[widgets] Draft Minutes for 27 August 2009 Voice Conference

The draft minutes from the August 27 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 3 September 2009 (the  
next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be  
considered Approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

27 Aug 2009


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-irc


           Art, Arve, Marcos, Jere, Marcin, AndyB, Benoit, Josh, Robin,





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization
          4. [8]P&C spec: Test template
          5. [9]A&E spec: proposal to change name to Widgets 1.0: widget
          6. [10]widget Interface spec: Storage Object
          7. [11]Moving the "alert methods" to DAP?
          8. [12]View Modes spec: Issue-97 -> How is ViewModes DOM
             related to CSSOM?
          9. [13]View Modes spec: Issue-96 -> Should we split the
             ViewModes specification?
         10. [14]View Modes spec: Issue-98 -> Cargo-culting (Relation
             DOM3 Events)
         11. [15]URI Scheme spec: status and next steps
         12. [16]AOB
      * [17]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 27 August 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: draft agenda distributed on August 26 (
    23.html ). Any change requests?

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

    [ None ]


    AB: Reminders on upcoming deadlines: 1) Sep 14 is deadline to
    register for Widgets Testing event (
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TestWorkshop2009 ); 2) Sep
    15 comment deadline for APIs and Events LCWD; 3) Sep 20 comment
    deadline for WARP LCWD
    ... Does anyone have any short announcements?

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TestWorkshop2009

    [ None ]

P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization

    AB: on August 14 Marcin asked I18N Core WG (
    44.html ) for feedback on IRI/URI normalization. Addison replied (
    45.html ) with his personal comments but indicated the WG would
    review our request. Marcin, what's the status?
    ... found [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/26-core-minutes.html#item05

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [22] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/26-core-minutes.html#item05

    <marcin2> I have not seen the update yet.

    MH: no, I have no additional info on their discussions

    AB: OK, I'll ping Addison on this

P&C spec: Test template

    AB: on August 20 Marcos asked the MWTS WG too review the test
    template (
    69.html ). Marcos, what is the status?

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

    MC: they have not yet responded

    AB: I did ping Dom privately and got a message he is out of the
    office this week
    ... I'll ping him next week if he doesn't follow up

    MC: OK

    AB: is this blocking you Marcos?

    MC: no
    ... we are progressing though as if we will get an OK from them

    AB: that seems reasonable
    ... any other comments on this topic?
    ... any thing else on P+C for today?

    [ No ]

A&E spec: proposal to change name to Widgets 1.0: widget interface

    AB: on August 20 Marcos proposed (
    74.html ) to change the name of the A&E spec to "Widgets 1.0: widget
    Interface". Are there any objections to that proposal?

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

    RB: I'm ok with this

    Arve: I'm OK with this change

    <marcin2> +1

    AB: I'm OK with it

    <JereK> +1

    BS: OK

    RESOLUTION: A&E spec will be renamed to "Widgets 1.0: widget

    BS: what about short name?

    RB: I think we can keep it

    MC: agree

    <Benoit> ;)

widget Interface spec: Storage Object

    AB: on August 21 Scott Wilson (
    83.html ) asked some questions about the Storage interface. I don't
    believe anyone has responded to him. Marcos, what are the key issues
    here? The latest ED for WebStorage is

      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [26] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/

    MC: some things are underspecified
    ... re the Storage interface
    ... this is section 5.1
    ... I need to catch up on this thread

    AB: anyone else have any comments?

    [ No ]

    AB: Marcos, how about you respond on the mail list?

    MC: yes; I've started a draft response
    ... I agree we need to tighten the spec
    ... we made to do another LC
    ... but maybe it will just be a clarification
    ... I think this can be implemented in JS
    ... His concern is about hiding data
    ... and making some parts private
    ... thus a concern about querying
    ... There are some JS structures to protect data
    ... but it is easy for one object in JS to delete other objects
    ... I still think it is implementable in JS
    ... Perhaps Robin has some comments here.

    RB: I also need to catch up on this thread

    AB: what is the level of "done-ness" of the Web Storage spec?

    MC: Hixie and the WHAT-WG made a change recently to allow storing
    any data type

    AB: so there are no longer any existing implemenations of the Web
    Storage spec?

    MC: yes, that's correct

    AB: what can we do to help push that spec along?

    MC: not much except to actively participate in the discussions
    ongoing in other forums e.g. WHAT-WG, HTML WG, etc.
    ... there are several tracking mechanims we would have to follow
    ... the WHAT-WG list is probably the most important list

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow talk to Hixie about the publication status
    and plans for Web Storage [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-396 - Talk to Hixie about the publication
    status and plans for Web Storage [on Arthur Barstow - due

Moving the "alert methods" to DAP?

    AB: During the August 13 call we talked how to deal with the two
    alert methods that were removed from the A&E spec (
    91.html ). Marcos agreed
    ([29]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/389 ) to talk to
    Hixie about HTML WG taking those two functions.
    ... On August 25 Robin indicated (
    18.html ) these functions are in scope for the DAP WG.
    ... Marcos, have you discussed this with Hixie?

      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [29] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/389
      [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: no, I haven't talked to him about this

    AB: Robin, do you have an Editor commitment within DAP?

    RB: it's too early to tell
    ... but in theory we have an Editor for the UI spec of DAP
    ... not can't say for certain

    AB: Arve, you expressed some concerns about DAP taking on these

    Arve: I think Robin's response covered my concerns
    ... I'm not too concerned about where they are defined

    AB: do we have agreement that DAP will define these functions?

