- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:23:19 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The minutes from the March 12 Widgets voice conference are available
at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 19 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 -
Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
12 Mar 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0695.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Mike, Mark, Bryan, Arve, Marcos,
Doug
Regrets
Thomas, tlr
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]DigSig spec
4. [8]Patent Disclosure for the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
5. [9]A&E spec: Arve's proposed change to the A&E spec
regarding preferences:
6. [10]P&C spec - MaxF's comments
7. [11]P&C spec - Mandatory config file:
8. [12]Opportunities and ToDos; seeking volunteers:
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 12 March 2009
<MikeSmith> wonderful
<MikeSmith> timeless: you got another 10 minute before we start,
chief
<timeless> yeah, but otherwise i'll miss it
<MikeSmith> . whois fjh
<MikeSmith> Frederick?
<timeless> gah, cgi:irc sucks:)
<MikeSmith> timeless: it's just a proof of concept.. be glad that it
exists at all
<timeless> mikesmith: is this actually being logged?
<timeless> if so, could you trim it? :)
<MikeSmith> timeless: this channel not logged
<JereK> Hi Marcos, do we still have sthg to do re #299? (the ISO
8859-1 encoding?)
<MikeSmith> ah, logged by RRSAgent
<MikeSmith> yeah, I can trim it
<Marcos> JereK: depends what you mean?
<JereK> Max q'd the decision to use Latin-1, but didn't the I18N WG
advise to do so?
<Marcos> JereK: yes, I have followed what i18n said to do
<Marcos> timeless: agreed
<Marcos> timeless: P&C spec is all case sensitive now
<JereK> Would've used UTF-8, but need to research why that was so...
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
Date: 12 March 2009
Review and tweak agenda
AB: agenda posted on March 10:
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/06
95.html
... any change requests?
... what about Marcos' "Screenshots and case sensitive file names"
thread
...
[15]http://www.w3.org/mid/b21a10670903110711g321e8b7asfdff4f9bd46b1c
09@mail.gmail.com
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0695.html
[15] http://www.w3.org/mid/
b21a10670903110711g321e8b7asfdff4f9bd46b1c09@mail.gmail.com
FH: want to talk about a few other things re DigSig
AB: OK
Announcements
AB: the only one I have is the next Widgets f2f meeting is June 9-11
in London; host is Vodafone
... I will announce this meeting
... any other short annoucements?
[ None ]
DigSig spec
AB: two items related to DigSig spec
... ED is <[16]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/>
... first, any comments on "Identifier and Created Signature
property" proposal by FH?
...
<[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0
693.html>
[16] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/%3E
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0693.html%3E
FH: this is a response to Thomas' suggestion
... it was a good suggestion
... the time is wall clock; don't want to get too fine-grained
... but works at a rough level
... the identifier is per signer
... if people have suggestions, please let me know
... want to know if this OK to put in the ED or not
MP: generally I think it is good
... some concernn about Created property
... I raised my concerns earlier
... I will respond to the list
... it's OK to have the timestamp there
... but validation should not be based on the timestamp
... because on mobile devices the date may not be correct e.g. if
the user did not set the date and clock
FH: so timestamp can't be used in verifcation?
MP: yes, that's right
... think MUST is too strong for this property and prefer SHOULD
... the rest of the text looks good
Bryan: on devices today I don't think the time is problem because
can get network time
MP: we see this as an issue at VF
Bryan: are these legacy devices?
Arve: inaccurate time is still a problem on some devices especiall
in java environment
... date on devices isn't relevant to lots of people
Bryan: we haven't seen this be a problem for several issues
MP: don't want to confuse Created property with sig expiring
FH: I'm OK with changing this to SHOULD
... can we accept my proposal with a SHOULD?
MC: I'm OK with that
FH: OK; I'll put the changes in
... I have added some processing from P&C
... need the file casing to match P&
... I will need to add casing support
... need clarification on ID use
AB: I think it makes sense to send it to the list first
FH: OK; will do
AB: have we then discused
<[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0
684.html> ?
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0684.html%3E
FH: yes we have
... Josh and MC are OK with that
MP: can't have just signature.xml i.e. no number
FH: yes, that's OK
MP: then must update the example
FH: ok; will do
AB: plan moving fwd is what FH?
FH: I'll make the changes we agreedd and share the new draft before
next meeting
<mpriestl> I have some editorial comments that I'll send to list
before the end of the week
FH: are you comment substantial Mark?
MP: they are nearly all Editorial and consistency
... there may be some susbstanative comments
FH: depending on the nature of MP's comments, we may not be ready by
Mar 19 to make a decision to publish
AB: understood
Patent Disclosure for the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
AB: as you know, Apple disclosed a patent patent for the Widgets 1.0
Updates spec
... The information I received indicates Apple is not willing to
license that patent on a Royalty-Free basis.
...
<[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0
654.html>
... This raises some process-related issues for the WG; I think this
is the first time WebApps has had to deal with a disclosure issue.
... I would like Doug or Mike to provide a short status and then
want to provide an opportunity for people to ask questions.
... Mike, Doug, status please ...
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0654.html%3E
<fjh> next steps for Widgets Signature - integrate properties
proposal into draft, changing MUST to SHOULD. Change file naming to
be case sensitive. Fix example for naming, other editorial fixes.
<fjh> Put proposal on list re ID and reference URIs, then upon
comment, integrate into document.
