    AB: the idea is to create non-normative guidelines?

    MC: yes but there is a question about if the file:// URI should not
    be used

    AB: would that change require us to go back to LC?

    MC: not sure; want to make this non-normative
    ... a UA may want to support file:// URI
    ... we can't keep an impl from doing that

    AB: any other feedback for MC on this?
    ... I'd like to see this added as non-normative text

    MC: I agree

Widget Interface spec: general comments by Cyril Concolato

    AB: Cyrll posted some general comments about the TWI spec (
    [24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04
    79.html ). There were quite a few follow-ups. Where do we stand on
    these comments?
    ... will addressing any of these comments require the TWI spec to go
    back to LC?

      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0479.html

    MC: I don't think any of these comments affect normative text
    ... I consider them clarifications
    ... it does expose the window object issue

    AB: I think he raised that in a separate thread

    MC: yes, but it's in thread 0479 too

    AB: here is the other thread by Cyril:
    [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04
    76.htm

      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0476.htm

    <Marcos> Cyril said "* What happens to the "storage" event fired by
    the setItem or removeItem methods when the UA does not implement the
    window object ?"

    AB: do any of the non window object changes affect normative text?

    MC: no; the others are all clarifications

    AB: does anyone disagree with MC's characterization

Widget Interface spec: window object comments by Cyril Concolato

    AB: Cyril also submitted some comments about the window object (
    [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04
    76.html ).

      [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0476.html

    MC: the issue is the dependency on HTML5's window object
    ... we use the browsing context as defined in HTML5
    ... this does create a problem for non HTML languages
    ... I don't think this means much wrt normative text for TWI spec
    ... could say if you implement HTML5 then put Widget object on the
    Window

    AB: does anyone have concerns about this?

    RB: I'm not convinced we need to change anything
    ... we can talk about global object but that could create problems
    for other impls
    ... I think what we have is good enough

    MC: I think we should just leave it as is

    AB: I agree with Robin's concern about a global Widget object
    ... any other comments on this?
    ... does it appear Cyril is OK with what you and RB are saying MC?

    MC: yes; he acknowledged that what we said was correct (we pointed
    out some info he had not seen)

    AB: proposed resolution is: the window object as currently specified
    in the TWI CR is OK as is
    ... any objections to that proposed resolution?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: the window object as currently specified in the TWI CR
    is OK as is

TWI spec: test suite

    AB: is the TWI test suite still incomplete?

    MC: yes, that's correct
    ... I need to get together with Dom after he returns next week
    ... If anyone can help with the Web IDL, please let me know

    RB: I can take a look but I recommend you ask Dom first
    ... I think it is correct

    MC: I think what Dom proposed makes sense
    ... but there are problems with the automatically generated tests
    the Dom created
    ... that is the only real blocker at the moment
    ... some implementors are already running the test suite
    ... Wookie has been reporting some results and Opera too

    AB: how does the report process work?

    MC: an implementor creates and maintains their own XML file
    ... of the test results
    ... we are not verifying results

    AB: do people drop their test results in CVS or email them to you?

    MC: preferably the implementors just put their results in CVS

    AB: anything else on the TWI spec for today?

AOB: charter renewal

    AB: Doug sent out a call for comments on WebApps charter renewal (
    [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04
    93.html ). Scott Wilson requested some new deliverables (
    [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/05
    25.html ).
    ... I think the #1 priority for the new charter is completing the
    work we already have in progress.

      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0493.html
      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2010JanMar/0525.html

    SP: I don't have any comments on the charter yet

    <Steven>
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/chartergen?chairs=Charles+McCathieNevi
    le%2C+Arthur+Barstow&tc=Doug+Schepers%2C+Steven+Pemberton&oldcharter
    uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2009%2F04%2Fwebapps-charter.html&end-d
    ay=30&end-month=March&end-year=2012&fte=30&confidential=public&patpo
    l=w3c&mtgtel=1&mtgftf=1&makefromold=Generate+charter+from+existing+d
    ata

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/chartergen?chairs=Charles 
+McCathieNevile%2C+Arthur+Barstow&tc=Doug+Schepers%2C+Steven 
+Pemberton&oldcharteruri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2009%2F04% 
2Fwebapps-charter.html&end-day=30&end-month=March&end- 
year=2012&fte=30&confidential=public&patpol=w3c&mtgtel=1&mtgftf=1&makefr 
omold=Generate+charter+from+existing+data

    SP: the copyright is incorrect

    DS: thanks for that pointer
    ... we wanted to re-use as much of the existing charter as possible
    ... I will look at that output
    ... we will include a pointer to our publication status:
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus

    AB: I prefer a pointer to a living document

    SP: the charter should include a pointer to that pub status page

    AB: yes, it does

    DS: Art, I have now included the change you proposed
    ... I expect to get management review next week so a formal AC
    review could happen late next week
    ... what new widget delieverables do we want?

