- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:17:51 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the August 28 Widgets f2f meeting are available at
the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before September 11 (next Widets
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets F2F Meeting
28 Aug 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/TurinF2F
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Marcos_Caceres, Nick_Allot, David_Rogers,
Mark_Priestly, Benoit_Suzzane, Claudio_Venezia, Dino_Gallo,
Diego_Gibellino, Luca_Bruera, Maruo_Sacco, Mike_Smith
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda Review for Today
2. [6]Issue #18 - Need to define a mechanism to check for the
availability of an API
3. [7]Issue #35 - SVG as an icon format
4. [8]Issue #36 - Is the file API going to be part of Widgets
1.0?
5. [9]Issue #45 - Do we need an extensible metadata hook?
6. [10]Issue #46 - Need to define a <span> for i18n purposes
in configuration document
7. [11]OMTP Security
8. [12]WAF Action #182 - Contact the CAs regarding the reuse
of TLS certs for Widgets
9. [13]Landscape doc
10. [14]Requirements Doc
11. [15]Auto Updates
12. [16]Packaging and Configuration spec
13. [17]API and Event spec
14. [18]Digital Signature spec
15. [19]Mandelieu F2F Meeting
16. [20]Implementations
17. [21]Any Other Business
18. [22]Thanks Claudio and Telecom Italia
* [23]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
RRSAgenet, make log member
<Benoit> morning
Date: 28 August 2008
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
RRSAgent make minutes
Agenda Review for Today
AB: agenda is: [24]http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/TurinF2F
... we continue discussions on the P&C spec in particular open
Issues for that spec
... we can then continue any security or sig related discussions we
want to have
... Nick has agreed to make a presentation about OMTP's relevant
security work
... Lastly, we will talk about schedule and plans between now and
Mandelieu
[24] http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/TurinF2F
Issue #18 - Need to define a mechanism to check for the availability of
an API
AB: the issue is: [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/18
[25] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/18
MC: I submitted a proposal to address this issue
... we discussed it yesterday
... I propose to close this issue since it is captured in the latest
ED for the API and Events spec
AB: any objections to close this?
MP: VF is ok with the proposal we discussed yesterday
... We do need to feed in a new use case or two
BS: I'm OK with the proposal we discussed yesterday
<MikeSmith> to ArtB: a request: If you could get the phone bridge on
for Nick's presentation at least, and get a mic close to him while
he's speaking, that would be great
RESOLUTION: we will close Issue #18 and related discussions about
the model will continue on the public mail list
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close Issue #18 with the resolution and
rationale in the 28 Aug 2008 minutes [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Close Issue #18 with the resolution
and rationale in the 28 Aug 2008 minutes [on Arthur Barstow - due
2008-09-04].
<Benoit> big table and a router's fan near the phone area... sorry
<scribe> ACTION: David work with OMTP members to provide input on
the enabling access to proprietary APIs model [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - David
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or
username (eg. dorchard, drogers)
<scribe> ACTION: Rogers work with OMTP members to provide input on
the enabling access to proprietary APIs model [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-235 - Work with OMTP members to provide
input on the enabling access to proprietary APIs model [on David
Rogers - due 2008-09-04].
Issue #35 - SVG as an icon format
AB: the issue is: [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/35
[29] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/35
MC: if a SVG image can take live events, how do we deal with it?
... Do we want to deal with it at all?
... What is the current state of support in the mobile world?
BS: what is the status of SVG impl in the mobile space?
Dino: there are some impls of SVG1.2 Tiny
... At least two of the impls are in mobiles
... The SVG spec includes the micro-DOM support and an event model
... I understand the issue but it could be a lot of work for a
mobile impl
... There could be some room to create a profile.
MC: my gut feel is not to create a profile
... May need to say something like "if you want to use an SVG icon,
use SVG 1.2 Tiny"
Dino: but may want to include some restrictions
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos add SVG 1.2 Tiny as an icon format (to the
P&C) spec and then ask the SVG WG for comments [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-236 - Add SVG 1.2 Tiny as an icon format
(to the P&C) spec and then ask the SVG WG for comments [on Marcos
Caceres - due 2008-09-04].
AB: do we close this issue then?
MC: yes
AB: any objections to closing this issue?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: Issue #35 is closed; SVG1.2 Tiny will be added to list
of supported formats in the P&C spec
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close Issue #35 with the rationale above
[recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Close Issue #35 with the rationale
above [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
Issue #36 - Is the file API going to be part of Widgets 1.0?
AB: issue #36 is: [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/36
[32] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/36
<MikeSmith> ArtB: conference Team_(MikeSmith)08:53Z scheduled with
code 26633 (CONF3) for 60 minutes until 0953Z
MC: Opera proposed a new file access API for Widgets last Spring
... Arve doesn't think it should be part of the "core" Widget API
... does OMTP have a need for this?
