- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:23:52 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the September 18 Widgets f2f meeting are available
at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before September 25 (next
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered
approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
18 September 2008
18 Sep 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008JulSep/0670.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Arve, Claudio, Richard_Tibbett(Orange), Josh,
David_Rogers, Benoit, Marcos, Mike
Regrets
Thomas
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda Review
2. [6]OMTP Dependency
3. [7]Annoucements
4. [8]Requirement #1 LC
5. [9]Core API & Events Status
6. [10]Status of Automatic Updates spec
7. [11]Proposal to Rename the Widget specs
8. [12]Widgets V2/NextGen Feature List
9. [13]etag attr
10. [14]AOB
* [15]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
Date: 18 September 2008
Agenda Review
AB: Agenda is:
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/06
70.html
... any changes?
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008JulSep/0670.html
[None]
OMTP Dependency
DR: how to we proceed with OMTP's Dependency input?
AB: we can discuss that on the mail list since it is directed to the
P&C spec
DR: I'm OK with using the mail list to discuss
RT: OK with me too
MC: do you think the reqs are OK in this regard?
DR: yes
RT: can I start a discussion about Dependencies now on the mail
list?
MC: yes; comments at any time on any spec are always welcome
Annoucements
RT: he was OMTP's author for the dependency input
... he works at Orange
AB: can we get a short update of the BONDI highlights from last
week's meeting?
DR: I can try to send something out by the end of the week
... We need to update the BONDI doc to reflect the latest Widgets
work that has been done
... We will continue to work on the DigSig spec; mostly via Mark
Priestly
... If Marcos needs some help, please ask us
Requirement #1 LC
<drogersuk> OMTP are happy to offer assistance to webapps during the
XML digital signature discussions
AB: what remains to be done to get the LC #1 DoC doc up-to-date
MC: I just need to align the document with the latest emails on the
list
... Still need to get some feedback from the MWBP
... They haven't replied to my deadline with any objections
... They can of course submit comments for LC #2
... The DoC doc is 90% complete.
AB: I want to complete the DoC #1 doc before we start the LC #2
review period
Core API & Events Status
AB: during Turin we agreed to publish this doc in September
... What's the status?
Arve: what remains to be done
... the update event
and one of the features
AB: the latest ED is [17]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
[17] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
MC: what do you need to define the states?
Arve: I'll need to check the P&C spec
... I think I have the info I need (from P&C)
AB: what about the Icons issue?
Arve: I'm not comfortable with our current level of support but we
can live with this as an open issue for FPWD
AB: what about the WindowWidget Interface issue?
Arve: I talked to Cameron about this
<timeless> zakim +??P14 is marcos
Arve: we may need to add some related text to the P&C spec
AB: do we need to make the link before FPWD?
MC: no, I don't think so
Arve: I agree with Marcos
AB: I think it would be good to provide a bit more detail about the
Issues identified in the spec
Arve: what is the process for agreeing on FPWD?
AB: we need to record an agreement to publish
... I propose we publish the API and Event Editor's Draft as a FPWD
... any objections?
[None]
CV: I'd like a clarification about message exchange between widgets
... Is this related to the widget context?
... Also is this related to HTML5 postMessage?
Arve: cross-widget communication is something that belongs in an
Extended API
... there are some security implications as well
... UA should have some configuration mechanism about its usage (or
not)
RESOLUTION: we will publish the API and Events Editor's Draft as a
FPWD
<scribe> ACTION: Arve notify Art when the API and Events API is
ready for Publication [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - Notify Art when the API and Events
API is ready for Publication [on Arve Bersvendsen - due 2008-09-25].
Status of Automatic Updates spec
AB: would like a brief status
MC: I've had some other higher priority stuff come up
... hope to have it ready by early next week
AB: are you blocked on anyone?
MC: no
... Mark Baker's etag concerns could affect it
Proposal to Rename the Widget specs
AB: what is the motivation and rationale for a change?
MC: there is confusion about WebApps' widgets and "web widgets"
... the new proposal will force the reader to seek clarity by
reading the Abstract and/or Intro
<marcos> Widget Packages and User Agents 1.0:
MC: it makes "Package" primary
AB: what do people think?
BS: some of the specs are not generic to the UA
CV: I share Benoit's concern
<Benoit> the user Agent defined elements are only related to the
packaging
Arve: I'm not too fond of either of these proposals
<claudio> "Widget Packages 1.0 and User Agents conformance criteria:
xxxx"
Arve: I'm afraid there could be confusion with those too
... how about dropping Widgets altogether
BS: we need to keep Widgts
Arve: use Web Apps rather than Widgets
... I understand the Marketing usefulness of Widgets
... We are specifiying stuff for Web Apps that we call "widgets"
<Benoit> proposition: "User Agent Widget Pakaging format"
AB: any other opinions?
<marcos> Packages for Client-side Web Applications and User Agent
Conforming Criteria
DR: we've had similar discussions in OMTP
<arve> (word bloat)
DR: the point of agreement is that we are talking about Web
Applications
<marcos> s/conforming/conformance
AB: without some compelling reasons I think we should stay with the
names we already use
... If we make a change, it would be the third name
... We already have at least one doc in LC and it seems too late to
make a change
Arve: I tend to agree with Art
... We need to make our definition the mainstream name that is used
MC: OK, let's keep it as is
... We need to keep educating people about our definition
... I agree we can have the most authoritative definition in the
industry
Arve: FWIW, Google already agrees with our definition
... take a look at wikipedia
AB: I propose we keep the names of our documents as is
... any objections?
[None]
RESOLUTION: we will not change the names of our Widgets specs
Widgets V2/NextGen Feature List
AB: want to get consensus on how we move forward
CV: there is some prelim work that needs to be done first
... for example, need to get some type of scope around V2
<timeless> the cell network here is giving me network busy and
kicking me off
CV: We may get lots of additional requirements
... Regarding a doc or wiki, I think we need to know what we plan to
add
... Regarding V1.0 reqs, we didn't do a lot of Use Case work
... We should probably do some UC work for v2.0
MC: I agree with Claudio re UCs for v2.0
AB: so you support doing some UC work for v2.0?
MC: yes
AB: any other comments?
... I support doing UC work for v2.0
... My only concern is that it not take away time/resources from our
1.0 work
MC: agree on the resource issue
AB: seems like we should document the general ideas we have now for
v2.0
... but not do any detailed work until next year
... Don't want to disrupt v1.0 spec work
... Claudio, Marcos - can we start using a wiki now?
... And defer the question about using a document for a few months?
CV: that's OK with me
MC: yes, that's OK
... and if Claudio wants to take the initial lead that's OK
MS: Claudio should be able to gain access without me getting
involved
etag attr
AB: we don't have time to discuss this today
... if you have any comments, send them to public-webapps
AOB
AB: any topics?
... regarding TAG joint meeting, Roy Fielding isn't a member of the
TAG any more; Stuart Williams will not be in Mandelieu
... that means it may be difficult to get some f2f time with at TAG
member but I will try
... anything else?
[No]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Arve notify Art when the API and Events API is ready
for Publication [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 12:25:06 UTC