    AB: Scott Wilson proposed a few things

    <darobin> +1

    AB: the Social APIs need more info
    ... there is also a widget intercommunciation proposal
    ... some have said that should leverage HTML5's mechanisms as much
    as possible and I agree with that

    DS: if we want to add any new work, we should make it explicit

    Arve: I don't think we want a widget-specific spec for
    communication, we want a Web communcation spec

    DS: so a "Web messaging" spec?

    Arve: yes, something like that addresses discovery
    ... don't know where we will end up e.g. one spec versus two and
    scope
    ... we should probably start with use cases
    ... need messaging to signal between windows for example
    ... not sure postMessage will be the best way to solve it

    <shepazu> [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html

    [ Doug reads related text he has added to the draft charter
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html ]

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html

    DS: I think we should have an explicit deliverable

    Arve: yes, agree
    ... there may be some relationship between notifications and
    messaging
    ... we can also consider widgets embedded on a web page e.g. Google
    gadget

    DS: think this format can be used by other apps e.g. flash

    <darobin> DS: it is very common for designers to need to send a file
    with all its resources, this would be very useful for that

    DS: I can add messaging and discovery
    ... and that will take care of Scott's #1 point
    ... re point #2 from Scott, I think that's a reasonable use case
    ... re point #3 and Social api, not sure

    Arve: I'd like to see some use case about the Social API

    MC: there is some related work onging in one of the XGs

    Arve: I don't think we can add something like Social API without
    more information

    AB: I agree with Arve

    <scribe> ACTION: wilson submit some use case information about
    Social API proposal for widgets [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - wilson

    <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or
    username (eg. ChrisWilson, swilson3, awilson2)

    <scribe> ACTION: scott submit some use case information about Social
    API proposal for widgets [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-492 - Submit some use case information
    about Social API proposal for widgets [on Scott Wilson - due
    2010-02-18].

    AB: I think we given Doug sufficient info for points #1 and #2

    DS: not sure I have wording about the embedding proposal
    ... but I will work on some wording

    AB: anything else on charter?

    MC: in the scope of the charter, should say something about packaged
    client-side applications
    ... perhaps i.e. widgets
    ... make it very clear that widgets are in scope

    [ Doug reads latest related text form the scope ]

    MC: that's good enough

    <shepazu> [[Widgets Embedding:: a mechanism to allow server-side
    deployment of packaged client-side applications, within a Web page
    or as standalone content.]]

    <darobin> +1 to Marcos

    <arve> [Widgets Embedding: A mechanism to allow deployment and
    embedding of packaged widgets in web applications, within a web page
    or as stand-alone content]

    MC: not sure about "deployment" here

    DS: perhaps I should remove stand-alone content

    Arve: yes

    [ DS reads updated proposed text ... ; positive nods from attendees
    ... ]

    AB: thanks Doug!

    <arve> +1 thanks

AOB: ISO's MPEG-U and Widgets

    AB: ISO' MPEG-U group is "embracing and extending" our widget specs
    e.g. see: (
    [35]http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-u/pt1.zip ).
    ... without Cyril here, not sure we should have this discussion
    today?
    ... has anyone there spec?

      [35] http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-u/pt1.zip

    [ No ]

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow invite Cyril to our widget call on
    18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-493 - Invite Cyril to our widget call on
    18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [on Arthur Barstow -
    due 2010-02-18].

    DS: I skimmed it

    RB: I skimmed it too
    ... some parts are concerning

    DS: I propose we send an immediate response and will respond with
    details later
    ... think they want to finish their work in April
    ... I think some of their work will conflict with our widget
    messaging work

    AB: how about we invite Cyril to next call and use that as a way to
    explain our concerns
    ... that would give everyone 1 week to review their doc

    DS: OK

    RB: OK

    AB: then that's what we'll do
    ... anything else on this topic?
    ... anything else for today?
    ... meeting adjourned; next meeting is Feb 18

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow invite Cyril to our widget call on 18-Feb-2010
    to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with MC and the Team to determine how to
    test the P&C ITS test(s) [recorded in
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: scott submit some use case information about Social
    API proposal for widgets [recorded in
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: wilson submit some use case information about Social
    API proposal for widgets [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 17:14:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:37 GMT