NA: yes, something like that is in scope for us
<claudio> TI's SVG guy is Diego not Dino
NA: If it isn't part of the Core, where would it be defined?
<MikeSmith> ArtB: OK, you can dial into Zakim at any time
MC: it would be a separate spec created by WebApps WG
<MikeSmith> tlr: I think David Rogers will be doing a presentation
about OMTP security shortly
AB: I prefer a smallish core and then some extensions
NA: is the extensibility mechanism explicit?
MC: yes, the extensibility model will be part of the core
... Timing wise, the core and other APIs can proceed separately but
they could also be synch'ed up provided an appropriate level of
staffing
... we need an Editor for the File API
<tlr> mike, thanks for the ping; on a call now
NA: I can't make any commitments but I can look into it
MC: we need competent Editors that understand the relative urgency
to complete our specs
... what is the process for WebApps starting new APIs?
AB: the Charter addresses this issue
... In general, if there is a new API, we need to get AC approval
before we start
... so where are we on this issue?
MC: I don't think File should be a core API
AB: propose that File API not be considered part of the Widgets API
Core
... any objections?
BS: does this mean a new doc will be created?
MC: yes that is the expectation
AB: we need someone to take ownership
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow work with Nick and Charles to find an
Editor for the File API spec [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Work with Nick and Charles to find
an Editor for the File API spec [on Arthur Barstow - due
2008-09-04].
[ No objections to the proposal above re #36 ]
RESOLUTION: Issue #36 is Closed via the rationale above
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close Issue #36 with the rational above
[recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Close Issue #36 with the rational
above [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
Issue #45 - Do we need an extensible metadata hook?
AB: the issue is: [35]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/45
... what does this "metadata extension" mechanism really mean?
[35] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/45
MC: he basically wants an RDF model
BS: or is he saying the packaging format should not break if it
contains unknown elements
MC: I think we need to wait for the market to demand the need for
additional metadata
CV: could look at semantic annotation for XML Schema
MC: I don't want to add such a dependency
... we already have an extension mechanism -> XML Namespaces
... and then the Author can add anything they want
... Our processing model explicitly says to ignore unknown elements
and attributes
CV: what about use cases for discovery?
... adding some additional semantics would be good
AB: I agree adding more semantics would be good but I think our
current model supports that
BS: so we can close this issue right?
MC: yes.
... Propose to close #45 because we already provide an extension
mechanism to add additional metadata to a manifest.
AB: any objections to that proposal?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: Issue #45 will be closed - we already provide an
extension mechanism to add additional metadata to a manifest
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close Issue #45 with the rationale above
[recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Close Issue #45 with the rationale
above [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
<scribe> ACTION: Claudio add extensible metadata model for the
manifest to the v2 feature list [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-241 - Add extensible metadata model for
the manifest to the v2 feature list [on Claudio Venezia - due
2008-09-04].
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow send an e-mail to public-appformats that
enumerates the Issues we closed this week and includes the rationale
[recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-242 - Send an e-mail to public-appformats
that enumerates the Issues we closed this week and includes the
rationale [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
Issue #46 - Need to define a <span> for i18n purposes in configuration
document
AB: we discussed this on Aug 26 but we didn't assign any actions
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos ask I18N WG if Unicode RTL is sufficiently
supported in UAs; if not we will include the <span> element in the
Widgets spec [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-243 - Ask I18N WG if Unicode RTL is
sufficiently supported in UAs; if not we will include the <span>
element in the Widgets spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2008-09-04].
OMTP Security
<MikeSmith> tlr: Nick getting started now
NA: after I cleanup the slide I am presenting, I will send a copy to
public-webapps
... OMTP is mainly a requirement group
... We have done a lot of reqs related to security fwks
... Some of our work is relevant to Widget UAs
... A lot of work is on the security policy framework
... BONDI is a "different" project for OMTP because
... instead of just reqs, we expect to create a Reference
Implementation (RI)
... The area of "enhanced web runtimes" is of wide interest in the
industry
... We see concerns about fragmentation in this space, especially
regarding API fragmenation
[ Nick show block diagram of the Architecture ]
NA: a key part of the sec fwk is identity and we have some different
models re identify e.g. certs
... all of these identity models are in scope
... we expect the policy fwk to cover these various models
... regarding our APIs of interest, we have to deal with a) Generic
Event Mechanism
... b) JavaScript Errors
MC: are the Web Package and Widget Package blocks different?
NA: yes, they could be e.g. they could have different identity
associated with them
... Some could have signatures; some not ...