AB: reminder that these minutes are Public
<MikeSmith> shepazu: ping
MS: I will not talk about anything that is not Public
AB: we are not going to discuss the details of Apple's patent
MS: W3C has a clear process to follow when disclosures like this are
made
... Patent Policy w3c patent policy
... we will start a Patent Advisory Group
... we will meet weekly
... with a new mail list
... we will try to resolve the issue ASAP
... but there is some overhead to start the PAG
... and that process is started
<MikeSmith>
[20]http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-for
mation
[20] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-
PAG-formation
DS: we hope to avoid distracting from other work
... we also hope to avoid delaying the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
... the outcome of the PAG may effect the Updates spec
... It is certainly theoretically possible for Apple to change its
position and offer RF licensing terms for this patent
... there could also be some prior art that affects the outcome
... Historically, some PAG outcomes have been effected by prior art
<fjh> uhh, marcos, p + l says "All reserved file names must be
treated as case insensitive" in 6.3?
DS: One thing that is problematic is the reluctance of PAG members
to actually read the patent
<Marcos> fjh: will fix
DS: We will try for the best outcome possible
AB: I don't have anything else to add re the process
... any questions?
Bryan: what's the issue with reading the patent?
DS: there is no issue from the W3C's perspective
... anyone should feel free to read the patent
... your company may not want you to read it?
Bryan: why not?
DS: if one intentionally infringes a patent there can be even more
damages assessed
... I'm talking about triple damages
<Marcos> fjh: fixed... but not checked in
Bryan: what is the problem with talking about some details?
<MikeSmith>
[21]http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-com
position
[21] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-
PAG-composition
<MikeSmith> [[
<MikeSmith> The PAG is composed of:
<MikeSmith> Advisory Committee Representatives of each W3C Member
organization participating in the Working Group (or alternate
designated by the AC Rep)
<MikeSmith> ]]
<MikeSmith> (plus others)
<MikeSmith> [[
<MikeSmith> W3C Member participants in the PAG should be authorized
to represent their organization's views on patent licensing issues.
Any participant in the PAG may also be represented by legal counsel,
though this is not required. Invited experts are not entitled to
participate in the PAG, though the PAG may chose to invite any
qualified experts who would be able to assist the PAG in its
determinations.
<MikeSmith> ]]
[ Art discusses some of the potential outcomes as defined in the W3C
Patent Policy ]
DS: Apple could identify those part of the spec covered by their
claims
AB: I want to close this discussion soon
... any other questions?
A&E spec: Arve's proposed change to the A&E spec regarding preferences:
AB: Arve proposed a change to the A&E spec regarding the preferences
attribute
... see
<[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0
635.html>
... Are there any comments on this proposal?
... It appears we can move directly to a resolution that Arve's
proposal is accepted
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0635.html%3E
<arve> ACTION-233 and ACTION-313
Arve: that would mean the two related actions can be closed 233 and
313
AB: any objections to this proposal?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: Arve's March 5 preferences proposal is accepted
P&C spec - MaxF's comments
AB: MaxF submitted a bunch of comments on the P&C spec
<[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0
676.html>. It appears they are all good comments and Marcos has
already addressed them in the latest ED. Is that correct Marcos? Is
there anything we need to discuss today re Max's comments?
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0676.html%3E.
MC: we're good; no need to discuss
P&C spec - Mandatory config file:
AB: Marcos made a proposal the config file be Manadatory via
<[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0
679.html>
... There appears to be some confusion about whether this is being
done solely for security reasons. What is the status of this Marcos?
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0679.html%3E
MC: issue is about identifying a package if it's missing its mime
type
Arve: the file extension isn't a good way to determine content types
AB: does Ranier object to the proposal?
MC: need to determine if it is mandatory or not
AB: should the config.xml file be mandatory?
<Bryan> +1
MC: yes
Bryan: yes
<mpriestl> Vodafone is still assessing the proposal
JK: this is a good thing to have
... similar to l10n issues in that it uses a fallback
<mpriestl> sure
Opportunities and ToDos; seeking volunteers:
AB: in response to Bryan's email regarding helping with Editorial
tasks, I enumerated some open opportunities and "todos" via
<[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0
694.html>
... is anyone willing to take the lead on any of these items?
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0694.html%3E
Bryan: I will provide some input on the list
AB: the Opera guys are already doing so much work
JK: where are we on the URI scheme?
... for example is tag: still in consideration?
MC: I think we need to mint our own scheme
... I think we need to make a decision and make it soon
... was hoping for some input from Josh
Josh: I can't provide input today
AB: we really need someon to step up and take the lead
JK: is this about more evaluation or about writing a new spec?
AB: my take is we have done our evaluation; we don't believe any
existing scheme covers all of our constraints and use case and that
we need a new scheme
Bryan: does this mean a new IETF spec?
AB: good question; I think it is within IETF's domain to define new
scheme
Bryan: if we agree a new scheme is needed and I think there is, does
that mean someone must create an IETF draft and follow through?
AB: I don't have definite answer
... need input from Mike or Doug
MS: yes, IETF is the prefered process
... we may be able to define the scheme ourselves
... The process of registering the scheme isn't that bad
Bryan: do you have an example of that being done before in the W3C?
MS: no, I don't have an example
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow work with Mike to determine if the widget
URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF
proces must be used [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Work with Mike to determine if the
widget URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the
IETF proces must be used [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-03-19].
Bryan: I think we should be able to share some work with OMTP re
widget testing
... also think security is an area where can work with OMTP
AB: are there any other high priority items that are not included in
this list and not recorded elsewhere (e.g. in the Issues and Actions
db)?
[ None ]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow work with Mike to determine if the widget URI
scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF proces
must be used [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 14:24:20 UTC