W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

[widgets] Draft minutes from 21 October 2010 voice conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:07:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4CC04920.90502@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the October 21 Widgets voice conference are 
available at the following and copied below:

  http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-wam-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webapps mail list before November 4 (tentatively, 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

21 Oct 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0153.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art_Barstow, Marcos_Caceres, Steven_Pemberton

    Regrets
           Frederick_Hirsch

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Announcements
          2. [6]Packaging and Configuration spec
          3. [7]Widget Interface spec
          4. [8]Widget Requirements: CfC to publish a new WD; only
             changes are updating references and the now obsolete spec
             titles (e.g. Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration)
             <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/>
          5. [9]AoB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

Announcements

    AB: October 26 is the deadline for comments re October 5 LCWD of
    Widget Packaging and Configuration (
    [11]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-20101005/ )
    ... WAI's P&F WG would like to meet with the widgets group @ TPAC on
    November 1; I will send details of the meeting include voice bridge
    (when I have them)

      [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-20101005/

Packaging and Configuration spec

    AB: I created a comment tracking doc for the LC (
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-2
    0101005/ )
    ... we have comments from viji<viji@borqs.com>
    ([13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0
    130.html )

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-20101005/
      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0130.html

    MC: Viji is from Borqs
    ... they are a development arm for China Mobile

    <Marcos>  MC: AFIK

    AB: Issue-150 "Email and param name and value as 'Keyword
    attributes' is causing confusion in Widgets P&C Spec" (
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/150 )
    ... Issue-151 "If feature-name is not a valid IRI, and
    required-feature is true, then the user agent must treat this widget
    as an invalid widget package. but doesnt say anything about the case
    when it is not required." (
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/151 )
    ... Issue-152 "test suite needs a few more XML entity cases to check
    for well-formed XML" (
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/152 )
    ... 152 seems more like an action

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/150
      [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/151
      [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/152

    MC: oh yes, that's true
    ... can change it to an Action
    ... I am reluctant to add more tests
    ... they test XML entity types

    AB: what about issue-151?

    Issue-151?

    MC: we just need to add a clarification

    <trackbot>  ISSUE-151 -- [widgets] P&C Spec.... If feature-name is
    not a valid IRI, and required-feature is true, then the user agent
    must treat this widget as an invalid widget package. but doesnt say
    anything about the case when it is not required. -- raised

    <trackbot>  [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/151

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/151

    AB: yes, I agree with it is just a clarification
    ... and what about issue-150?

    Issue-150?

    <trackbot>  ISSUE-150 -- [widgets] Email and param name and value as
    'Keyword attributes' is causing confusion in Widgets P&C Spec --
    raised

    <trackbot>  [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/150

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/150

    MC: this is just an editorial cleanup
    ... need to define a new data type like "unlocalizable string"

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow update LC comment doc to show Issues 150
    and 151 are clarifications and editorial, respectively [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-590 - Update LC comment doc to show Issues
    150 and 151 are clarifications and editorial, respectively [on
    Arthur Barstow - due 2010-10-28].

    <scribe>  ACTION: caceres to checkin updates for issues 150 and 151
    [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-591 - Checkin updates for issues 150 and
    151 [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-10-28].

    AB: anything else on P&C for today?

    MC: can we talk about embedding?

    AB: let's talk about that during AoB

    MC: ok

Widget Interface spec

    AB: Addison's October 14 e-mail (
    [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/00
    96.html )
    ... he wants a locale attribute off the widget object

      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0096.html

    MC: yes, that's right
    ... think he should just use navigator.language

    AB: let me find the relevant email in the archive
    ... here is your response to Addison:
    [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/00
    33.html

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0033.html

    <Marcos>  [23]http://www.iamcal.com/understanding-bidirectional-text/

      [23] http://www.iamcal.com/understanding-bidirectional-text/

    MC: I have another response that I drafted but haven't yet set
    ... think he misunderstood what me
    ... my answer to the locale is to use navigator.language

    AB: Addison also is asking "how does the API expose a string's
    direction?"
    ... the problem is that the "span-able" elements may have any number
    of directions
    ... so there is no single direction
    ... I know you responded to Addison; I think you are talking past
    each other

    MC: correct; a string can have N directions
    ... can use unicode markers
    ... e.g. [24]http://www.iamcal.com/understanding-bidirectional-text/
    ... can have a leading direction but then substrings may change
    direction

      [24] http://www.iamcal.com/understanding-bidirectional-text/

    AB: is there a precedence we can build upon?