... Want a clear seperation of the application identity and
application authorization
... This model will be declarative in a policy file
... We think our model will be much more flexible
... One underlying assumption is to minimize user interaction re
security considerations, policies, etc.
... Our fwk is agnostic as to business models
... There can be a policy that separates Widgets into two groups:
ones that have no privs; ones that have lots of privs
CV: is this similar to a black/white list model, Marcos?
MC: it's similar but more complicated
MP: there can be diffs between policies and white/black lists
CV: what will the policy language include?
NA: we want a language that will support a wide range of policies
AB: will you create your own policy language?
NA: we will use OASIS' XACML
... Fabio is defining a dictionary mapping for us
... It could be XACML is too heavy-weight for some devices in scope
for us
AB: has OASIS done some profileing of XACML?
Fabio: we need to identify a subset; we are discussing a general fwk
... we may identify some profiles
... we are still working through some scenarios
NA: security policies can be very complicated
... and they can affect the user experience
... must also reflect user's specific preferences
... must also respect user's privacy requirements and some
jurisdictions have legal frameworks that must be adhered to
... As to the APIs, we have about 10 that are of interest to us
... Like WebApps' Widgets work, we recognize a need for an
extensible API model
... But this model must not break the security model
... The APIs are:
... Application Settings - can be app-specific or shared settings
... User Interaction, Location, PIM, Phone Status, Persistence,
Gallery, Messaging, Application Invoke, Telephony, Camera
s/Applicatin, Invoke,/Application Invoke,/
NA: Gallery API is for an app to access all multi-media on a device
... re Persistence, we could just re-use the Opera proposal
... re Location API, we'll probably use or re-use the GeoLoca work
being done at the W3C
MC: are you talking to the GeoLoc WG?
AB: I don't think that WG has been Chartered yet
MS: I expect an annoucement soon-ish re the GeoLoc WG
... Matt will be the Team Contact
NA: we may be able to use the DCCI fwk
... but no hard decision has been made yet regarding DCCI
AB: it is my understanding the OpenAjax Alliance has these APIs in
scope too
NA: conceptually, these APIs are in scope for them but I don't think
they've done much
MP: OAA has a security group and they passed that work to OMTP
... Regarding APIs, OAA is interested in just a shim layer on top of
"real" APIs
NA: we have a comm channel with OAA and will keep it going
AB: I would to understand more about the expectations for the RIs
NA: we expect contributions from OMTP members
... the RIs may not result in re-usable code
... We are keeping the licensing terms as flexible as possible
... Expect some to be GPL or GPL-like; we also expect some binary
components
AB: are you working at all with the UWA WG?
NA: I've talked with the Chair and Team Contacts
... No formal agreements as of now regarding how to cooperate
... of the ten APIs we've identified, what are the mappings to W3C
and other Standard Orgs
CV: does OMTP have a relationship with the MWI?
DR: we are investigating it; no firm decisions yet
... we (OMTP) are resource-constrained
WAF Action #182 - Contact the CAs regarding the reuse of TLS certs for
Widgets
MP: what is the issue here?
AB: I'm not exactly sure
... I'll need to talk to Thomas
MP: my question is: is the desire to use TLS certs to sign a Widget
package?
<mpriestl> Concern is that TLS certs are not used to sign widget
packages. Certificates are issued based on the presumption that they
will be used for a specific purpose. We would object to bending
these rules for widgets. If the desire is to use TLS certs for TLS
then this would obviously be fine! Request that reason for question
is clarified.
AB: OK then, I propose we close this Action
MC: I agree
AB: any objections to closing Action 182?
[ None ]
AB: Note WAF Action #182 is the same as WebApps Action #206
([40]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/206)
[40] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/206)
Landscape doc
AB: what's the plan, Marcos?
MC: I only plan to make minor edits
AB: any issues or concerns?
BS: is Webwag a candidate?
MC: it's a closed system
AB: without any commitments for contribution, I would not worry
about
MC: I will complete it some day because it is part of my PhD and
that means I will be done by the end of December.
... I want to finish it as a WG Note
AB: excellent; it's been a very valuable resource!
MC: I would also like to be official "Author" of that doc
AB: I support that
BS: me too
Requirements Doc
MC: next is to process the OMTP input
... I think we will need to go back to Working Draft
... And then do a minimal-length LC
... I want that comment period to end before October 20
AB: do we need to publish a new WD before we publish a new LC WD
... can our next pub be another LC?
MS: yes, we can do that
... any number of LCs is possible and any number in a row is
possible, I think
AB: so the plan is to complete the OMTP review within the next 2-3
weeks and to be ready to submit for publication by roughly Sept 20
BS: but we want the comment period to end one week before we meet in
Mandelieu
MC: I will try to have it ready to publish by Sep 12th
AB: excellent, Marcos!
