- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:03:08 -0500
- To: "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
I updated the style for <code> items in the Digital Signature specification to brown. Does this work better? It does not conflict with other color uses as far as I can tell. Please look at http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ (refresh) regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: > The minutes from the March 5 Widgets voice conference are available > at the following and copied below: > > <http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html> > > WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send > them to the public-webapps mail list before 12 March 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 > > 05 Mar 2009 > > [2]Agenda > > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0622.html > > See also: [3]IRC log > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-irc > > Attendees > > Present > Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Marcos, Arve, David, Benoit > > Regrets > Claudio, Bryan > > Chair > Art > > Scribe > Art > > Contents > > * [4]Topics > 1. [5]Review and tweak agenda > 2. [6]Announcements > 3. [7]DigSig + P&C synchronization > 4. [8]Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not > meet > required use cases and requirements; > 5. [9]Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets > 6. [10]Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML > <access> and Widget <access> element. > 7. [11]Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to > read digital signature. > 8. [12]Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail > from Thomas: > 9. [13]Open Actions > 10. [14]June f2f meeting > 11. [15]TPAC meeting in November > 12. [16]Window Modes > 13. [17]Editorial Tasks > 14. [18]Anything Else > * [19]Summary of Action Items > _________________________________________________________ > > > > <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB > > <scribe> Scribe: Art > > Date: 5 March 2009 > > <fjh> widgets signature editors draft update > > <fjh> > [20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures > > [20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- > signatures > > <fjh> > [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures > > [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- > signatures > > Review and tweak agenda > > AB: agenda posted March 4 - is > [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/ > 06 > 22.html > ... the main agenda items are Open Issues. I only want to spend a > few minutes on each of them to get a sense of where we are e.g. > still Open, pending inputs, can be Closed. Any detailed technical > discussions should occur on public-webapps mail list. > ... Are there any change requests? > > [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0622.html > > [ None ] > > Announcements > > AB: I don't have any urgent announcements > ... what about others? > > FH: please submit comments on XML Sig 1.1 drafts > > DR: I will respond to Art's BONDI 1.0 email so please look at that > > <fjh> please review XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties > FPWD > > <fjh> [23]http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25 > > [23] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25 > > MC: I uploaded the Window Modes spec; would like to get that on the > agenda > > DigSig + P&C synchronization > > AB: earlier this week Frederick asked me if the DigSig + P&C specs > are now in synch, based on last week's discussions? > > <fjh> > [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures > > [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- > signatures > > AB: I believe the answer is yes. > ... where are we on this? > > MC: FH and I talked about this > ... I think this is mostly now addressed > ... P&C has no real depedency on DigSig > > <fjh> marcos notes merged steps 4 +5, moved locating to dig sig, > removed signature variable from p + c > > MC: I haven't completed the P&C changes yet > ... e.g. renumber some steps > > <fjh> fjh notes revised text on locating to fit it within digsig > but > essence is same > > FH: I had to revise the location text a bit but the logic is the > same > ... Josh asked about the sorting > ... I need to think about that a bit more > > JS: need to clarify diff between "9" and "009" > ... we can take this discussion to the list > > FH: I agree we need more rigor here > > MC: I agree too > ... need to address case sensitivity too > > AB: can we point to some existing work? > > FH: I don't think this is a big issue and agree we can discuss on > the list > > AB: what needs to be done then? > > FH: I need to make a few changes to DigSig and MC needs to do a bit > more on P&C > > JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding > readability > > MC: I can help with that > > FH: I'll take a pass at that > > DR: re the ell curve issue, I have asked OMTP to provide comments > by > March 9 so I should have data for the WG by Mar 12 > > Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use > cases and requirements; > > AB: do we now consider this issue adequately addressed to close it? > ... <[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19> > ... my