- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 09:49:23 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the October 9 Widgets f2f meeting are available at
the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before October 16 (next Widgets
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
09 Oct 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008OctDec/0051.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Arve, Benoit, Mark, Marcos, Thomas, Claudio
Regrets
DavidR
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda Tweaking
2. [6]Annoucements
3. [7]API and Events spec
4. [8]DigSig spec
5. [9]I18N issue
6. [10]widget URI scheme aka Issue #16
7. [11]Widget Testing
8. [12]Requirement doc - Req #21 - New req "Feature Access
Declarations"
9. [13]Requirements LC #2
10. [14]AOB
* [15]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Agenda Tweaking
AB: any change requests for the agenda?
[None]
Annoucements
AB: any annoucements?
[None]
API and Events spec
AB: Arve, what's the status?
Arve: I think we are ready to publish
... I haven't done much since last week except to remove prefs API
... I need some help getting it "pub ready"
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow talk to Mike about helping Arve getting the
API and Events spec "pub ready" [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-254 - Talk to Mike about helping Arve
getting the API and Events spec \"pub ready\" [on Arthur Barstow -
due 2008-10-16].
<MikeSmith> hai
<MikeSmith> I can deal with that of course
Arve: HTML5 defines a similar API
... but the semantics and UCs are a bit diff
... e.g. showNotification
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow submit FPWD request for API and Events spec
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-255 - Submit FPWD request for API and
Events spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-16].
DigSig spec
AB: what's the status Mark and Marcos?
MC: we haven't done any work in the last week
AB: where is this in your priorities Mark and Marcos?
MC: my priority is the P&C spec
... but I can help Mark
MP: from the VF and BONDI point of view, we want to use the DigSig
spec
... it is important to progress it
... I hope to do some work on it next week
... it is a priority for us
MC: the P&C spec is being update to include multiple signatures
... If Mark could start a dialog with XMLSec WG that could help
AB: it would be good to get more specific on the agenda for our
joint meeting
MC: I have some questions for them re our model
<tlr> +1 to having specific issues. However, note that I won't have
much bandwidth available between now and TPAC.
AB: I would like MC and MP to be prepared to drive the discussion
with XML Sec WG
... we want specific questions, in advance if possible
... what is the status of the latest ED
[18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ - says May 27
... do you have a copy that reflects discussions in Turin
[18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
MC: we have done some brainstorming but haven't put those ideas into
CVS
AB: will there be an update before the f2f meeting?
MC: yes; at a min we will add some UC data
... I will need Mark's help
I18N issue
AB: have you Marcos and Felix converged on a solution?
MC: Felix provided some good feedback re ITS
... I added optional support for ITS to the ED
... Felix says my latest changes are OK
... he recommended some minor changes in the Relax NG schema and
I've added those
AB: can we now close this issue i.e. ISSUE #46?
... [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/46
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/46
MC: no I don't think we can close this yet
... want to make sure I18N WG is OK with our solution
widget URI scheme aka Issue #16
AB: we will meet with some TAG members on Monday Oct 20 14:00-15:00
to discuss this issue
MC: I have been responding to Mark Baker's comments
<marcos> widget-uri = "http://" widget-engine [":" instance-id]
"/"package-name path-absolute ["#" fragment]
Arve: this seems like a breakage with HTTP
... I think using this is a locator issue
... I think file: has lots of problems
... e.g. not interoperable in current browsers
... as well as no formal definition
... it is also overloaded in Windows (e.g. file share)
<marcos> MC: your arguments are reflected here
[20]http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hoffman-file-uri-03.txt
[20] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hoffman-file-uri-03.txt
TR: http URI as posted by Marcos is broken
... uses a domain-based authority
... but it isn't domain-based
<arve> marcos: yes
TR: if the HTTP URI scheme could be used would facilitate Widgets
and Gadgets
... think we need to consider this more
MC: want to know if my example is broken or not
Arve: there are lots of servers that respond to localhost
MC: the arch question - is what is the origin
TR: does a widget have a canonical location
... are the pieces addressable on the web
... Could be useful to compare the various design options
... is the widget addressable through http or not
Arve: some widgets may never be served over http
... e.g. are installed on a device
TR: but that wouldn't preclude use of http uri
... could still mint something
... the configuration file could address the issue
... It isn't so much about whether the widget is download-able from
the Web
... but more about identification via URIs
<tlr> I don't think I have an answer, and I suspect it will be
useful for Arve, MArcos and myself to sit down with a piece of paper
or a whiteboard
<tlr> +1 to Art
AB: want to get a plan for using the time with the TAG wisely
... seems like we need to start with a high level discussion of our
UC and our Reqs
... and then talk about different ways to address those reqs
... do we have a clear UC and Reqs?
MC: I think the reqs doc provides sufficient information
<marcos> [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r6.-addressing
[21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r6.-addressing
<tlr> cid:
<tlr> http:
<tlr> file:
MC: I can present the various solutions
... and explain why they don't work for us
AB: OK, that's the plan then
Widget Testing
AB: we have at least Carmelo and others from MWTS WG to join us
MC: do we need to create some reqs?
AB: what do people think?
... I don't think that is a high priority
... but that may be one of Carmelo's first questions to us
MC: thinking about things like automated harness, etc.
... what methodology do we want to use?
... CSS has a model we could use
... Naming conventions, ...
... I think we need some guidance
<marcos> MC: will it be a web based thing? or just a bunch of files
that can be downloaded?
Requirement doc - Req #21 - New req "Feature Access Declarations"
AB: Marcos proposed this new req:
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/00
53.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008OctDec/0053.html
<marcos> [23]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r21.-
[23] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r21.-
MC: the basic idea is to rationalize the <feature> element we've
added to the P&C spec
TR: please present this in the December secuity WS
AB: are you planning a PP for that WS Marcos?
<tlr> marcos++
<tlr> marcos++
<tlr> ;-)
MC: yes
MP: last call there was discussion about access element and feature
element
... we have had discussion about that in BONDI and VF and can share
that during the upcoming f2f meeting
AB: send comments to the mail list; Marcos has already added this to
the ED
Requirements LC #2
AB: deadline for comments is October 13
... what is the rate of comments?
MC: only Krzy has responded
... we could ping David Orchard
... TR said it looks OK
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow ask David Orchard (again) to review
Requirement LC #2 [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-256 - Ask David Orchard (again) to review
Requirement LC #2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-16].
AB: what changes have you made?
MC: not too many
... the only new req is #21
AOB
<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to ask that Marcos present this at the
December workshop
AB: any : any topics?
TR: please drum up support from the WS
... not just from you and your company but otherss outside of W3C
are welcome
AB: what is the deadlien for PP?
TR: October 30
... the level of interest has been rising
... now have MS and Google on the Program Committee
AB: meeting adjourned
RRSAgent: make log public
rrsagent: make minutes
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow ask David Orchard (again) to review
Requirement LC #2 [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow submit FPWD request for API and Events spec
[recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow talk to Mike about helping Arve getting the
API and Events spec "pub ready" [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 13:51:10 UTC