W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

[widgets] Draft minutes from 8 July 2010 voice conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:42:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4C35D5D8.1050509@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the July 8 Widgets voice conference are available 
at the following and copied below:

  http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webapps mail list before July 29 (the next Widgets 
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved.

-Art Barstow

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

08 Jul 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0095.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Laszlo_Gombos, Steven_Pemberton, Marcos_Caceres, Kenneth

    Regrets
           Frederick

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Packaging and Configuration spec
          4. [8]The Widget Interface spec
          5. [9]AOB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: the draft agenda was submitted on July 7 (
    [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/00
    95.html ). If Robin doesn't join, we will drop the URI scheme agenda
    item. Any change requests?

      [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0095.html

Announcements

    AB: any short announcements? DAP WG has f2f meeting next week so
    there will be no call on July 15 and I have a conflict on July 22 so
    there will be no call on that day. Next call will be July 29.

    MC: I added licenses to the test cases
    ... did for P&C spec
    ... reflects the discussion we had with Rigo Wenning
    ... there is a license in every widget zip
    ... and it points to the W3C license
    ... plan to do the TWI spec
    ... Opera created a Perl script to do the work of adding the license

    AB: thanks very much!

    <Marcos>  [12]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/mkwidgets.pl

      [12] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/mkwidgets.pl

Packaging and Configuration spec

    AB: Issue-117 "In Widget P&C Spec, need to clarify in the spec that
    dir attribute does not apply to attributes that are IRIs, Numeric,
    Keywords, etc. The dir attribute only affects human readable
    strings." ( [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/117 )
    ... Marcos asked the I18N WG for feedback (
    [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/00
    41.html ). Anything to report on this?

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/117
      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0041.html

    MC: no I haven't received any replies

    AB: this is blocking our P&C PR request
    ... so I'll follow-up with Richard and Addison

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow followup with I18N WG re Issue-117
    [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-565 - Followup with I18N WG re Issue-117
    [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-07-15].

    <Steven_>  \

    MC: re the<span>  and dir attribute
    ... I added some tests
    ... also added some tests to reflect the VM media feature CR

    AB: the P&C had to be updated because the values of the view-mode
    media feature had changed

    <Marcos>
    [16]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/ta-view
    modes/

      [16] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/ta-viewmodes/

    MC: clarified the set of attributes that are Keywords and which
    attrs are displayable
    ... the changes are purely editorial - no normative changes
    ... Lachlan created over 100 tests for<span>  and dir attr
    ... we will submit them soon

    AB: that's great - thanks to Lachlan!

    MC: the tests are related to parsing the element and attribute
    ... we do need to talk to the I18N guys to make sure we are doing
    the right thing
    ... for the purposes of the test suite, must do byte comparison
    ... After we complete the model, we will send an email that explains
    what we did

The Widget Interface spec

    AB: Issue-116 "Need to flesh out the security considerations for the
    openURL method in the Widget Interface spec" (
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 )
    ... Marcos proposed resolution to Issue-116 is to remove openURL
    from the spec (
    [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/12
    29.html ).
    ... last week we agreed (
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-minutes.html#item03 ) to get
    more input from implementors.

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116
      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1229.html
      [19] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-minutes.html#item03

    MC: I've asked implementors and widget developers
    ... no one so far has come back with a really good use case
    ... or that we can't live without it given its issues

    LG: I haven't followed all of the discussions
    ... I would like to understand the security issues
    ... but I just heard it may not be useful

    MC: well, it is useful but its use must be secure
    ... e.g. when can a widget send a SMS without the user's consent

    LG: agree user consent is needed
    ... the spec doesn't mention user consent
    ... for example, sms and user consent is left to the implementation

    MC: not clear it should open a new app without user intervention
    ... e.g. could open a URL after some timer expires
    ... I don't think a URL should be opened without user consent
    ... need to be careful about windows being automatically opened

    <Marcos>
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/05
    70.html

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

    MC: Adam Barth referenced related issues

    AB: is this the one:
    [21]http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/ie-pwns-secondlife/ ?

      [21] http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/ie-pwns-secondlife/

    <Marcos>  "I'm not familiar enough with the use cases for widgets to
    know what the alternatives are. My perspective is that we'd be
    better off with a much weaker window.open() API in the web platform,
    but we're stuck with what we have. In the widgets space, it seems
    like there's an opportunity to do something better that doesn't
    require us to reinvent popup blockers and all the other
    pseudo-security cruft we have around to deal with window.open() in
    browsers."

    <Marcos>  Says Adam

    MC: in Adam's email, he makes two proposals
    ... #1 is to remove the API and handle it programatically
    ... #2 is to use a white list of URLs

    LG: do you consider widget openURL as similar to window.open()?

    MC: no, the use cases are different
    ... window.open is to do an overlay
    ... openURL is fire and forget in Opera

    LG: but what about other schemes?

    MC: we don't support other schemes except perhaps mailto:
    ... can use<a>  element's click
    ... also want to use a white list of allowed URIs

    LG: so openURL is considered redundant?
    ... and hence no use for it?

    MC: yes, that's our thinking
    ... we want to defer to the HTML5 security model
    ... rather than define our own

    LG: ok;

    MC: I'm leaning towards dropping it
    ... but want to hear from others

    AB: is openURL used in Opera widgets?

    MC: yes, it is part of Opera widgets

    AB: openURL is part of S60 widgets
    ... do we want to consider moving it to a separate spec?

    MC: I think that is worth considering
    ... I don't think we want to continue to discuss it
    ... don't think we loose anything by removing it
    ... that is, can use other means e.g.<a>  and click to get the same
    result

    AB: I want to get closure but think we need some more time
    ... we could create a proposed resolution and then on July 29, agree
    to a resolution
    ... would that be OK?

    LG: yes, that would be OK

    MC: yes that would be fine

    AB: since this spec is in CR, I will start a new thread to solicit
    input

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow start a thread on Issue-117 to gather input
    on the various options [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-566 - Start a thread on Issue-117 to
    gather input on the various options [on Arthur Barstow - due
    2010-07-15].

    AB: anything else on this topic for today?

    KC: nothing new to add

AOB

    AB: next call is July 29
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow followup with I18N WG re Issue-117 [recorded
    in [23]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow start a thread on Issue-117 to gather input on
    the various options [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 13:43:48 GMT

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