    <Marcos>  e.g. U+202E A B C U+202C

    <Marcos>  OR: start {LRE} foo {RLE} bar {PDF} baz {PDF} end

    <Marcos>  MC: in P&C, the i18n string is represented as (start {LRE}
    foo {RLE} bar {PDF} baz {PDF} end)

    MC: in the API we can note what the string can look like (pointing
    to P&C spec)

    <Marcos>  widget.name == "u/202E foo u/1231 bar u/123 baz /3112 end
    u/1231

    <Marcos>  "

    <Marcos>  document.write(widget.name)

    <Marcos>  [25]http://www.iamcal.com/understanding-bidirectional-text/

      [25] http://www.iamcal.com/understanding-bidirectional-text/

    <Marcos>  putInPlace(string, widget.name)

    <Marcos>  putInPlace(element, widget.name)

    MC: this isn't something that can be done at the widget API level
    ... it could be something done at the DOM level
    ... don't think this is something that needs to be standardized

    AB: can you respond to Addison with your proposal?

    <Marcos>  winget.name.lang

    MC: yes, I will do that
    ... for locale use, widget.name.lang
    ... and for directionality, I will reiterate what I've previously
    said
    ... we are going to return strings with Unicode markers

    AB: ok; sounds good; I would welcome his feedback on what other WGs
    have done here

Widget Requirements: CfC to publish a new WD; only changes are updating
references and the now obsolete spec titles (e.g. Widgets 1.0:
Packaging and Configuration)
<[26]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/>

      [26] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/%3E

    AB: any objections to publishing this WD?

    MC: no

    SP: good plan

    RESOLUTION: agree to publish the new WD of the Widget Requirements
    doc

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow submit a publication request to publish new
    WD of Widget Requirements [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-wam-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-592 - Submit a publication request to
    publish new WD of Widget Requirements [on Arthur Barstow - due
    2010-10-28].

AoB

    AB: there has been some discussion about packaging web apps for
    browsers
    ... Mozilla's Mike Hanson elaborated on how their approach relates
    to P&C:
    [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/01
    59.html
    ... Doug mentioned this could be in scope via WebApps' "Widget
    Embedding" deliverable
    ... Someone else mentioned, this appears to be similar to Chrome
    extensions framework, at least from the manifest perspective
    ... they also use JSON

      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0159.html

    MC: yes

    AB: we can certainly do some work in this area

    MC: yes, we should discuss this
    ... don't want fragmentation

    AB: I think it would be good to talk about the UCs and Reqs
    ... I do think our priority here should be to complete work we
    already started
    ... but most of the work is already done

    MC: I'm willing to put in hooks to accomdate future devlopment
    ... but I do not want to break any normative parts of the P&C spec

    AB: agree
    ... it may be too late to schedule related discussions for TPAC
    ... but we can certainly start discussions on the mail list
    ... and have informal discussions in Lyon

    MC: yes, I agree

    AB: not sure how to proceed
    ... assume people will respond to the thread already started
    ... the action is for anyone interested in "Widget Embedding" to use
    public-webapps for discussions
    ... regarding next call, I think after TPAC makes sense

    MC: yes, we should continue to use the list, especially for P&C and
    Interface specs

    AB: tentatively, the next call would be November 4
    ... anything else for today?
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow submit a publication request to publish new WD
    of Widget Requirements [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-wam-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow update LC comment doc to show Issues 150 and
    151 are clarifications and editorial, respectively [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: caceres to checkin updates for issues 150 and 151
    [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 14:08:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:41 GMT