gut feel here is this is now addressed and we can close it. > ... any comments? > > [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19%3E > > MC: the DigSig enumerates reqs it addresses > ... it's a bit out of sync > ... we need to sync the Reqs doc with the DigSig spec re the reqs > ... so I think we can close it > > AB: any other comments? > > FH: not sure how much synching we need to do on the reqs > ... I do think we can close this issue > > RESOLUTION: we close Issue #19 as the spec now adresses the > original > concerns > > Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets > > AB: are there still some pending actions and input needed? > ... <[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/80> > ... what is the plan for the next couple of weeks? > > [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/80%3E > > MC: I added a new example to the latest ED > ... I still have some additional work on the model > ... I talked with JS earlier today > ... I'm still uneasy re the fwd slash "/" > ... we must maintain the semantics of URI > ... Need to understand if we can do it without the leading / > ... and to still have the fallback model > > <Marcos> > [27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#fallback-behavior-example > > [27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#fallback-behavior- > example > > AB: note there are related actions 298 and 299 > ... are there other inputs you need? > > MC: by the end of the day I hope to have something to share with > Jere and Josh > > JK: I will review it later and send comments > > AB: we need not just Editors but technical contributors too > > DR: it would be helpful if MC could identify areas where Bryan can > help > > AB: any other comments on #80? > ... we will leave that open for now > > Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML <access> and Widget > <access> element. > > AB: What, if anything, should be done? > ... <[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82> > > [28] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82%3E > > MC: re last Topic, Jere, please consider XML Base when you review > the new inputs > > JK: yes, good point and that should be reflected in the spec > > MC: this can be conceived of as a virtual file system at the > conceptual level > > JK: don't want the spec to specify a file system > > MC: agree; I was just using that as part of my mental model > > <JereK> I thought it was just shuffling URLs also in impl > > AB: re #82 was not discussed in Paris > ... what are people thinking? > > MC: I think we can close this since we are using a separate > namespace > > Arve: agree > > AB: other comments? > ... I completely agree > > <timeless> "namespaces will save us ;-)" > > AB: propose we close this with a resolution of "we address this by > defining our own namespace" > ... any objections to this proposal? > > <JereK> or "believe in namespaces or not" :) > > RESOLUTION: close Issue #82 - we address by defining our own > namespace > > Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital > signature. > > AB: What is the status of this issue and is this against P&C spec > of > DigSig spec? > ... <[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/83> > ... did you create this Marcos? > > [29] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/83%3E > > MC: yes. It was raised by Mark > > FH: this issues identifies an potential attack > > AB: is this something we must address in v1? > > MC: yes. Need a 1-liner in the DigSig spec > > FH: I don't quite understand the issue though > > MC: me neither > > FH: we already have some security consids > ... I recommend we get some more information from Mark > > AB: so we need to get more info from Mark? > > MC: yes > > FH: I don't understand the real threat scenario > > MC: me neither > > JS: same with me > > FH: I suggest this be closed unless we have new information and ask > Mark to provide more information > > DR: or could leave it open until Mark responds > > AB: we'll leave it open for now and I'll take an action to ping > Mark > for more information on the threat scenario > > <scribe> ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about > the real threat scenario re Issue #83 [recorded in > [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#action01] > > Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail from Thomas: > > AB: Thomas submitted some comments against Req #37 and I don't > believe we have yet responded > ... > <[31]http://www.w3.org/mid/9DD110C1-D860-40C9- > B688-2E08F4D86D20@w3.o > rg> > ... perhaps we should take the discussion to public-webapps and > drop > it from today's agenda. OK? > ... any comments? > > [31] http://www.w3.org/mid/9DD110C1-D860-40C9- > B688-2E08F4D86D20@w3.org%3E > > Open Actions > > AB: last week we created about 20 Actions and about 15 are still > open. > ... To continue to make good progress on our specs we need to > address these actions ASAP > ... Please review the actions and address any assigned to you. > ... Also do indeed feel free to submit inputs to address others' > actions > ... Widget Actions are: > <[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8> > ... Let me know if you want agenda time for any