W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

[widgets] Draft Minutes from 23 April 2003 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:57:06 -0400
Message-Id: <3CBDA606-8923-4232-9CB7-973510FF3C20@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the April 23 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please  
sendthem to the public-webapps mail list before 30 April 2009 (the  
next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be  
considered Approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

23 Apr 2009


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-irc


           Art, Frederick, David, Robin, Marcos, Mark, Arve, Andy,
           Marcin, Andrew, Mike




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]DigSig: comments by Mark
          4. [8]DigSig: ECDSA and v1
          5. [9]DigSig: getting ready for Last Call
          6. [10]P&C: Dropping screenshot
          7. [11]P&C: <access> element
          8. [12]P&C: Localization proposal from Marcos
          9. [13]Window Modes spec: status and plans
      * [14]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 23 April 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: we will drop 3a. and 3c. since consensus for both of these was
    achieved via email after I posted the agenda. Will add a new agenda
    item about ECDSA. Are there any other change requests?

    [ None ]


    AB: Please remember to register for the London F2F meeting June 9-11
    ... the first voice conference of the Widgets Updates PAG is
    tentative scheduled for 13:00 Boston time on April 28
    0002.html) but Rigo Wenning hasn't yet confirmed that call.
    ... any other annoucements?

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42538/WidgetsLondonJune2009/).
      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-widgets-pag/ 

    [ None ]

DigSig: comments by Mark

    AB: on April 7 Mark submitted a relatively long list of comments
    070.html). Frederick and Marcos responded. If addressing any of
    these comments could benefit from some discussion today, we can
    allocate some time. Frederick, what's the status?

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    FH: I think we've reached consensus on most comments
    ... one issue is sig file
    ... I use "widget sig" rather than file
    ... I think both usages makes the most sense depending on context

    MP: I agree most comments have been addressed
    ... but I still need to do some review

    AB: let's drop this topic for today and take any followups on the
    mail list

DigSig: ECDSA and v1

    AB: the ECDSA issue (captured reasonably well as Issue #81
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/81) is still open.
    The latest ED does two related things: 1) it includes a note that
    requests feedback on ECDSA; 2) it also does NOT mandate ECDSA as one
    of the Signature Algorithms (and thus is a departure from latest WD
    of XML Signature 1.1). Today there was more discussion on this
    279.html). One q

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/81)
      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    FH: I think we need some text about it
    ... we cannot ignore it
    ... but we don't know what XML Sig 1.1 will decide
    ... using SHOULD may be a good way forward
    ... their risks with other algorightms so having an alternative to

    <drogersuk> I agree with FJH

    FH: I do agree MUST is too strong

    DR: I agree with FH

    <Marcos> +q

    DR: failure to indicate a roadmap is not a good path to take

    MC: I understand the concerns here
    ... if company X implements all of the algs except ECDSA and then
    they get a widget with ECDSA, there is a prob
    ... if SHOULD is used it will effectively make it required for the
    ... it is expensive to implement to implement all of these algs
    ... perhaps for v1.1. we could add support for new algs
    ... would like some real proof there is real market demand for EC
    ... but without that evidence I don't support including it
    ... think it should either be MUST or not in the spec at all

    DR: I understand your concerns Marcos
    ... need to try to forsee future issues with a limited set
    ... VF have made it clear they see it on their roadmap

    FH: I understand the issues with switching suites
    ... we are following this in XML Sec WG
    ... we see a demand from US gov't at least

    MC: OK, that's good information
    ... and in that case, perhaps it should be a MUST

    FH: in XML Sec WG we are leaning toward a MUST but are considering
    various concerns
    ... think SHOULD would be a good indicator

    AB: agree SHOULD would be a reasonable compromise
    ... we need to make it clear we want feedback from Implementors as
    well as Developers

    MP: as I said on the list list, we think SHOULD is the best thing
    for now
    ... we can't use MUST at this point in time

    MC: so let's go with SHOULD

    AB: any additional comments?

    [ None ]

    <fjh> ECDSAwithSHA256

    AB: propose a resolution: we will add ECDSA support as a SHOULD in
    the Widgets DigSig spec

    <fjh> proposed resolution - add ECDSAwithSHA256 as should in widgets

    AB: any objections to my proposal?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: we will add ECDSAwithSHA256 as a SHOULD in the Widgets
    DigSig spec

DigSig: getting ready for Last Call

    AB: the basic question is what, specifically, needs to be done
    before this spec is "feature-complete" and hence for Last Call WD
    publication? Frederick responded to this yesterday

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    FH: one question is how to work this with Sig Properties spec
    ... not sure how to work this out as a Chair
    ... maybe we take this offline

    AB: my gut feel is your WG should publish Sig Properties

    FH: we probably want a single annoucement

    <scribe> ACTION: Barstow work with Frederick re synching Signature
    Properties spec with Widgets DigSig spec [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-335 - Work with Frederick re synching
    Signature Properties spec with Widgets DigSig spec [on Arthur
    Barstow - due 2009-04-30].

