[widgets] Draft Minutes from 9 July 2009 Voice Conf

The draft minutes from the July 9 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 30 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

09 Jul 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-irc


           Art, Josh, Robin, Mike, Marcos, Henri, Benoit, AndyB





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]P&C spec: LC Comment #2233
          4. [8]P&C spec: Comments status and Next Steps
          5. [9]A&E spec: plan for LCWD publication
          6. [10]WARP spec: plan for LCWD publication
          7. [11]Widgets Updates spec:
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 9 July 2009

    <darobin> hsivonen: you gonna join?

    <hsivonen> I can call in

    please do

    <Marcos_> yep

    <darobin> easy to tell

    <darobin> I can hear the trolls echoing behind you

    <hsivonen> that's me

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: agenda posted July 8 (
    44.html ). One change is to drop 3.a. (Francois' comments) and add
    LC Comment #2233 from Josh (
    0090528/2233 ). Any other change requests?
    ... I note Henri is here

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [15] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 

    <darobin> new TODO for A+E:

      [16] http://www.w3.org/mid/1B5EE78B-5FA5-472B-9250- 

    AB: he says he is representing himself and NOT Mozilla

    MS: during AOB want to talk about Team Contact going forward


    AB: Reminder there will be no widgets call on July 16, July 23 and
    Aug 6. Any other short announcements?

P&C spec: LC Comment #2233

    AB: LC Comment #2233 (
    0090528/2233 ) is from Josh. This is the only comment where the
    Commentor has indicated the group's response is not acceptable. We
    have an obligation to try to reach consensus so we will start there.
    ... Josh, would you please briefly clarify for whom you speak re
    your objection to the group's proposal?

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

    JS: I can't formally speak for Nokia and I can't formally speak for
    ... so I can say I speak for myself
    ... but I have talked to other people that agree with position

    AB: I want to clearly understand the current model and the
    objections Josh and Henri have to it
    ... Marcos, would you please briefly summarize the issue?

    MC: the essence of the issue
    ... the current model is too flexible
    ... my understand is JS and HV think the flexibilily should be

    <hsivonen> For the record, I'm not objecting to anything

    AB: please, everyone add to the minutes if something is missing
    ... Josh, do you agree with MC's summary?

    JS: yes, I do agree
    ... one issue is how to choose the lang
    ... another is what to do with the pkg
    ... the pkg fallback flexibility is too much
    ... and think user will be surprised by results

    AB: what is the issue for the pkg creator?

    JS: I've had some discussions off list and some of that is not part
    of Public record
    ... but I will illustrate via an example

    [ Josh looks for a log of offlist discussions ... ]

    <timeless_mbp> ok... a german company creates a package for a
    company in Switzerland

    <timeless_mbp> the package is therefore originally in German (de)

    <timeless_mbp> they also then translate it into Italian (as some
    portion of Switzerland speaks Italian)

    <timeless_mbp> and then they translate it into French (... for the
    same reason)

    <timeless_mbp> they also commission for someone to translate it into

    <timeless_mbp> the German company then proceeds to create an updated
    version which adds additional resources (pictures)

    <timeless_mbp> yes

    <timeless_mbp> pictures with text

    <timeless_mbp> for reference, Nokia uses Flash for its Text :)

    <timeless_mbp> sorry... the updated version has another resource for
    pears and is in turn translated for De, It, Fr

    <timeless_mbp> another version later updates to add Bananas but the
    resource is only provided in De and It

    <timeless_mbp> and finally a final version adds yet another image
    resource which is only available in De

    <timeless_mbp> The user preference is Fr, It, En, De

    <timeless_mbp> and the result is that they get pictures from a mix
    of at least three of those

    RB: I think this is a contrived example
    ... one company publishes a widget that supports multiple langs
    ... think it is rare to get images from mixed langs
    ... may get one or two links for a diff lang
    ... which is better than no links

    JS: some images are added later, not part of the HTML
    ... the initial testing looks OK

    AB: I would like you Josh to follow your No email with a clear
    example of the problem

    JS: I'm concerned about bad fallbacks
    ... it can cause bad usability
    ... user in one case thinks a feature is missing

    AB: will you please follow-up your email Josh?

    JS: yes, I can do that; will point to this discussion

    <scribe> ACTION: soref send an email to public-webapps that clearly
    identifies the L10N problem you see with the current L10N model
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-379 - Send an email to public-webapps that
    clearly identifies the L10N problem you see with the current L10N
    model [on Josh Soref - due 2009-07-16].

    MC: our L10N people think this is a good model

    AB: Henri, any comments from you?

