W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > March 2008

[widgets] Minutes from 28 February 2008 Widgets Voice Conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:11:22 -0500
Message-Id: <556BB90F-268D-475F-ADF1-215E0FE6021B@nokia.com>
To: public-appformats@w3.org

All - The minutes from the WAF WG's February 28 VoiceConf on Widgets  
are available at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please  
send  them to the public-appformats mail list before March 10;  
otherwise the minutes will be considered approved.

Regards, Art Barstow


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

                       WAF WG's Widgets Voice Conf
                               28 Feb 2008


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/ 

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-waf-irc


           Art_(AB), Marcos_(MC), Ben_(BW), Benoit_(BS)





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review Agenda
          2. [6]Charter Update
          3. [7]F2F Meeting
          4. [8]Landscape Doc Status
          5. [9]Widgets
          6. [10]Section 1
          7. [11]Section 2
          8. [12]Section 3
          9. [13]Section 4. Widget Resource
         10. [14]Future Voice Conferences
      * [15]Summary of Action Items

Review Agenda

    ... any changes, additions?

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/ 


Charter Update

    [Mike Smith is missing thus no update.]

F2F Meeting

    AB: so far neither Charles, Mike nor I have been able to find a host
    in Dublin for May f2f meeting
    ... If we can't find a Dublin host by March 3, then Dublin will not
    be an option
    ... Thus, it's likely Turin June 3-5 is our mostly likely scenario
    ... is that OK with you?

    MC: yes

    BW: yes

    BS: should be OK

    AB: critical person then is Arve and I'll chase him down

Landscape Doc Status

    AB: what's up Marcos?

    MC: not much progress since last meeting
    ... I'd like to get some help from Benoit

    BS: the people that can help me help you have higher priorities
    right now but I will continue to pursue this

    MC: particularly interested in Microsoft info

    BS: I should be able to help there

    AB: so the timeframe for a FPWD is still 3-4 weeks away?

    MC: yes


    AB: latest ED [17]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/

      [17] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/

Section 1

    AB: [18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#introduction

      [18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#introduction

    MC: since our last f2f most if not all sections have been
    re-shuffled and mostly rewritten
    ... looking for validation of the current text

    BS: I have a question about the first paragraph
    ... missing "Web Widgets" - is that intentional?

    MC: yes; trying to reduce scope
    ... it would affect the security model for example if the Widgets
    are embeddable

    BS: noticed leaving out other devices like TVs

    MC: I can add something else

    AB: is the Web Widgets out of scope an issue for you?

    BS: not really but should state it isn't in scope
    ... it could be considered as optional functionality

    MC: regarding Web Widgets, agree as a group we need a clear
    agreement about them
    ... I see them as a server-side technology
    ... I see them as out of scope for our work
    ... Basically they are just iframes
    ... I don't see a need for standardization of them

    BS: I understand what your saying but the way they are packaged
    could be standardized

    MC: the <content> element helps address this issue
    ... but its processing model could be complicated; we need to
    discuss this

    BS: perhaps we should wait until the Landscape doc is completed so
    we have some data to help us forumualte and bound this discussion.

    MC: that's OK with me

    BW: +1

    AB: +1
    ... this does seem to raise the priority of the Landscape document

    <marcos> MC: we could google gadgets and live.com gadgets

    MC: would need to add Microsoft gadgets i.e. MS Live.Com

Section 2

    AB: any comments about this section?
    ... I don't have any

    MC: I think this section is mostly self-explanatory

Section 3

    AB: this section is OK with me

    MC: I've been wresting with the defin of Widget UA
    ... could be a Web browser that supports this packaging format

    AB: I think we want to continue to make the UI out of scope
    otherwise the testing problem could be as broad as e.g. HTML and we
    don't want to go there

    BS: could the package include an Air app of Java program?

    MC: I think so

    BS: then I don't think the definition of Widget UA should explicitly
    say anything about the Browser

    MC: I tend to agree
    ... Prefer to leave the defintion as is and if we need to revisit
    this, we can

    BW: I tend to think of Widget engines as something like Y!'s Widget
    engine which is of course browser-less

    MC: David suggested we Ajax/XHR be a normative mandatory requirement
    ... but that's for the Requriements document

    BS: I think it makes sense for that to be a must
    ... we should revisit this after the Landscape doc is completed

    MC: I'm OK with that

Section 4. Widget Resource

    BS: seems like the widget resource MUST contain a config doc

    MC: not if we define a default and that's what we plan to do

    BS: I would consider it as a must because it will contain important
    contextual information

    MC: the intent is to keep the widget as simple as possible
    ... all of the elements but one are optional

    AB: in practice I think ~95% of the widgets will have a config file
    ... the question then is what should the UA do if there is no config
    ... should it "do its best" or abort
    ... I think it would be more consistent with "The Web" for the UA to
    try to do its best and not abort

    BS: I understand that but think the config file should be required

    AB: perhaps we could base our decision on what's being done now

    MC: I know for sure that the config file is mandatory for Opera
    ... for Dashboard I think it is not mandatory

    BS: we could change it and see what type of feedback we get
    ... if it isn't a must then there must be a well-defined fallback

    AB: I think we should talk to Arve before we change it
    ... we could also explicitly add a red block that asks for feedback
    on this issue

Future Voice Conferences

    AB: I'm OK with every week or every-other-week; what do people

    MC: I prefer more often meetings
    ... i.e. weekly conference calls

    BS: weekly is too much but I understand Marcos' concern

    MC: I need people making some commitments
    ... we need it to be done by the end of the year
    ... I'm willing to go and meet with people

    BS: perhaps we should have an open meeting and invite MS, Apple,
    Google, etc.

    MC: I'm OK with that too
    ... I'd like to continue my Java impl but it's hard for me to do
    that and to do the Editor work too

    BW: a weekly voice conf is OK with me

    MC: are there any sections in particular that VF is interested in?

    BW: the format is most important

    MC: if you would review the ZIP part and the processing model it
    would be very helpful
    ... i.e. 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3
    ... can Olli provide an XML Sig profile?
    ... i.e. doesn't require XPath or XML Canon

    AB: I can check with him

    MC: Arve agreed to provide a security model input but hasn't done so

    RESOLUTION: have weekly Voice Conferences for Widgets

    BW: I work for David Pollington; been looking at various Widget
    engines; creating demos on Opera's engines and S60 engine
    ... been concentrating on developement work

    AB: welcome Ben!
    ... Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 3 March 2008 21:12:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:22 UTC