    <fjh> agree, xml security should publish signature properties. need
    to coordinate however.

    AB: are we Feature Complete?

    FH: I don't think the reqs are in synch with the Reqs doc

    MC: the problem is the links point to the ED rather then what is
    ... we fix this when we publish these two docs in /TR/

    AB: my recommendation is that when we publish the LCWD of DigSig we
    also at the same time publish a new Reqs doc
    ... are we done with functionality?

    FH: I think yes

    <mpriestl> +1

    MC: yes

    MP: yes

    <darobin> +1 on top of mpriestl

    RB: yes

    MP: yes, just need to update ECDSA

    <fjh> need to add ECDSA, possibly other minor editorial tweaks

    AB: propose Resolution: the Widgets Digital Signature spec is
    Feature Complete; we will not add any new functionality
    ... any comments on that proposal?
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    DR: how would this affect schedule?

    MC: I think this would put us ahead of scheudle

    <fjh> please indicate the dates so that I can work with XML Security
    WG to publish Signature Properties

    AB: we never agreed on specific dates but talked about LCWD in April
    and CR in June

    RESOLUTION: the Widgets Digital Signature spec is Feature Complete;
    we will not add any new functionality

    <fjh> so I will ask XML Security WG to agre to publish Signature
    Properties next week in XML Security WG call

    <arve> we'll dial in anew

    AB: I will start a new discussion on when to publish the LC of

    <arve> we can't seem to dial in again

    AB: that's it for DigSig for today. Thanks again FH for your great
    work here!

    <mpriestl> + 1 on the thanks to fjh

    <fjh> thanks, thanks Mark, Marcos

    <fjh> as well

P&C: Dropping screenshot

    AB: Marcos proposed
    197.html) dropping screenshot for v1 and has already added it to the
    V2 feature list
    ([23]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets2_UC%26R). My
    recollection is all comments on this proposal were positive. Does
    anyone object to this proposal?

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [23] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets2_UC%26R).

    <MikeSmith> ArtB: try again now

    AB: any objections to dropping screenshot?

    RB: no

    RESOLUTION: screenshot will not be in v1 (already added to the v2
    feature list)

    <MikeSmith> Marcos: is it a local phone problem? or a problem with

    <MikeSmith> arve: trying calling back in now, if you can

P&C: <access> element

    AB: Robin made a short proposal several weeks ago
    943.html). There has been a little follow-up on the mail list but
    certainly no consensus on a solution. This is one of the major open
    issues that is blocking the publication of a new LCWD.

      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    <MikeSmith> is P11 arve and Marcos ?

    AB: Robin, where are we on this?

    RB: I think we do have consensus, the issue is on the wording
    ... I will create some tighter wording
    ... but feature wise, the comments have been positive i.e. at the
    right level

    AB: has your proposal been added to the ED?

    RB: yes

    AB: what's the next step?

    RB: there really is no next step
    ... just need to fix the wording

    AB: any comments?

    MP: I support the current proposal
    ... there were some comments from BONDI

    <mpriestl> * The User Agent's security policy MAY prevent network
    access by the Widget to an IRI that does belong to the set of target

    MP: my understanding of the current proposal is the above should be
    a MUST
    ... rather than the MAY

    RB: I'm not sure I understand

    MP: I'll need to go back and re-read it

    AS: the sec policy may be more restrictive about IRI access then the
    P+C's access element

    MP: yes, I agree with that
    ... and hence the BONDI statement is correct

    AB: Arve, Marcos - do you have any comments about the access

    MC: no, we still need to review it
    ... it appears to be a bit thin; may not cover all of the UCs we
    have in mind

    AB: please, everyone, send all comments re <access> ASAP!
    ... anything else on this topic?
    ... what's the status of Thomas on this proposal?