of these Actions > > [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8%3E > > June f2f meeting > > AB: re location, we now have three proposals: Oslo/Opera, > Edinburgh/OMTP and London/Vodafone. That's certainly sufficient to > close the call for hosts. > ... re the dates, June 2-4 are preferable. > ... it will of course be impossible to satisfy everyone's #1 > priority > > DR: June 2-4 conflicts with OMTP meeting > > AB: we should also be as Green as we can as well as to try to > minimize travel costs and simplify logistics for everyone, > including > those attending from other continents > > <fjh> that first week of june is not good for me > > AB: are there any other conflicts with June 2-4? > ... are there any conflicts with June 9-11? > > <abraun> there are always places in North America. I can think of > one place with lots of hotels ;) > > DR: not from OMTP's side > > MC: that's OK with Opera > > AB: anyone else > ... it looks like June 9-11 then is best > ... any comments about the location? > > <timeless> abraun: there's already SJ later in the year > > <timeless> so i think the us is out for this meeting > > DR: We are happy to cede with Dan's offer to host in London > ... I think London is probably the most cost effective > > JS: housing in London can be very expensive > ... I assume Edinburgh would be cheaper > ... I expect to pay for this trip out of my own pocket > > <fjh> > [33]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures > > [33] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- > signatures > > Arve: lodging in London is not cheaper than Oslo > > DR: London is an inexpensive hub to get to > ... i think airfare costs will dominate the overall cost of travel > > MC: we can live with London > ... but want to host the next meeting > > AB: any other comments? > > JS: I need to check another calendar > > AB: I will make a decision in a week or so > ... the leading candidate is London June 9-11 > > JS: I just checked, no conflicts that week > > TPAC meeting in November > > AB: Charles asked everyone to submit comments about the W3C's > proposed TPAC meeting in November > ... see > <[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0 > 044.html> > ... I think the general consensus is: a) it's too early to make a > firm commitment; b) we support the idea of an all-WG meeting; c) if > there are sufficient topics to discuss then we should meet that > week. > ... Does that seem like a fair characterization? Does anyone have > any other comments? > > [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0044.html%3E > > <Marcos> ? > > <arve> did everyone, or just us get dropped from the call? > > <timeless> just you > > <arve> our call appears to be up, but we can't hear > > AB: Charles and I need to report to the Team by the end of next > week > ... again that November TPAC meetingn is in Silicon Valley > > JS: if Moz has a meeting I can piggy-back then that would increase > my probability of attending > > FH: XML Security is tentatively planning to meet at TPAC on > Thursday > Friday, so to avoid overlap can Widgets meet Mon and Tue > > AB: I think the most we can report to the Team is "Yes, we > tenatively have agreement to meet during TPAC" > > Window Modes > > <Marcos> [35]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/ > Overview.src.html > > [35] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html > > AB: this is Excellent Marcos! > > MC: give the credit to Arve :) > > AB: so this captures last week's strawman? > > MC: yes > > Arve: it also includes some interfaces > > MC: the APIs will be moved to the A&E spec > ... it will only contain the defn of the modes and the Media > Queries > > BS: this is a good start > > AB: anything else on this topic Marcos? > > MC: we will work on this over the next few weeks and get it ready > for a FPWD > > AB: so a FPWD in the beginning of April? > > MC: yes, that would be ideal > > Editorial Tasks > > DR: I asked OMTP members if they can contribute > ... we have an offer from Bryan and ATT > ... they want to know specifics > > AB: that's a good idea > ... I want to first talk to the editors > > DR: OK. I will also see if I can get more support > > AB: any other comments on this topic? > > Anything Else > > DR: I just responded to Art's BONDI Release Candidate e-mail > ... we have extended the comment period to March 23 > ... the comments should all be public > > JS: I tried to submit feedback and I ran into problems with OMTP's > web site > ... it would be really good if the comments could be sent to a mail > list > > DR: if you send me the comments that would be good > > JS: OK; will do but not this week > > AB: is the URI of the public comment archive available? > > DR: yes Nick sent it to public-webapps > ... depending on the comments we will determine our next step > ... the next OMTP meeting is the following week > > AB: thanks for the update David > ... anythign else? > ... Meeting Adjourned > > Summary of Action Items > > [NEW] ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about > the > real threat scenario re Issue #83 [recorded in > [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#action01] > > [End of minutes] > >
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 16:04:07 UTC