- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:21:46 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the August 14 Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: <http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-minutes.html> WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before August 21 (next voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered approved. -Regards, Art Barstow [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - Web Applications Working Group Teleconference 14 Aug 2008 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2008JulSep/0399.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-irc Attendees Present Art, Arve, Marcos, Mike, Nick Regrets Thomas, Claudio, Luca, Benoit, DavidR, Mark Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Agenda Review 2. [6]OMTP Input 3. [7]Turin f2f Agenda 4. [8]Comments from MWBP WG on Requirements LC doc 5. [9]"General Comments" 6. [10]R16 Vistual Rendering Dimensions 7. [11]MWBP References 8. [12]Proposed requirement for "Resource Declarations" 9. [13]R36 Open Default System Web Browser 10. [14]New Req: User-Agent Header 11. [15]New Requirement for User-Agent-Profile Header 12. [16]New Requirement Accept Header 13. [17]New Requirement: Default Use of Runtime Environemnet Configured Proxy * [18]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ <trackbot> Date: 14 August 2008 <scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference Date: 14 August 2008 <scribe> Scribe: Art <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB Agenda Review AB: any change requests? [None] OMTP Input AB: we need to get clarity on the contributors for OMTP's inputs before we can act on them ... any questions or concerns? Nick: by contributors do you mean companies? AB: yes I mean companies Turin f2f Agenda AB: posted an update of the Turin f2f agenda ... [19]http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/TurinF2F ... any comments? [19] http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/TurinF2F [None] Comments from MWBP WG on Requirements LC doc AB: comments [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/at t-0298/MWBP_comments_to_Widget_Requirements_Last_Call_WD.htm ... 5 new reqs proposed ... and changes for R16 and R36 ... unfortunately Bryan isn't here ... there are three thread now Marcos? [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2008JulSep/att-0298/ MWBP_comments_to_Widget_Requirements_Last_Call_WD.htm MC: yes "General Comments" MC: we've talked about the ontologies before in the context of device capabilities ... our general consensus in the past is this type of tech is too complicated and not baked enough for v1.0 Arve: yes I agree with Marcos AB: Mike and Nick? Mike: I would like to hear from Nick about use cases and market realities Nick: we do have device cap type stuff in progress in BONDI ... it is an important topic <marcos> +q <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to saymight be good to hear Nick's opinion on this Nick: we are split on DCCI and simpler API based solutions AB: I agree with Marcos' statements Arve: device capability is too complicated for v1.0; also think this issue will be less important as platforms more powerful ... Widgets are NOT just for mobile ... For example, we ship Widgets for the desktop ... Thus I don't think DCCI, MWBP, etc. are relevant for a Core Widgets spec ... If any mobile specific work needs to be done, it should be in a separate spec ... or as extensions <marcos> MC: I agree with Arve AB: I agree with Arve's comments, pretty much 100% R16 Vistual Rendering Dimensions AB: what are your thoughts on this Marcos? MC: I don't think they understand what the req says ... We don't expect "straight up" pixels MWBP References AB: the comments suggest two refs from the MWBP WG should be added MC: I added the references in the Informative Ref section AB: OK to me ... any other comments? [None] Proposed requirement for "Resource Declarations" MC: I submitted some comments [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/03 40.html ... I would reject this requirement [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2008JulSep/0340.html Arve: I pretty much agree with Marcos ... in that it is not possible to know if a widget will be a good or bad match for things like CPU or memory <marcos> MC: the widget engine might not be good... but the widget might be ok Arve: for example can't say apriori anything about battery life ... This requirement could be satisified via a security model AB: has Bryan responded to your feedback Marcos? MC: not yet and it's been almost one week <scribe> ACTION: Barstow make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses [recorded in [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-08-21]. Mike: when responding formally to a comment it is always a good idea to include a deadline for responses AB: that's an excellent point! Mike: regarding the timeline, a week is typically the best; 2 weeks if really needed ... want to eliminate chasing-up commentors if possible ... this will save time for everyone AB: so in the abscence of pushback from Bryan and/or BP WG, that proposed Resource Declaration req will not be added R36 Open Default System Web Browser MC: I proposed some alternate text AB: any feedback on Marcos' proposed text? ... it's OK with me ... any other feedback? [None] New Req: User-Agent Header MC: I'm OK with including this AB: how would this req be manifested in a spec? MC: good question; I think it would just be a recommendation ... that is a recommendation for the UA Arve: setting this depends on the request itself ... what about loading external resources MC: what happens now or what is proposed in HTML5? Arve: HTML5 may not say anything about the UA header ... I also don't quite understand how this req would be specified Mike: seems like this falls into recommendations for UA behavior ... not sure we want to set a precedence for this ... it's a slippery slope for other UA behavior ... may want to say we don't want to define UA behavior at all AB: I agree with Mike concerns ... OTOH, I think that type of doc is useful ... Is this something that would be more appropriate for the MWBP's Web Apps recommendation? <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that including spec language to address this type of UA behavior might be a slippery slope MC: I read the Web Apps doc from the MWBP WG and it is for developers not implemtors AB: I don't see a match between these 3 reqs and the set of specs we are working on ... I'm not opposed to adding these to an informative set of recommendations ... for UA implementors Arve: I'd like to see some Use Cases for these headers MC: to me setting the UA header is typically self-evident Arve: the problem with the UA header is that it isn't authoritative ... in that anyone can set it to anything thus I question its usefulneess MC: so is it in or out AB: I think it is more in scope for a WG focusing on mobile specific requirements ... Nick, Mike? <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say the MBWG is not chartered to produce specs that give normative conformance criteria for UAs Nick: no input now Mike: I think we're better off not including it ... the MWBP is not chartered for creating Normative specs for UAs ... Perhaps it could be a recommendation in BP v2.0 or something like that ... Agree it shouldn't be addressed in the Widgets spec AB: Propose we not add a requirement for User-Agent header ... any objections? Arve: no Marcos: no Mike: no Nick: no RESOLUTION: User Agent header will not be added to the Requirements document New Requirement for User-Agent-Profile Header AB: where is this header specified, Normatively? MC: the CC/PP spec <marcos> [23]http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPPexchange [23] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPPexchange AB: the NOTE reference is Informative ... The W3C has produced a Recommendation for CC/PP and if we use anything, we should use it <arve> [24]http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPP/ [24] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPP/ <arve> [25]http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab2-20070430/ [25] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab2-20070430/ <marcos> [26]http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/ [26] http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/ AB: yes, that's it Marcos ... does this S&V spec define this header? Arve: no, I don't think so ... My main concern is that it adds bloat for each request without providing much value ... I don't think this is in widespread use <MikeSmith> amen to what arve just said MC: I agree Arve: some of the properties simply are not useful AB: Mike, Nick, any comments on this? Mike: I agree with Arve Nick: nothing to add AB: I tend to agree with Arve as wll ... Propose we do not add the U-A-Profile header to the Requirements document ... any objections? Marcos: no Arve: no Mike: no Nick: no RESOLUTION: We will not add the User-Agent-Profile header requirement New Requirement Accept Header MC: when a UA makes a request, it should use the Accept header ... Again, I think it should be a recommendation (like the UA header) Arve: UAs already do this ... Every widget engine will build on a browser engine and support for this header will just be done ... Don't think we need to explicitly add it AB: what would we add to our specs to satisfy this req? Marcos: we wouldn't do anything Arve: agree ... leave this to HTML5 for example AB: Mike, Nick, any comments? Mike: I agree with Arve and Marcos; this should be left to HTML5 ... IF it needs to be addressed at all Nick: agree with Mike AB: propose we not add the Accept header as an explicit requirement ... Any objections? [None] RESOLUTION: we will not add the Accept header as an explicit requirement New Requirement: Default Use of Runtime Environemnet Configured Proxy MC: we already have a proxy support requirement ... Bryan read an older version that was updated based on feedback from Josh Arve: what is the impact on our specs? Marcos: I think it could be related to our security model but I'm not sure ... I did add the rationale Arve: not sure where we actually address this requirement AB: which requirement is related? MC: #39 [27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r39.- [27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r39.- AB: Arve, do you have problems with #39 as currently specified in the LC doc? <marcos> [28]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r41.- [28] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r41.- <marcos> sorry Arve: in practice all implementations must support this req ... Proxy support will be required ... But it's not going to affect interop ... It doesn't affect how the widget will be written Marcos: I agree; this is an implemenation detail ... would like to hear about the security aspects Nick: I agree need to separate security concerns Mike: I agree with Marcos re this is an implemenation detail that we don't need to specifiy AB: propse we not add this requirement ... Any objections? [None] RESOLUTION: the new requirement for proxies will not be added AB: Meeting Ended Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: Barstow make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses [recorded in [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-minutes.html#action01] [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 13:22:41 UTC