Auto Updates
MC: I want a FPWD on September 19
DR: we have a problem with the Reqs proposal
MC: I will publish the Reqs doc on September 19 and we will ask for
a 3-week review period
... that will give us one week to review the comments before our
Mandelieu meeting
AB: is that OK with you David?
DR: yes
NA: yes
AB: back to Auto Updates ...
MC: I will shoot for a September 12 FPWD
... can OMTP guys live with that date
AB: this would mean that during our Sep 11 Voice Conf we should
record a "consensus" decision to publish this FPWD
MC: people can start looking at the latest ED now; I don't expect a
lot of changes
Packaging and Configuration spec
MC: I propose the next pub on October 3
... it will be another WD
... Wait, Wait, it will be ready for member review on Oct 3
... My expectation for Mandelieu is: after a short (1-2 weeks)
period after the meeting, we should be ready to publish a LC WD
AB: sounds like a good plan
MC: On October 31, I plan to submit it the webreq team for
publication as a LC WD.
<scribe> ACTION: try to schedule some f2f time with the TAG during
Mandelieu re the widget: scheme issue [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action12]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - try
<MikeSmith> trackbot, status
<trackbot> This channel is not configured
<MikeSmith> trackbot, status?
<trackbot> This channel is not configured
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow try to schedule some f2f time with the TAG
during Mandelieu re the widget: scheme issue [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action13]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-244 - try to schedule some f2f time with
the TAG during Mandelieu re the widget: scheme issue [on Arthur
Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
BS: because of the TP blackout, may not be able to publish on Oct 31
but a week later at least
... this would mean the earliest we would exit LC is approx December
1
<MikeSmith> [[
<MikeSmith> 13 October, 12pm ET: Deadline for publication requests
<MikeSmith> before moratorium
<MikeSmith> 16 October: Last publications before moratorium
<MikeSmith> 17 - 26 October: No publications
<MikeSmith> 27 October: Publications resume
<MikeSmith> ]]
API and Event spec
MC: Arve said his target for FPWD is mid-September
AB: do you have any concerns about that Marcos?
MC: no
AB: so tentatively, we would be ready to make a formal decision re
the FPWD during our September 18 Voice Conf
CV: did we get consensus on the title of the spec
MC: I want to talk to Arve about that
Digital Signature spec
AB: what are our plans for the DigSig spec?
MC: hope to have something ready for the TP
... Plan a new ED to discuss by October 17
... I'll try earlier but I can't guarantee anything
AB: can Marcos get some help on that spec?
MC: I'm planning to work with Mark and David
... From October 6-15 I will focus on that spec
AB: I will start dialog with XML Sec WG to see if they can provide
some input (and not just review)
Mandelieu F2F Meeting
CV: are the dates confirmed?
AB: yes, Oct 20 and 21
... I will submit a detailed agenda at least two weeks before the
meeting
Implementations
CV: does anyone have any plans they can disclose?
MC: I started a RI but I had to stop it because of all of the
editing work I'm doing
Fabio: what is you RI?
MC: it's a JS impl that codifies every assertion in the spec
Fabio: perhaps there could be some cooperation with OMTP on the RI
Any Other Business
MC: David, when is OMTP going to bring over the API specs?
NA: regarding reqs, that stuff is available now on our Web site
... We cannot submit it to the W3C until the IPR issues are resolved
... The details of our specs are tied to our RIs
<drogersuk> We will discuss further in Austin
Thanks Claudio and Telecom Italia
AB: thanks very much for hosting us Claudio!
... The food, drink and everything!
... Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow try to schedule some f2f time with the TAG
during Mandelieu re the widget: scheme issue [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action13]
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow close Issue #18 with the resolution and
rationale in the 28 Aug 2008 minutes [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow close Issue #35 with the rationale above
[recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow close Issue #36 with the rational above
[recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow close Issue #45 with the rationale above
[recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow send an e-mail to public-appformats that
enumerates the Issues we closed this week and includes the rationale
[recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow work with Nick and Charles to find an Editor
for the File API spec [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Claudio add extensible metadata model for the manifest
to the v2 feature list [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: David work with OMTP members to provide input on the
enabling access to proprietary APIs model [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos add SVG 1.2 Tiny as an icon format (to the P&C)
spec and then ask the SVG WG for comments [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos ask I18N WG if Unicode RTL is sufficiently
supported in UAs; if not we will include the <span> element in the
Widgets spec [recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Rogers work with OMTP members to provide input on the
enabling access to proprietary APIs model [recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: try to schedule some f2f time with the TAG during
Mandelieu re the widget: scheme issue [recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action12]
[End of minutes]
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2008 13:18:39 UTC