- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:25:59 -0500
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the January 22 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 29 January 2009 (the next
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered
Approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conference
22 Jan 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0150.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Mark, Marcos, Jere, David, Bryan, Claudio, Arve, Josh,
Andy, Benoit
Regrets
Frederick, Thomas
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Annoucements
3. [7]P&C LCWD comments from Boris
4. [8]P&C LCWD Comments from Benoit
5. [9]P&C LCWD Comments from Mark
6. [10]API and Events spec: getting to FPWD:
7. [11]Add tag: scheme to our list of schemes that do not meet
our requirements.
8. [12]AOB
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Date: 22 January 2009
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Review and tweak agenda
AB: want to add Boris' comments on P&C LC
... Any objections to that addition?
[None]
AB: I gave Frederick and Thomas a headsup that we are not likely to
get to DigSig to focus on P&C LC
... any other change requests?
[None]
Annoucements
AB: Jan 31 is the deadline for P&C LC comments
MC: I will change affiliations on Feb 15, working for Opera
AB: good luck in your PhD defense next week, Marcos
... any other annoucements?
[None]
P&C LCWD comments from Boris
AB: MC's reply to Boris is
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/01
61.html
... do we have any major issues or show stoppers, Marcos?
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0161.html
MC: not really
... but one reoccuring theme re file to mime type mapping
... I added a new rule for whitespace handling
... I wrote a whitespace normalization
<marcos> ...and remove whitespace removal rules
AB: is that it for Boris' comments on this VC?
MC: yes; I will do some more followup
P&C LCWD Comments from Benoit
AB: Benoit's comments
<[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0
145.html>
... Mostly non-contentious; comment about window mode we will
discuss later when we cover Mark's comments
... Marcos' proposes we drop plugin attribute (of <access> element);
any comments on that proposal?
... see:
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/01
63.html
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0145.html%3E
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0163.html
MC: I think it is to ambigous re what the plugin is
... for example there could be natively installed plugins
... I think it should be left as an impl detail
Arve: I'm not so sure
... the problem isn't really with plugins themselves
... the problem is 3rd party code running within the widget and
security implications thereof
... But given we don't have a well-defined security model, this
could be considered a moot point
... I do agree that plugin attribute may not be the appropriate word
MC: in a web browser, a plugin will run if it is installed;
otherwise it won't
JS: just because Flahs is installed, doesn't mean it will run
because it could be dis-abled
... So the simple solution given no sec model, is indeed that we
don't specify plugin
BS: want to know if an additional player is needed
... e.g. audio player
Arve: one thing to consider is the API e.g. a feature requirement
AB: I propose we stop discussion now and follow-up on the mail list
... any objections?
<timeless> no
Arve: no, seems reasonable
AB: are there other parts of Benoit's comments we want to discuss
now?
BS: most of my comments were Editorial except for the modes stuff
... Default size is another issue we need to discuss
MC: we need to think in terms of CSS pixels i.e. they scale
BS: I will submit a proposal to the list
... I still need to check a few of Marcos' followups
P&C LCWD Comments from Mark
AB: some of Mark's comments apply to API & Events spec:
...
<[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0
144.html>
... There has already been some follow-up discussions on
public-webapps by Arve
... propose we start with Window Modes
... LC identifies 4 window modes: application, floating, fullscreen,
docked
... But clearly states this feature is at risk
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0144.html%3E
BS: I proposed some wording changes i.e. their meaning
... in some case size is relevant
Arve: there are other facets to consider e.g. can the widget be
dragged
... others are can it occupy full screen
MP: there is a diff between floating and big/small
BS: Dashboard default is floating
... but Vista default is different
... want the developer to decide
<arve> Opera's internal definition of 'floating' (Named widget:
widget: The widget is typically rendered without user chrome, and
the widget is assumed to have control over its own window size.)
MP: we need to define behavior too
<arve> And 'application': application: The widget is assumed to be
rendered in a viewport size determined by the widget engine,
optionally using the initial rendering dimensions specified in
config.xml as a suggestion. Further, where applicable, the widget
engine should also render application chrome. A widget
implementation may render several widgets onscreen in this mode.
AB: Marcos, what are the relevant requirements here?
MC: I don't think we have any
AB: perhaps that's why we keep talking past each other
... I think we need clear reqs before we try to specify something
... is anyone willing to take an Action to create requirements?
