- 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