    RB: he may have some issues; not clear yet

P&C: Localization proposal from Marcos

    AB: Marcos submitted a comprehensive localization proposal
    ([25]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets/i18n.html) several
    weeks ago. The amount of feedback has been very low yet this is a
    major open issue that is blocking the publication of a new LCWD.
    Currently, only me, Jere and Marcos have expressed their opinions on
    the various proposals thus I'd like to hear from other people.
    ... what do people think about this proposal from Marcos?

      [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets/i18n.html)

    [ Silence ]

    <mpriestl> (sorry I have to leave the call)

    AB: one interpretation of silence is agreement with Marcos

    AS: I haven't reviewed it yet

    AB: we need feedback ASAP

    AS: yes, I understand the priority

    AB: what's the next step?

    MC: I think we need more feedback

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow seek comments from WG members on Marcos'
    L10N proposal [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-336 - Seek comments from WG members on
    Marcos' L10N proposal [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-30].

    AB: we can spend a lot of time on this today

    MC: that would be good

    AB: Marcos, lead us thru A1 and A2

    MC: A1 has no support for sub-lang tags i.e. it does not support
    BCP47 and its lookup mechanism
    ... A2 supports BCP47 lookup
    ... A2 will reduce the amount of content that must be localized,
    particulary if there are multiple levels of sublangs

    AB: so there is an efficiency tradeoff here, right?

    MC: yes
    ... Jere and Josh both proposed A2 model
    ... note that A2 is already in the P+C spec

    AB: any comments on A1 versus A2?

    MC: I prefer A2

    AB: I think we should give people one more week i.e. until April 30
    to provide input
    ... During the Apr 30 call we will decide on each proposal

    MC: what if there is disagreement on the 30th

    AB: a decision will be made on all of these by the 30th, if not

    MC: David, can we get any feedback from BONDI on the L10N model?

    DR: there hasn't been any discussion to this yet
    ... when do you need feedback?

    AB: April 30 is the deadline
    ... Marcos, can you provide a short description of B1 and B2?

    MC: B1 proposes the UA's locale can be a list of locales
    ... B2 proposes the UA just have a single locale
    ... HTTP supports multiple languages
    ... The basic question is: does the UA support one lang or a list of

    AB: any comments on B1 vs B2?

    AS: so one use case is about knowing which langs a UA supports?

    MC: yes

    AS: I would expect the UA to have a single locale but a widget could
    be localized in many diff languages
    ... could then use prefs to manage this
    ... I can understand a UA support multiple locales but I'm not sure
    this is the best way to go about it

    AB: yesterday I suggested we need some more reqs work and some more
    UC's to understand why need this stuff
    ... will you reply to my comments?

      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: I think you have some good comments
    ... we need to get this done as soon as possible

    AB: yes, agree. But I also heard Andrew asking for some UCs too

    AS: yes; some UCs and Reqs would be helpful in understanding the
    problems we are trying to solve

    MC: some of the proposals do go beyond what current engines do today

    AB: I get concerned about the complexity here for v1
    ... we seem to be moving from codifying the existing cow paths to
    building a new super highway
    ... Marcos, would you please give us a summary of the C* proposals?

    MC: these about deriving te widget's locale
    ... diff between C1 and C2 is the order of searching for the
    widget's locale

    AB: I hope that is clear to everyone; any questions?
    ... what about the D* proposals?

    MC: these three proposals are about how to represent the widget's
    ... my preference is D2

    AB: any comments or questions on these 3 D proposals?

    [ Discussion between Andrew and Marcos about D2 and various
    scenarios ... ]

    AB: can we get a short intro to E, F and G proposals?

    MC: E proposals are about XML Base and whether we use XML Base
    itself or our own emulation of it

    AB: I agree E1 seems reasonable to me

    AS: does that apply to all URIs?

    MC: yes

    AS: OK; that's good

    MC: F proposal addresses the "missing content" problem
    ... F1 uses root directory in search; F2 does not use root
    ... My preference is F1

    AB: yes, F1 seems reasonable to me
    ... I think it works with the principle of least surprise
    ... please introduce G1 and G2 Marcos

    MC: this is similar to F proposals but if the lookup is using URIs

Window Modes spec: status and plans

    AB: Robin, what is your level of interest here?

    RB: unless someone wants to lead this, I will start working on it
    next week

    MC: we are interested and willing to collaborate on anyone that
    wants to lead it

    AB: I think the plan is for Robin to start working on this spec next
    week and for MC to help
    ... is that right?

    MC: yes

    RB: yes

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow seek comments from WG members on Marcos' L10N
    proposal [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Barstow work with Frederick re synching Signature
    Properties spec with Widgets DigSig spec [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 15:57:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC