[widgets] Minutes from 19 March 2009 Voice Conference

The minutes from the March 19 Widgets voice conference are available  
at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before 26 March 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

19 Mar 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-irc


           Art, Frederick, Dan, Andy, Andrew, David, Mike, Thomas,
           Bryan, Marcos, Arve, Benoit, Robin




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]DigSig: no longer require the first signature to be
          4. [8]DigSig: Remove DSAwithSHA1 requirement? Status of
             requirement R47 (Section 2)?
          5. [9]DigSig: Suggest removing the restatement of algorithm
             requirements in section 7.1, specifically remove #5a and
          6. [10]DigSig: reference widgets packaging zip relative path
          7. [11]DigSig: Are we ready to approve the publication of a
             new WD?
          8. [12]P&C spec: should the config file be mandatory?
          9. [13]P&C: <option>s on <feature>s
         10. [14]P&C spec: status of P&C LC comment handling; next steps
      * [15]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <Marcos> [IPcaller] jjjis

    <Marcos> argh

    <Marcos> zaki, [IPcaller] is me

    <Marcos> bha

    <Marcos> bah

    Date: 19 March 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: draft agenda published on March 18:
    ... Since then, Frederick proposed some agenda changes via
    31.html ; we will accept those that intersect the original agenda;
    add e.; skip the editorial points (f., g., h.)
    ... There is also a proposal by Marcos to add a new <option> element
    816.html) that will be added to the agenda.
    ... Are there any other change requests?

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


    Benoit: what about RSS?

    AB: not today

    David: what about the PAG?

    AB: I have no new info about the PAG

    MS: it is being set up; I am responsible for setting it up; I have a
    draft charter
    ... will go to W3M soon if hasn't been done already
    ... hope to get the annoucement out RSN
    ... some logistics still be worked out

    David: PP says AC reps need to get involved; would appreciate an

    MS: I don't have much more to add; nothing surprising; can look at
    the REX PAG for an example

    David: we weren't members then

    TLR: we will give plenty of advance notice


    AB: any short announcements? I don't have any.

    David: BONDI review period ends March 23

DigSig: no longer require the first signature to be processed

    <drogersuk> [19]http://bondi.omtp.org is the link for BONDI

      [19] http://bondi.omtp.org/

    <tlr> welcome back to a former co-chair of one of the previous
    incarnations of this wG

    AB: Frederick mentioned his change on March 18
    ... and added to the latest ED
    ... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we approve
    it as is?

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- 


      [22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- 

    MC: I approve

    AB: FH's proposal approved

DigSig: Remove DSAwithSHA1 requirement? Status of requirement R47
(Section 2)?

    AB: these issues are still open. Briefly, what is the plan to
    address them?

    FH: want to add an Note that XML Sec WG has not reached consensus on
    the algorithms for XML Sig 1.1
    ... I don't want to do anything rash here
    ... We need to get more feedback

    AB: support your proposal for the note

    <fjh> suggest to add editorial note along these lines:

    David: we are discussing this in OMTP
    ... different companies have different opinions
    ... Want to know if an IP check has been made?

    <fjh> The XML Security WG has not yet achieved consensus on required
    algorithms in XML SIgnature 1.1, in particular whether to mandate

    FH: WGs don't do patent checks
    ... but we have talked about it
    ... We have conflicting info
    ... The risk may not be too bad but I am Not a Lawyer
    ... We are certainly seeking feedback
    ... I also noted T-Mobile's comments on this

    David: the concern is some members have interest along the ell.
    ... but please be advised this could be a complicated area
    ... re IPR issues

    <fjh> continued editors note text - The XML Security WG is
    requesting feedback on their FPWD of XML SIgnature 1.1 and feedback
    for algorithms related to Widget Signature is also requested.