MP: I'm willing to do that
<scribe> ACTION: Mark create an input regarding Window Mode
requirements [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-291 - Create an input regarding Window
Mode requirements [on Mark Priestley - due 2009-01-29].
MP: this is real important and I'd like to get it resolved ASAP
AB: any volunteers to help?
BS: me
MC: me too
Arve: l would like these req discussions to take place on the mail
list
... we have some impl experience that are relevant so I want to
contribute
MP: we will base the reqs on our work
... we will be happy to take suggestions for improvements
AB: I second Arve's proposal to do these discussions on
public-webapps
... Mark, any other comments besides window modes?
MP: most of our comments were about window mode including related
APIs
Arve: the CSS extensions are a different topic
... I think CSS WG may have some issues with the proposal
AB: what are the specific concerns?
Arve: a concern is that we will specify CSS behavior
... docking mode in particular
AB: if we need to directly engage with CSS WG, Mike or I can make
that happen
... it may be a bit premature given we need to think about this from
the reqs level first
CV: we don't want to overlap CSS work
Arve: I meant we don't want to specify something around Media
Queries
... It's more like a philosophical concern re us being consistent
with CSS' specs
AB: if we indeed specify any CSS related stuff, we indeed must work
with the CSS WG
Arve: after we agree on reqs, and then do the spec work, we'll know
if we need to work with CSS WG
AB: agree
MP: we will submit other comments
API and Events spec: getting to FPWD:
AB: ED is <[19]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/>
[19] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/%3E
<arve> [20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
[20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
AB: Arve, what is the status of your January 15 action "it appears I
have not checked in agreed changes from Mandelieu. I will check in
all changes before our next Voice Conf".
Arve: that should be done now
... we still need a definition for Widget Context
... still have some Red Blocks
AB: I think we need some text in Section 1.
... is 1.1 boilerplate?
MC: yes
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos write an introduction for section 1. of the
API and Events spec [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-292 - Write an introduction for section 1.
of the API and Events spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-01-29].
AB: what do we need to do to publish FPWD?
... after Marcos supplies text for 1.0, are you ready to publish it?
Arve: yes
MC: I will try to complete that by early next week
AB: any other comments on FPWD?
JK: comment on section 4; needs some formatting work
Arve: oh, you're right; I'll fix that
<arve> "When the view state of the widget changes, the
widgetmodechange event is dispatched on the Widget object. It must
not bubble, must not be cancelable and must implement the Event
interface [DOM3Events]. The event has no namespace
(Event.namespaceURI is null"
AB: we could start a 1-week CfC
JS: I will submit comments
AB: a FPWD can be pretty raw i.e. published knowing there are lots
of open issues
... please review the latest ED and be ready on Jan 29 to vote Yes
or No for a FPWD
Add tag: scheme to our list of schemes that do not meet our
requirements.
AB: scheme document is
<[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/a
tt-0299/TPAC_URISchemes.pdf>
... I propose we add tag: scheme to the document Marcos created last
October
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008OctDec/att-0299/TPAC_URISchemes.pdf%3E
MC: I can do that but the interesting discussions will occur on the
ML
AB: I think consolidating the rationale will be useful
MC: agree, assign me a action
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos add the tag: scheme to the scheme pros and
cons document [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-293 - Add the tag: scheme to the scheme
pros and cons document [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-01-29].
MC: I can create a PDF is that's what people want
Arve: yes, please do
<arve> (Or even an HTML presentation, using media="projection" ....
)
AB: any other comments about tag:
<arve> :)
JS: it seems like it may actually work
AB: please take a look at it Josh and submit comments
MC: one potential issue is I18N related issues but they may be
resolvable
JK: like what Marcos?
MC: IRI support may be problematic
... Tim from HP raised a related issue
JK: I'll read up on it
AB: everyone, please do followup on the mail list
AOB
AB: any other business to discuss?
BS: I wasn't able to upload the f2f data file
MC: a hotel recommenation file would be helpful
BS: that's what I've done but dont' have the right perms to upload
it to the wiki
AB: I'll resolve this issue
... Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos add the tag: scheme to the scheme pros and cons
document [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos write an introduction for section 1. of the API
and Events spec [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Mark create an input regarding Window Mode
requirements [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
[32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 17:27:40 UTC