- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:04:25 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the August 20 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 27 August 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
20 Aug 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0741.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Bryan, Marcin, Arve, Marcos
Regrets
Frederick
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization
4. [8]P&C Test Suite status
5. [9]View Modes spec:
6. [10]View Modes spec: Proposal: split the specification, add
new events
7. [11]VM spec: Best practice and scalability
8. [12]URI Scheme spec: next steps
9. [13]AOB
* [14]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<anne2> Marcos, public-webapps / whatwg ?
Date: 20 August 2009
Review and tweak agenda
AB: draft agenda submitted on August 19 (
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/07
41.html ). Since then there have been some comments on the A&E spec
and View Modes (VM) spec.
... should we add A+E spec today or continue discussions on the mail
list?
... any prefs?
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0741.html
MH: I suggest using the mail list
AB: any objections to that?
[ None ]
AB: we'll keep the agenda as is
Announcements
AB: the draft agenda agenda included 3 reminders/announcements. Does
anyone have any short announcements they want to make?
[ None ]
P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization
AB: last week Marcin started a thread (
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/06
44.html ) regarding IRI/URI normalization and the P&C Candidate.
This email was sent to the I18N Core WG.
... Addison indicated the I18N WG would review the email
... but I don't think that has yet happened
... Marcin, do you want to discuss this today?
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0644.html
MH: I don't know when they will review my email
... but Addison said they will review it
... I don't know when they have telcos
AB: any followup for today?
MH: I don't think so
AB: do we defer discussion until I18N WG has responded?
MC: yes; I have nothing to add today
P&C Test Suite status
AB: Marcos sent an email about the P&C Test suite (
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/06
71.html ) and he solicited comments/feedback. He also included a
pointer to the P&C Test Suite Edition (aka TSE) (
[18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html#prologue ).
... any comments for Marcos?
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0671.html
[18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html#prologue
<Marcos> [19]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/
[19] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/
AB: Marcos, can you give us an update of your related discussions
with the MWTS WG?
MC: all tests will go in the URI above
... this will be the template we use
... explains how to write a test
... Still hoping to get more guidance from MWTS WG
... Will try to minimize dependencies on other specs
... The tests will be targeted at the P+C UA
... Want to minimize resolution
... Working with Kai Hendry on structuring, verification, etc.
... Kai will make tests and so will I
... We will then verify each others tests
... Tests will only be added to the official test suite when someone
has verified a test
... Others are free to write tests too and to verify them
... Opera will contribute tests but they need to be ported to our
tempate
BS: how does one verify?
MC: make sure it is written correctly i.e. the test actually tests
the assertion
... this isn't pure science
... we must have someone else do the verificatin
... the TS is very important so we need to do it right
AB: any comments or feedback for Marcos?
BS: re the process, you automatically extracted the assertions,
right?
MC: yes
BS: and that depends on some specific markup to work, right?
MC: yes
... is that some W3C-specific mechanism?
... yes but any other spec writer could use this mechanism
... no magic is used
BS: this is an interesting convention for others to use
MC: agree
AB: I agree this is a neat mechanism
... perhaps you can give a related talk at the November TPAC meeting
e.g. a Lightning Talk
MC: yes, I can do that
BS: what's the prereq to make this work?
MC: must read the spec at least once; use links to definitions
AB: re the "minimize resolution", what do you mean?
MC: want a test to test just one particular aspect of the UA
... want each test case to be as precise and targeted as possible
AB: right, atomic test cases
MC: will create a way to make it easy to download all the tests
... and a XML format that describes the tests
... that will also need review
AB: are there any actions for the rest of u?
MC: please start reviewing the TSE and send comments
... the test suite will meet Opera's needs; want it to also meet
other's needs
BS: I will certainly take a look at it
AB: how many test cases are now verified?
MC: none are yet verified
... I expect we will need at least 200 test cases
... I just uploaded the document yesterday
... We are being a bit cautious about the test cases as we want
someone from MWTS e.g. Dom to give a "Blessing" before we start
creating a bunch of tests
... I've been looking at a bunch of test suites e.g. CSS, Annes,
etc.
... We want to leverage as much "Collective Wisdom" as possible
... and thus get it right the 1st time
AB: do you need someone to ping Dom about this?
MC: I've already done that
... on the MWTS mail list for sure, perhaps public-webapps too
... I'll send another request today
AB: this is excellent; thanks!
View Modes spec:
AB: Marcin recently updated the View Modes (VM) spec (
[20]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm/ ). Let's first see
where we are the FPWD's ToDo list created by Robin a few weeks ago (
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/02
18.html ). Based on that discussion, we will probably need to assign
actions for some of the list items.
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm/
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0218.html
MH: several of these items are now done
... I am keeping a list; the rest should be done by tomorrow
... Event intitializers still needs to be discussed
... that thread was started by Cam and Robin
... need to copy some definitions and/or link to them
AB: any comments about Marcin's status?
... do we want to cover
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/07
64.html today?
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0764.html
MC: yes; I think so
MH: yes
View Modes spec: Proposal: split the specification, add new events
AB: earlier today, Marcin submitted a proposal
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/07
64.html to split the VM spec into two
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0764.html
MH: there is some inconistency between VM and MQ spec
... I think it would be better to split the spec into two separate
specs
... keep the MQ and Events together in a new spec
... Ch #3 of the current doc would go in one spec
... Ch #4 would go in the new spec
AB: any feedback on splitting the spec?
... Given this proposal is very recent, I'm a little reluctant to
make a decision on the split now
... OTOH, if this is blocking progress, we can increase the urgency
of a decision
MH: I'm OK with waiting
AB: if we do a split, are you Marcin, willing to be the main Editor
and driver?
MH: yes
... the one spec probably will not be part of the Widgets 1.0 spec
suite but the other will be
AB: I'll respond to the proposal and ask WG members to submit
feedback on the proposal by August 27
<scribe> ACTION: barstow respond to Marcin's VM spec split [recorded
in [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-394 - Respond to Marcin's VM spec split
[on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-27].
MH: I will follow-up with my email with some more details and
include CSS WG
AB: good idea
... any other feedback on the spec split?
MC: I have no objections to the spec split
BS: I don't have a strong opinion;
... want to get a better understanding of what is put in the widget
spec space versus the broader Web Apps use cases
MH: CSS Media Queries is relevant here
... if the View Modes is part of the Widgets spec suite, reader will
assume the context is for widgets
BS: need to get a better understanding of what goes into the two
different specs
MH: think we need a separate document that ties all of the Widgets
specs together
<Marcos>
[25]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#widgets-1.0-family-of-specif
ications
[25] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#widgets-1.0-family-of-
specifications
<scribe> ACTION: barstow what is good way to capture the notion of
"Family of Widget Specs"? [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-395 - What is good way to capture the
notion of "Family of Widget Specs"? [on Arthur Barstow - due
2009-08-27].
<marcin2>
[27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#widgets-1.0-family-of-specif
ications has 6 docs
[27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#widgets-1.0-family-of-
specifications
AB: anything else on the spec split for today?
<marcin2>
[28]http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-apis/#widgets-1.0-family-of-specifi
cations has 7 docs
[28] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-apis/#widgets-1.0-family-of-
specifications
[ No ]
VM spec: Best practice and scalability
AB: earlier this week Richard Tibbett sent an email about the VM
spec (
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/06
67.html ) and I don't think anyone has yet responded.
... I believe Richard is a member of the WG
... one option is to postpone discussion until Richard can join us
... another option is to follow-up on the mail list
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0667.html
MC: I prefer the mail list option
AB: any other opinions?
MH: mail list
AB: all - please followup Richard
... email on the list
BS: think we need some discussion Richard's email
... need more discussion about events and scalability
URI Scheme spec: next steps
AB: the last publication of the URI Scheme spec was 18 June. What is
the status of that spec (
[30]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ ) and what are
the next steps?
... I notice now that Robin isn't here
... We will postpone discussion unless someone has some urgent
comments on this spec
[30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
[ None ]
AOB
AB: Marcos, any recent emails we want to discuss now?
MC: not really
AB: WebStorage?
MC: WebStorage changing to arbitrary data will affect A+E spec
... the LCWD is no longer correct
AB: that's not good
MC: a lot of the related discussions are happening on the WHAT WG
mail list
... which I don't follow
... nor the HTML5 list
BS: what's the main change?
MC: Storage used to just be Strings and now it can be anything
... that will affect implementation
... could in theory store the Storage or Window object
... need to understand the reason the spec was changed
... think there is a now a req to store structured data e.g. JSON
... originally, Storage was just for Strings
BS: so now I could store an image?
MC: yes, I think in theory that is now possible
... Look at the latest ED
<Marcos> [31]http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
[31] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
[32]http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
[32] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
AB: so this has the potential to have a serious impact on the A+E
LC?
MC: the spec will need to change
... not clear yet if that change will be considered Serious or not
... I need to learn more about "why" the spec changed
AB: any other AOB for today?
[ None ]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow respond to Marcin's VM spec split [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow what is good way to capture the notion of
"Family of Widget Specs"? [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 14:05:12 UTC