    TLR: we know their are Claims of IPR issues
    ... I am not aware of any disclosures within the XML Sec WG
    ... We do not have knowledge of patents
    ... Some WG members want ell curves and some do not
    ... This is complicated area; we are trying to navigate the space
    with some incomplete data

    David: the concern is some NON-members have interest

    <fjh> thomas notes ability to do interop may impact whether elliptic
    curve becomes mandatory or not

    David: just because W3C members have not declared interest doesn't
    mean non-members don't have concerns

    <fjh> in other words, if sufficient participation in interop happens

    AB: David, Thomas pelase enter your comments directly into the IRC

    David: can't pretend there is no problem there

    AB: what do you think we should do?

    David: need to think what to do if there are patents

    FH: don't think we can make progress on this on today's call

    David: want a firm action

    AB: proposal?

    David: want XML Sec WG to pursue this

    TLR: then you should join the XML Sec WG

    David: how do I do that?

    TLR: send your comment to the XML Sec WG's mail list

    FH: need an email with specific comments

    David: OMTP operators will submit their own comments
    ... these minutes serve as a record

    FH: these minutes won't help that much
    ... an e-mail to XML Sec WG wold be best

    TLR: if OMTP members send the comments to public-webapps that might
    be good enough

    <drogersuk> OK, no problem - as minuted the OMTP members have been
    asked to individually respond

    FH: emails are much easier for me to communicate with my WG than

    <tlr> drogersuk, I don't think you're disagreeing with what's
    actually going on

    <drogersuk> exactly :-)

    FH: I propose the text I suggested earlier

    David: I agree

    AB: any objections to FH's earlier proposed text?

    [ None ]

DigSig: Suggest removing the restatement of algorithm requirements in
section 7.1, specifically remove #5a and #5b.


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

    AB: Frederick posted a proposal on March 18
    ... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we approve
    it as is?

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

    FH: this is pretty straight forward
    ... I've done some rewording

    AB: any comments, concerns?

    [ None]

    AB: we can consider this proposal approved

DigSig: reference widgets packaging zip relative path

    AB: Frederick made a proposal re checking the validity of relative
    paths in a signature

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


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

    AB: Thomas then responded with a question about the "interaction"
    between FH's proposal and TLR's "and a manifest approach for URI
    ... let's start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns? let's
    start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns?

    <tlr> (postponing that question is what I was about to suggest)

    FH: I added an additional constraint
    ... I think the intent before was implied but this is now explicit
    ... Marcos helped me with this

    AB: any objections to approving FH's proposal?

    [ None ]

    AB: consider this approved
    ... TLR, what about the interaction issue?

    TLR: agree we should defer to mail list
    ... need to decide the URI issue separately
    ... but wanted to make it clear we need to make a decision

    FH: we may need to do some tweaking with the References
    ... e.g. flesh out the constraints

    TLR: agree; but must first decide on derefencing URI model

DigSig: Are we ready to approve the publication of a new WD?

    <fjh> but this would be very localized within widget signature spec

    AB: the last time we published the DigSig spec was April 2008. Since
    then, we have made significant changes and improvements. It may not
    be perfect yet but I propose a new WD be published next week.

    FH: I think I have addressed all of the comments on the list
    ... If I missed anything, please speak up
    ... I am ready for a new WD

    MC: after FH makes his changes I have a few minor Editorial changes
    to make

    FH: can you do the publrules?

    MC: yes

    AB: any objections to a new WD?

    FH: what needs to be done?

    AB: you and MC make your changes; telll me and I'll submit the pub

    RESOLUTION: after FH incorporates the latest agreements, we will
    publish a new WD of the Widgets DigSig spec

P&C spec: should the config file be mandatory?

    AB: On March 9, Marcos proposed via
    79.html that the config file be mandatory. We had a short discussion
    about this during our March 12 VC but came to no resolution
    ([28]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#item07). Let's
    take a few minutes and try to get a resolution on this question.
    ... Marcos, where do we stand on this?

      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [28] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#item07).

    MC: I'd like to hear others

    RB: my only objection was lack of use cases
    ... but Mark indicates it would help with localization

    MC: do you support the localization model proposed by Mark?

