[widgets] Draft Minutes from 2 July 2009 Voice Conference

The draft minutes from the July 2 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 9 July 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

02 Jul 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-irc


           Art, Marcos, Arve, Mike, Jere, Kai, David, Marcin, AndyB, Dom

           TLR, Benoit




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]P&C LCWD comments
          4. [8]Issue raised by Francois
          5. [9]Widget Testing wiki
          6. [10]Widgets Dig Sig Testing
          7. [11]Online Widget Checker
          8. [12]P&C Test Plan
          9. [13]A+E spec
         10. [14]Test Fest proposal
         11. [15]AOB
      * [16]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 2 July 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: draft agenda sent on July 1 (
    41.html ). Any change requests? During the AOB topic we will talk
    about cancelations of this weekly call due to summer holidays.

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

    [ No change requests ]


    AB: anyone have any short announcements they want to make?

    [ None ]

P&C LCWD comments

    AB: the LCWD comment period ended on June 19. We have not addressed
    all of the comments submitted before the deadline. We can take some
    time to discuss those comments that can benefit from interactive
    group discussion.
    ... Comment tracking doc is (
    0090528/ )
    ... Marcos, what is the status of the Disposition of Comments

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 

    MC: it is about 80% up to date
    ... awaiting responses from about 20 emails
    ... I've got all of Marcin's comments
    ... and all of AvK's comments that I've responded to

    AB: earlier today MC sent this email
    71.html and it contains comments he'd like to discuss on this call
    ... first one is from Josh
    ... what is the main isssue here Marcos?

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

    MC: Josh thinks there is a prob with the l10n model
    ... I'm not sure how serious this is
    ... it could create a problem in some use case
    ... I tend to think this is a problem for localizers and not a
    problem with the model

    JK: I agree with you Marcos
    ... re the assertion the prob is at the package level
    ... I don't agree; don't want a new zip per locale


      [21] http://www.webwizardry.net/~timeless/w7/nokia% 

    JK: want a package to contain as much locale info as possible
    ... L10N testing should catch the error Josh identified

    AB: based on this, there is the question - has Josh identified a bug
    in the model?

    MC: I don't think so

    JK: agree with Marcos

    AB: I tend to agree with Marcos and JK's interpretation
    ... any disagreements with MC and JK's opinion?

    [ None ]

    AB: given this, what will your response be Marcos?

    MC: want to wait for JK to respond to Josh and then see the follow
    up responses

    JK: I just sent the response

    AB: status then is to wait and see how Josh responds
    ... next up is this comment from Dom:
    ... Marcos, what's the issue here?

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

    MC: this is about the CC
    ... the spec isn't as complete as it could be
    ... with respect to the CC requirements
    ... These were originally just Authoring comments and they were
    reformulated as CC reqs
    ... we just didn't do all of the work that could have been done

    AB: so one way fwd is to move all of the CC reqs to a separate spec
    ... naturally that would be considered a substantial change

    MC: yes, that's true
    ... Dom suggested some additions

    AB: we could just add the 3 Dom indicates and any others if we find

    MC: yes, agree

    AB: we could view these as bugs i.e. these 3 are missing

    MC: yes, because the UA will need to address some of these
    ... the CC reqs are not called out in the steps for processing

    <dom> [possible implementation of conformance checker for widgets:
    [23]http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/widget ]

      [23] http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/widget

    AB: we could add the missing CC and then during Candidate, if CC
    implementor feedback dictates a sep spec we can do that
    ... Dom, what are your thoughts on this?

    Dom: these comments are based on the work we did on the CC Checker
    ... It would be be good if there is more detail on the CC checker
    ... it probably would be best to move the CC reqs to a separate doc
    ... but I don't think it would be a high priority work item

    AB: so if we just added the 3 reqs you mentioned would that be
    sufficient to address your concern?

    <dom> Dom: It would be fine yes; I would just be concerned for the
    pace of development of the Widgets specs that other bugs might be
    found at a later stage for conformance checkers, and would slow down
    the work for a low priority work item

    AB: is anyone aware of any other CC services?

    MC: Mike mentioned another person/group that is interested

    <hendry> I wrote a widget validator sometime ago (it's offline)

      [24] http://git.webvm.net/?p=wgtvalidator

    AB: do you know how far that has gone?