    HS: I am not objecting to anything
    ... This is about failure modes
    ... if the L10N is not complete
    ... can get a bad experience if get multiple langs for one
    ... want to minimize the "ugli-ness" of the failure mode

    AB: I see little to no value in continuing to debate the "perfect
    model". On the contrary, I think we need to get real data from both
    Implementors and Localizers and that means getting the spec to
    Candidate and not continuing to debate and re-debate and
    re-re-debate, ad nauseam the perfect L10 model.
    ... want to know our options here
    ... I don't see a compromise position here; does anyone?

    RB: no I don't think the two models can be merged

    JS: what are the exit criteria here?
    ... is it 2 impls?

    RB: yes

    JS: do these impls need to be shipping?

    RB: that would be a problem because you'd have to have widely
    shipped implementations and widely used content to satisfy your
    criteria, at which point we can't change the spec if it's broken

    AB: is voting the next step?

    MS: no, not necessarily
    ... you can record a decision without recording a vote
    ... can just send an email to list saying "we discussed this and
    decided ..."
    ... and tell people to send comments if they have any
    ... want to avoid the use of "objection" if possible
    ... need to think about "I can Live With It"
    ... note that consensus is a goal and it can't always be achieved
    ... must also move forward
    ... can document we tried to get consensus but couldn't
    ... not absolutely required to get a vote
    ... must clearly describe the issue
    ... and state the proposal on how to move forward
    ... and then if someone wants to file a Formal Objection they can do
    ... need to record the decision
    ... and provide an opp for others to comment

    AB: thanks Mike
    ... ICLWI means the group can continue
    ... my proposal is we mark this comment as Resolved_No
    ... and that we continue
    ... I can respond to the mail list
    ... and point to this discussion
    ... who supports keepiing the L10N model as is?

    MC: I do

    RB: I do

    Benoit: I do

    <abraun> i do

    AB: I do
    ... that is speaking on behalf of Nokia
    ... Jere is on holiday

    <MikeSmith> hsivonen, you are still permitted to express an opinion
    -- it's not a formal vote

    AB: I am hearing quite a bit of support for this

    JS: when I talk to Maemo guys, they do not like the current model

    RB: this isn't a formal vote

    JS: if during the impl phase, serious issues are found, what can we

    MC: we can fix it if indeed the impl experience dictates that a
    change is needed

    JS: if we can fix it if we show that we really screwed up, then
    that's great
    ... but if I find out that we cannot fix even though we screwed up
    that is very bad

    AB: one of the realities is people are already implementing and
    shipping the LC version

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow respond to Josh's no on 2233 with a pointer
    to these minutes [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-380 - Respond to Josh's no on 2233 with a
    pointer to these minutes [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-16].

P&C spec: Comments status and Next Steps

    AB: all of the LC comments are logged in the Comment Tracker (
    0090528/ ). There are about 50 comments. Besides comment #2233 which
    is still marked as Open, all of the others are marked as
    "Resolved_Yes" which means we have responded to the comment, and we
    have either implemented our response or done nothing.
    ... we are still awaiting responses for 19/46 comments: 16 from
    Opera's Anne van Kesteren; 1 from Opera's Martin Nilsson (#2230); 1
    from Celestial Wake's Jeff Decker (#2228); 1 from Nokia's Jere
    Kapyaho (#2216).
    ... Mike, would you please clarify "how long must we wait for a
    Commentor to respond to our proposed resolution?"?

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

    MS: there is no documented minimum
    ... but the common practice is 2 weeks
    ... must consider though that during July and August 2 weeks is
    probably not realistic
    ... the fair thing is to wait for people to return from vacation

    RB: in the case of Editorial comments, do we need to wait for 2
    weeks, even in the Summer?

    MS: no, I don't think so
    ... but if there are Substantive comments then I think waiting for a
    response is OK

    AB: Marcos, what was the date of your latest reply to Anne?
    ... or any of the commentors?
    ... I think it is July 3

    MC: yes.
    ... Anne's comments were not Substantive
    ... we also responded to all of his comments during the f2f meeting
    ... so he is well aware of our position on his comments
    ... none of the other comments were sustantive
    ... we did fix some bugs

    Benoit: wondering if the 2 week period has already passed for the
    other comments

    MC: I think we have addressed everyone's comments now

    AB: what about #2230 from Martin Nilsson of Opera?

    MC: his comments were for clarifications
    ... and non-normative parts of the spec
    ... AFAIC, we are done with his comments
    ... I will forward his comments to the list; he may not be
    ... just waiting for an OK

    AB: re #2228, I asked Jeff Decker to reply to your response Marcos
    and he hasn't done so
    ... but those were clarification?

