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

[widgets] Draft minutes 12 August 2010 voice conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:36:39 -0400
Message-ID: <4C63F8E7.3000602@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Below are the draft minutes from the August 12 Widgets voice conference

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webapps mail list before August 26 (the next Widgets 
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved.

-Art Barstow

Present: Art, Robin, Richard Tibbett, Wonsuk Lee
Regrets: Frederick, Marcos
Chair: Art
Scribe: Art

[09:02] <ArtB>    Topic: Review and tweak agenda
[09:02] <ArtB>    AB: the draft agenda was posted yesterday ( 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0447.html 
). The two specs on the agenda are Widget Interface and the Widget URI 
scheme. Any change requests?
[09:03] <ArtB>    RT: I would like to talk about Widget Updates spec
[09:03] <ArtB>    AB: ok, will add that to the end of the meeting

[09:03] <ArtB>    Topic: Announcements
[09:04] <ArtB>    AB: any short announcements today?

[09:04] <ArtB>    Topic: TWI spec: Action-568
[09:04] <ArtB>    AB: earlier this week discussion on openURL removal 
continued ( 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0394.html )
[09:04] <ArtB>    AB: Bryan Sullivan had some comments
[09:05] <ArtB>    ... I was hoping Bryan would join today but he hasn't
[09:05] <ArtB>    AB: I believe Marcos position is very clear
[09:05] <ArtB>    ... he wants it removed from the spec
[09:06] <ArtB>    RB: as far as I am concerned, agree it is useful
[09:06] <ArtB>    ... but it is also problematic
[09:06] <ArtB>    ... Think it should be solved somewhere else
[09:06] <ArtB>    RT: yes, there is a complexity issue here
[09:06] <ArtB>    ... so I agree with Marcos and Robin
[09:06] <ArtB>    RB: if we remove it, we should be able to go straight 
to REC
[09:07] <ArtB>    AB: we could go to PR but not REC because of some 
dependency issues
[09:07] <ArtB>    RB: dependency on HTML5?
[09:07] <ArtB>    AB: yes that is one
[09:08] <ArtB>    AB: I also tend to agree with the arguments to remove 
the functionality
[09:08] <ArtB>    ... and defer to some other spec for equivalent 
functionality
[09:08] <ArtB>    AB: I'll start an explict CfC about removing this 
method from the spec
[09:09] <darobin>    +1
[09:09] <ArtB>    ... I'd like to make sure everyone has an opportunity 
to state their position
[09:09] <richt>    yep, sounds good
[09:09] <ArtB>    ACTION: barstow start a CfC about openURL and Action-568
[09:09]    * trackbot    noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
[09:09] <trackbot>    Created ACTION-569 - Start a CfC about openURL and 
Action-568 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-08-19].
[09:09] <ArtB>    AB: anything else on that topic for today?
[09:09] <ArtB>    [ No ]

[09:09] <ArtB>    Topic: URI Scheme spec
[09:10] <ArtB>    AB: it has been a while since we discussed the widget: 
scheme spec ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ )
[09:10] <ArtB>    AB: what's the status and plan?
[09:10] <ArtB>    RB: I still need to address some issues
[09:10] <ArtB>    ... I plan to make it a priority
[09:10] <ArtB>    ... hope to finish by the end of the month
[09:11] <ArtB>    ... I know the action items
[09:11] <ArtB>    AB: ok, great
[09:11] <ArtB>    AB: does anyone have any implementation status for 
this spec?
[09:11] <ArtB>    RB: I found it easy to implement
[09:12] <ArtB>    AB: the spec says authors shouldn't use this scheme
[09:12] <ArtB>    ... so what's the use case
[09:12] <ArtB>    RB: when using the DOM, need to determine an absolute URI
[09:12] <ArtB>    ... so impls need it
[09:13] <ArtB>    ... it could also to lead to security hole if an 
implementor was to use something like a file: URI
[09:13] <ArtB>    ... at runtime it is needed
[09:13] <ArtB>    ... e.g. to reuse a web runtime engine
[09:13] <richt>    It's a very useful spec and I believe we require it 
for impl. down the line.
[09:13] <richt>    ...at Opera
[09:14] <ArtB>    AB: anything else on that spec?
[09:14] <ArtB>    RT: we use it for some projects
[09:14] <ArtB>    ... good to get rid of the file: issue
[09:14] <ArtB>    Topic: Widget Updates spec
[09:15] <richt>    widgets updates: 
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/
[09:15] <ArtB>    RT: I've been working with Marcos on this spec
[09:15] <ArtB>    ... clarified update description
[09:15] <ArtB>    ... started an alogorithm to do the update
[09:15] <ArtB>    ... would like to get some feedback
[09:16] <ArtB>    AB: I haven't looked at the changes
[09:16] <ArtB>    RB: same here although I will do so shortly
[09:16] <ArtB>    RT: addresses comparing signatures for the installed 
widget and the update widget
[09:17] <ArtB>    ... so please do take a look
[09:17] <ArtB>    AB: to get broader review, it often helps to publish a 
new version
[09:17] <ArtB>    AB: when will it be ready for a new pub?
[09:18] <ArtB>    RT: I have another couple of weeks of work to do 
before it is ready
[09:18] <ArtB>    AB: ok, that sounds good
[09:18] <richt>    I want to clarify the Verification Process as it is 
largely just a placeholder at present
[09:19] <ArtB>    AB: perhaps we can put it on the agenda for the next 
call which is probably in 2 weeks
[09:19] <ArtB>    RT: any feedback now would be good
[09:19] <ArtB>    AB: I'll ask for internal review
[09:20] <ArtB>    AB: are there some existing protocols this 
functionality could be layered on?
[09:20] <ArtB>    ... e.g. the DM stuff from OMA
[09:20] <ArtB>    RT: yes, there is some existing work to consider
[09:21] <ArtB>    ... if you have related feedback, that would be useful
[09:22] <ArtB>    AB: anything else on Updates spec for today?
[09:22] <ArtB>    RT: not from me

[09:23] <ArtB>    Topic: AoB
[09:23] <ArtB>    AB: anything else for today?
[09:23] <ArtB>    AB: the bulk of the remaining work for the widget 
specs is test cases
[09:23] <ArtB>    ... and it is great to see that Opera is contributing 
in that area
[09:24] <ArtB>    ... e.g. DigSig tests and WARP tests
[09:24] <ArtB>    AB: next call will be August 26 if there is something 
to discuss otherwise, September 2
[09:25] <ArtB>    AB: let's continue to use public-webapps so that we 
can eliminate and/or shorten our voice conferences
[09:25] <ArtB>    AB: meeting adjourned
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 13:38:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:40 GMT