    MC: no, the email trail died

    AB: does anyone object to us addressing Dom's CC comments by just
    addding the 3 missing CC reqs?

    [ No objections ]

    AB: next is June 17 comments from Dom:
    ... Marcos, what are the main issues here?

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

    MC: I've addresed most of these already
    ... need to go thru the spec and look for conformance reqs
    ... need to clarify rule for identifying media image

    <dom> [I think they are mostly editorial]

    MC: most of these comments are Editorial
    ... it will be a lot of work to go through all of the assertions
    ... Dom used a tool to get the assertions

    <Marcos> "simplify the analysis of

    <Marcos> > conformance requirements for building test suites, and
    identify possible

    <Marcos> > ambiguities as to what is affected when the conformance
    requirements is

    <Marcos> > not respected;"

    MC: A question I have is whether or not I need to edit the spec such
    that the assertion extraction tool "will be happy"

    AB: what do others think about this?

    <dom> [it's rather an effort toward making the spec more testable]

    MC: the advantage is the spec will be better; the disadvantage is
    the spec will take longer
    ... I would be interested in getting a sense from Dom about how much
    work this would be?

    Dom: it's hard to tell; most of the assertions were in OK shape
    ... I don't think it is critical
    ... but it would be helpful
    ... you need to understand your schedule constraints

    AB: I agree it would be helpful but I don't think it is a high
    priority given our schedule

    <hendry> what about just checking on
    [26]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/plan.html and updating
    the spec when and if possible

      [26] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/plan.html

    AB: my recommendation is this work could be done during the
    Candidate phase

    <dom> [that's fine with me fwiw]

    MC: yes, I agree; it would add some clarification

    <hendry> +1

    MC: and I would agree to do the work during the Candidate phase

    AB: any objections?
    ... we have support from Kai and Dom

    [ No objections to doing this work during the Candidate phase ]

    <scribe> ACTION: marcos During the P+C Candidate phase, make
    editorial changes to make assertions extractable [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-376 - During the P+C Candidate phase, make
    editorial changes to make assertions extractable [on Marcos Caceres
    - due 2009-07-09].

    AB: next comment is from Krzy:
    ... I do want to note that this set of comments was submitted on
    June 22 which is after the deadline

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

    MC: I asked him to submit comments
    ... I don't know how people feel about the lateness of these

    AB: any comments on the date of these comments?

    DR: I think it sets a dangerous precedence if we were to take these
    late comments into consideration
    ... I can't speak to the comments themselves

    AB: any other feedback on the timing of these comments?
    ... my recommendation is we make these low priority and not address
    them until after all of the LCWD comments submitted by June 19 are

    <drogersuk> I agree

    MC: so does this mean do _not_ put them in the DoC doc?

    AB: yes
    ... any objections to this way of handling Krzy's comments?

    [ None ]

    <dom> [I feel uncomfortable about it, but I'm not a member of the

    AB: next up is some comments from Kai

    MC: these comments were sent to me privately
    ... they were NOT sent to public-webapps on June 19
    ... Do we include these comments as part of our LCWD review cycle?

    AB: what do other people think?

    <drogersuk> I agree with art

    AB: I think we just sent a precedent that we should follow

    <dom> [I think it makes no sense to reject good comments]

    AB: and that would mean we should not consider these until after

    DR: agree with Art; we need to have some discipline and respect the

    <drogersuk> I also agree with dom by the way

    <dom> [not including them in the DoC reduces the value of the DoC]

    MC: no problem; we can address them after LC

    AB: to be consistent, we should NOT include Kai's comments in the

    MC: yes, I agree; I will not add them

    AB: any objections to not addressing Kai's comments during this LCWD
    review cycle?

    [ No objections ]

    AB: next up is a 2nd comment from Kai that is also dated June 19
    ... was this also private email to you Marcos?

    MC: yes; this email was also sent to me privately by Kai on June 19
    ... so we should ingore this too for this LCWD review cycle

    AB: OK; do not add this 2nd comment of Kai's to the DoC

    MC: I have 8 emails that I have not yet responded to
    ... I plan to respond to all of them by Friday July 3

    AB: what can we do to help you?