    MC: yes that's right

    AB: re #2216 from Jere
    ... he won't be back for 3-4 weeks

    MC: this is not blocking

    AB: he was generally OK with the L10N model, right?

    MC: yes

    AB: it appears that we feel like we do not have to wait for any
    responses before making a decsion about moving to CR
    ... is that true?

    MC: yes, that's correct

    AB: draft proposal: We are ready to publish a Candidate Recomm for
    the P+C spec
    ... any objections to that proposal?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: we are ready to publish a Candidate Recommendation for
    the P+C spec

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow create the Trans Request for the P+C CR
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-381 - Create the Trans Request for the P+C
    CR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-16].

    <scribe> ACTION: smith work with Art to schedule the Director's Call
    for the P+C CR [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Work with Art to schedule the
    Director's Call for the P+C CR [on Michael(tm) Smith - due

A&E spec: plan for LCWD publication

    AB: Robin, Marcos, what is the status of the A&E spec (
    [23]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ )?

      [23] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

    RB: I have been doing a bunch of edits
    ... would be good to link to a published Window Modes spec
    ... because one attr points to it
    ... and that is a Blocker

    <scribe> ... dropped one attr

    UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: clarified some other attrs
    ... updated preferences based on input from Hixie
    ... updated IDL
    ... need to fix showNotification
    ... and need input from Opera

    <scribe> ACTION: marcos provide a specification for the
    showNotification method [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-383 - Provide a specification for the
    showNotification method [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-07-16].

    AB: that would be great
    ... if Charles or a Team Contact wants to push this to LC, that's OK
    with me - while I'm gone

    RB: as soon as I fix these 2 pending issues, I can ask for a LC

    AB: we can use the CfC mechanism

    RB: sure

    AB: anything else on A+E spec?

    RB: please read it Everyone!

    MC: I'll review it after I create the showNotif text

WARP spec: plan for LCWD publication

    AB: Robin, what is the status of the WARP spec (
    [25]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ )?
    ... what's the next step? FPWD was published about 4 weeks ago.

      [25] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/

    RB: we haven't had any feedback
    ... OMTP people seem to be happy

    AB: no feedback can be a concern but can also mean everyone is OK
    with it

    RB: well, we talked about it a lot before FPWD with TLR, et al.
    ... a good soln to no feeback is to go to LC

    AB: I'm thinking the same things
    ... so, is it ready for LC?
    ... is it feature complete?

    RB: yes, I think so
    ... I do need a RNG schema but I can do that during CR since it is

    AB: does it meet all of the relevant requirements?

    RB: the spec includes a list of reqs

    AB: so I think we can say yes, it meets them all

    MC: yes, I agree

    AB: draft resolution: we are ready to publish a LCWD of the WARP
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: we are ready to publish a LCWD of the WARP spec

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow submit the request to publish LCWD of the
    WARP spec [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-384 - Submit the request to publish LCWD
    of the WARP spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-16].

Widgets Updates spec:

    AB: there has been some discussion (
    08.html ) about the Widgets Updates spec (
    [28]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ). Note we can
    continue to work on the spec while the PAG is still in operation.

      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [28] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/

    MC: the proposal is to drop the checkForUpdate method

    AB: are you OK with that?

    MC: yes, I am

    AB: any concerns or objections to removing that method?

    [ None ]

    AB: after that change is made, do we want to publish a new WD?

    RB: there are a couple of other minor changes that should be made as
    ... I can make the changes if MC is too busy

    MC: yes, that would be OK with me

    RB: I prefer publishing a new WD as it emphasizes that work has not

    AB: I agree with that

    RB: we can ask Charles or TC to make a pub request after it is ready

    AB: OK, that's fine with me
    ... anything else on Updates?

    [ No ]


    AB: the next Widgets call will be July 30

    MS: XHTML2 WG charter will not be renewed and consequently, all of
    the *HTML work will be done in the HTML WG
    ... that means I will spend 100% of my time on HTML, at least for
    the time being
    ... another Team Contact will be appointed for Widgets
    ... by the next call expect the new TC for Widgets to join

    AB: thanks for your good work and good luck in your new work!
    ... anything else?

    [ No ]

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow create the Trans Request for the P+C CR
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow respond to Josh's no on 2233 with a pointer to
    these minutes [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow submit the request to publish LCWD of the WARP
    spec [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: marcos provide a specification for the
    showNotification method [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: smith work with Art to schedule the Director's Call
    for the P+C CR [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: soref send an email to public-webapps that clearly
    identifies the L10N problem you see with the current L10N model
    [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 15:55:38 UTC