    RB: yes; may need some tweaking

    MC: but that would be significant changes
    ... that new model changes a lot of stuff in the P&C spec

    RB: there were some other issues with the loc model

    MC: think this is over engineering

    RB: since Mark just sent this email may want some more review time

    MC: Mark's proposal says must identify which elements and attrs can
    be localized
    ... the model for the UA becomes more complicated

    AB: can we separate these two issues?

    MC: agree it should be mandatory

    RB: it should mandatory if there is a good reasons

    TLR: should be mandatory if good reasons and l10n and uri deref are
    good reasons

    BS: should it be mandatory?

    RB: I can live with it

    AB: are there any objections to the config file being mandatory?

    [ None]

    RESOLUTION: the config file will be Mandatory

    BS: need to work on the l10n model
    ... appears Mark's proposal will address the issue

    AB: let's followup on the mail list re Mark's proposal and drop the
    discussion today

    BS: where is the complexity Marcos?

    MC: implementing and authoring

    BS: think it helps with implementing

P&C: <option>s on <feature>s

    AB: on March 18 Marcos proposed a new <option> element
    16.html This resulted in some interesting discussion including the
    issue "Are We Done Yet?" i.e. should we take on new features when
    the spec is already in Last Call. Since Marcos and I had a related
    discussion in IRC yesterday, it isn't surprising that others were
    asking the same question.
    ... let's start with the proposal. Marcos, briefly what are you
    proposing and does Opera consider it a show stopper for v1?

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

    MC: we need a way to parameterize features
    ... can use a URI scheme
    ... another way is more author friendly using name/value attribute
    ... Arve gave a better example

    RB: I think this is a good feature but not sure it is essential

    AB: so is this a show stopper for v1?

    MC: yes, I think we need it
    ... but I don't think it is super complicated

    AB: so it is important but not criticial enough to block P&C?

    MC: yes, that basically true

P&C spec: status of P&C LC comment handling; next steps

    AB: during the Paris f2f meeting we agreed to publish a new LC WD in
    March ([30]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html#item06).
    Another issue is that the comment tracking document for LC #1 is
    ... let's start with "what must be done before LC #2 can be

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html#item06).
      [31] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 

    MC: #1 - the l10n model
    ... need to factor in Jere's model; we've had some discussions
    ... currently this is a show stopper
    ... #2 - need to specify <options> if we are going to specify that
    ... #3 <access> - hard and significant
    ... #4 - <update> element is in flux because of the related patent

    RB: what about URI dereferecing?

    MC: that does not affect the P&C spec

    MC; #5 - step 3 - the new l10n model affects this

    scribe: #6 - step 5 - affected by l10n changes and other things
    ... #7 - step 7 - need to add <preference> element and the
    <screenshot> element

    MC: if we add Mark's proposal, just about every part of step #7
    would need to change
    ... I removed the nested feature element for v1
    ... #8 - update the RelaxNG schema
    ... also need to address one last LC #1 comment

    AB: who can volunteer to help with these?

    RB: what specific items do you seek help Marcos?

    MC: I'll take help on any of these

    RB: I'll take feature and screenshot

    AB: thanks Robin

    RB: the schema work can be done in CR

    <Bryan> dropping off now

    <darobin> ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next
    week [recorded in

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - RB

    <darobin> ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for
    next week [recorded in

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Robin

    <darobin> ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for
    next week [recorded in

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - darobin

    <darobin> RESOLUTION: we are feature complete

    <drogersuk> Let me take this back to OMTP first

    <darobin> AB: anyone obejct to not taking in any new features?

    <darobin> DR: want to check with OMTP that feature-freeze is okay

    <darobin> AB: okay

    <darobin> AB: Marcos, what's the time frame?

    <darobin> AB: end of the month

    <darobin> AB: thanks a lot

    <darobin> AB: will look into extending this to 90min

    <darobin> ADJOURNED

    <darobin> TR: what's the time for this call? we're in DST confusion

    <DKA> Thanks!

    <darobin> AB: the frame of reference is 0900 W3C Time (formerly
    known as Boston time)

    <darobin> a pleasure ArtB :)

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next
    week [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next
    week [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 14:22:28 UTC