    MC: the main concern I had was how to handle Dom's comments
    ... apart from that, it's mostly Editorial stuff
    ... not sure there is much other WG members can do
    ... I asked Jere for some help on L10N and he has responded
    ... I still have about 20 emails that I waiting for responses
    ... apart from that, I think we are pretty good

    AB: I am happy to ping/bother people that have not responded to you

    MC: it's only been a few days so we need to give people at least a
    ... I can give people about one week
    ... with a plan to close DoC on July 10

    AB: I'll follow up with you Marcos on July 6 re who needs to be
    ... when you reply, please include a July 10 deadline for a response

    MC: time to start setting up a Trans to Candidate

    AB: we won't have all of the data to make a decision about CR vs. WD
    until we have feedback from the Commentors about our responses

    DR: I think we should be aggresive with the Commentors re deadline
    for responses to our comments
    ... think 1:1 follow-ups would be good to do

    AB: it would be best if the deadline for resonses was July 9

    MC: yes, that's OK with me

    AB: so ideally, on July 9 when we meet we will have responses from
    all of the Commentors
    ... Mike, do we need to wait for responses from all Commentors
    before we make a decision of CR vs. WD?

    MS: not sure what the Process Doc says explicitly
    ... but I think we need to give adequate opportunity to comment

    MC: so you think one week isn't enough?

    MS: one week may not be enough
    ... I think 1 week is the minimum

    <drogersuk> I would like to think that one week is enough

    AB: it makes sense to also consider the comments themselves

    <drogersuk> ...if we are proactively contacting people too

    AB: thanks for that feedback Mike
    ... anything else?

    MC: I could use some help with the DoC document
    ... it is about 80-90% done
    ... it would mean clicking some buttons when emails come in

    AB: any volunteers?
    ... I can help starting July 6
    ... anything P+C spec today?

Issue raised by Francois

    AB: in MC's response to Francois, he indicated the group should
    discuss one of Francois' comments (

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

    MC: most of the questions have to do with the Widget URI scheme spec
    ... so we are "punting" on those issues with respect P+C

    AB: any comments on that?

    [ None ]

Widget Testing wiki

    AB: yesterday I started a widget testing wiki to consolidate
    pointers to testing resources (
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting ). This is a
    Group Resource and as such, everyone should contribute to its
    evolution and maintenance.

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting

Widgets Dig Sig Testing

    AB: Kai has started some related work but I think it would be
    helpful to get an enumeration of all of the testable assertions.
    ... can anyone commit to contributing a testable assertion list for
    the Widgets Digital Signature spec?


      [31] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xslfile=http%3A% 

    AB: Dom, that was relatively easy because of the markup P+C used,

    Dom: yes
    ... does DigSig use the same convention?

    MC: yes

    <dom> (based on
    sl )

      [32] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/ 

    AB: OK, that's good; it will help us scope the set of test cases
    ... anything else on WidDigSig testing for today?
    ... any status from you Kai?

    Kai: I'm finding it difficult to do the testing
    ... thought there would be some examples

    <fjh> see [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Interop

      [33] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Interop

    <dom> [34]XML SIgnature Interop report might be a useful source of

      [34] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2001/04/05-xmldsig-interop.html

    <fjh> should also look at 1.1 interop for new algorithms.

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig
    Sig tests [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-377 - Find some examples for Kai re
    Widgets Dig Sig tests [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-09].

    MC: what kinds of probs are you haveing?
    ... generating or verifying?

    Kai: I'm not familiar with openssl tools
    ... not that familiar with XML Dig Sig 1.1
    ... not sure if I'm generating the right keys and their formats

    <fjh> there are also java tools

    Kai: would like someone to just tell me what to do

    <dom> [36]XML Signature Implementation report for 2nd Ed

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmldsig/report.html

    AB: I will find the right experts to help you

    <fjh> perhaps you should summarize your questions and send to the
    xml security public list

    <dom> (thomas roessler would definitely be a good person to contact
    on that)

    MC: if there is some guidance needed in the spec, please let me know

    <dom> (Frederick Hirsch would be another candidate)

    MC: we want it easy to author

    <fjh> public-xmlsec@w3.org

    <fjh> I'm suggesting we share questions on public xml security list
    - collective intelligence

    <fjh> I cannot call into the bridge, the conference is "restricted"

    Kai: After I get "hello world" done then I can start some real work

    AB: Kai, FH recommends you send your questions directly to XML Sec
    WG -> public-xmlse@w3.org

    MC: and please cc public-webapps

    Kai: ok; will do

Online Widget Checker

    AB: Dom recently announced (
    01.html ) the availability of an alpha version of an Online Widget
    Checker service (

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

    [38]http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/widget/ ).

      [38] http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/widget/

    AB: Thanks very much for this Dom! I haven't used it yet; does
    anyone have feedback for Dom?
    ... Dom, what is the status and plans for this service?

    Dom: waiting for some feedback before we do anything more
    ... would like to get others to contribute to the code
    ... it does some good things now but will require a big chunck of
    effort to make it really useful

    AB: make a plea to everyone to:
    ... 1. Review the services
    ... 2. Send comments to Dom
    ... 3. Contribute to the code
    ... anything else on this service Dom?

    Dom: could be useful with going to CR i.e. going thru the CC reqs

P&C Test Plan

    AB: yesterday I noticed Dom had created a P&C Test Plan (
    [39]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets/tests/plan.html ).
    Dom, what is the status and plan for this Test Plan?

      [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets/tests/plan.html

    Dom: I only annouced it to the MWTS WG
    ... it is based on the extractable assertions for the CC
    ... added some comments on some of the tests
    ... Kai has taken an action to review the Test Plan
    ... Marcos said he would review it too
    ... Plan to have something "fairly reliable" next week

    MC: want to fix the spec to make the extraction process work better

    Dom: we are focusing on test cases now
    ... I think our test cases will be ok even if the spec changes
    ... but they may require some minor updating

A+E spec

    Arve: since Robin isn't here, we could take this topic to the mail

    AB: yes, that's fine with me

Test Fest proposal

    AB: there has been some off-list discussion about a Widgets Test
    Fest in September.

    DR: I can give a brief udpate
    ... VF proposed a "test fest" but that may not be the most
    descriptive title
    ... want to create test cases
    ... want it to be coordinated by W3C
    ... want OMTP to be involved
    ... VF can host it
    ... proposed dates are Sep 21 thru 23
    ... can handle 50-55 people
    ... want it to be under the W3C rules
    ... want to understand more about how test suites are created in W3C
    ... need to think about licensing since it will be collaborative

    <dom> +1

    DR: Does this sound like a good idea?

    <hendry> +1

    MC: sounds like a good idea to me

    AB: sounds like quite a bit of support

    <mhanclik> +1

    <JK> +1

    DR: I've asked VF to send a mail to public-webapps

    AB: that sounds good
    ... we agreed in London we would not have any more f2f meetings
    until TPAC
    ... this is NOT a WebApps WG meeting

    DR: yes; understood; want the impl people to attend

    AB: you will form some type of organizing committee?

    DR: yes, that's the idea

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Mike and Dom to determine if
    their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with
    OMTP [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-378 - Work with Mike and Dom to determine
    if their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with
    OMTP [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-09].

    DR: OMTP supports this but it is VF that is sponsoring this

    <drogersuk> Yes this intiative is Vodafone's so I am just speaking
    on behalf of Christian who is not here

    Dom: I don't think we need an organizing committee; I am awaiting
    more info from VF

    <drogersuk> I would also like to add that for licensing - I believe
    it should be under the W3C process

    Dom: re the licensing, I am already working on this

    <dom> > 3.) If non-W3C members / non Bondi members declare their
    wish to participate, they must possibly sign an extra agreement for
    IP exclosure (like the Turin rules for BONDI members). This is
    possibly an "edge case" but we should bear it in mind. My suggestion
    is that W3C legal take a closer look at that.

    <dom> Essentially, those that don't participate to the Web

    <dom> Working Group should fill up and submit the Grant I linked
    from the test

    <dom> cases policy:

    <dom> [41]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/testgrants-200409/

      [41] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/testgrants-200409/

    AB: anything else on the Test Fest?

    DR: not sure if the Turin Rules apply

    Dom: there is No Patent Policy issue re test cases but there will be
    some Copyright issues that will be applicable


    AB: because of summer holidays, there will be NO Widgets calls on
    July 16, July 23 and August 6.
    ... any other business?

    [ None ]

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig Sig
    tests [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Mike and Dom to determine if their
    are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with OMTP
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: marcos During the P+C Candidate phase, make editorial
    changes to make assertions extractable [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 16:07:43 UTC