    MC: I agree

    RB: I agree

    AB: are there any objections to that proposal?

    Arve: not me; I agree

    MC: I don't think it matters much but they do need to be define

    RB: you could join DAP

    <arve> +1

    MC: I'm subscribed to DAP's list but not a member of the WG

    RESOLUTION: the alert methods removed from the A&E spec will be
    specified by DAP WG with cooperation from WebApps WG

    AB: OK Robin?

    RB: yes

    AB: anything else about the widget Interface spec?

    [ None ]

View Modes spec: Issue-97 -> How is ViewModes DOM related to CSSOM?

    AB: Anne noted (
    00.html ) there is some overlap between the CSSOM View Module and
    the latest ED of the VM spec (
    [32]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm ). Marcin raised
    this as Issue-97 (
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97 )

      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm
      [33] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97

    <arve> we can hear you

    AB: Anne and Marcin, want to find a way forward on this spec

    <annevk> hmm

    <annevk> if I sit closer to the Mac I can't see the screen

    <marcin2> you could type what you say

    <annevk> I'll just type

    <annevk> the main problem I noted was that there was overlap between
    the interfaces

    <annevk> and I was wondering whether that overlap had been studied

    <annevk> I haven't reviewed View Modes in full

    <marcin2> it was not studied thoroughly yet

    MH: yes, I noticed this overlap
    ... we will need to review each others specs
    ... and determine a way forward
    ... I think splitting View Modes spec will help us
    ... one part is Media feature; other is the interfaces
    ... think we can get quick agreement on Media feature
    ... and it does not overlap at all with CSSOM spec
    ... think priority should be the Media spec
    ... then we can take on the interfaces

    AB: I get the sense that discussing the interfaces now prolly isn't
    the #1 priority
    ... until we do more analysis, we should postpone discussion on the

    AvK: it may make more sense for the CSS WG to define the APIs

    AB: thanks Anne for joining us; we will get back to you after we do
    more work on the interfaces

    MC: if need be, perhaps someone from WebApps can join CSS WG and
    help form a bridge between the two WGs

    MH: think first we should split the spec
    ... then we could propose APIs are spec'ed by CSS WG
    ... I think we can define the Media feature

    MC: I don't care so much where the specs are done
    ... more important that the specs Get Done
    ... but we can't rely on CSS WG to do our work

    MH: think we should define Media feature here in WebApps
    ... and them give them the interfaces

    MC: but we'll need to give them resource to define the interfaces

    MH: a concern I have is their scope is broader than our requirements
    ... I agree though we should do more about our interfaces
    ... but need to work closely with CSS WG
    ... want to avoid us creating something for which CSS WG finds

    AB: we can certainly ask them to review anything we want
    ... we can't guarantee a response

    RB: we need to be careful about tracking whether or not they respond

    AB: agree; that means I'll need to follow-up with the CSS WG Chairs
    and/or their Team Contact

    <annevk> (nitpicking on the sideline here: you're required to reply

View Modes spec: Issue-96 -> Should we split the ViewModes

    AB: on August 20 Marcin sent an email to CSS WG (
    64.html ) that asked for feedback about a propose spec split. On
    August 24 Robin sent a follow-up to CSS WG (
    99.html ). Marcin raised this as Issue-96 (
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/96 ).

      [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [36] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/96

    MH: I created this to track the question

    AB: what you did is OK
    ... what do people think about this?

    MC: ok to split

    RB: OK with me

    AB: anyone object to splitting the spec?

    [ None]

    RESOLUTION: the VM spec will be split into two parts interfaces and
    View Mode Media feature

    MH: we can discuss spec titles with CSS WG
    ... I will split the spec into two specs
    ... I will get this FPWD ready ASAP

    AB: I think you should get the Media feature spec ready first

    MH: will do but I willl be on holiday most of next week

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow close issue #96 [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-397 - Close issue #96 [on Arthur Barstow -
    due 2009-09-03].

View Modes spec: Issue-98 -> Cargo-culting (Relation DOM3 Events)

    AB: Marcin raised (
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/98 ) this issue on
    August 26 after a related discussion on www-dom and public-webapps
    but it appears there is consensus o(
    14.html ) n how to address this issue. Marcin, what's the status of
    this Issue?

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/98
      [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MH: there are a few sub-issues
    ... what is closed is the type argurment
    ... the bubbling and canceling still needs some discussion
    ... we need to talk with the DOM people
    ... but these issues are part of the VM Interfaces spec so not the
    highest priority ATM
    ... we can discussion started with DOM and CSS WG after we get a
    FPWD out
    ... we could close this issue and create a new one re bubbling and

    AB: that's OK with me
    ... anyone object to that?

    RB: I'm fine with that

    [ No other objections ]

    RESOLUTION: Issue #98 will be closed and Marcin will create a new
    issue related to Bubbling and Canceling events vis-a-vis the VM
    Interfaces spec

    AB: anything else on View Modes for today?

    [ None ]

URI Scheme spec: status and next steps

    AB: the URI Scheme spec's FPWD was 18 June (
    [40]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ )

      [40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/

    RB: we haven't had much feedback
    ... was expecting more feedback from TAG despite me prodding them
    ... Not sure what to do next
    ... We could fix the technical issues and then publish a LCWD
    ... That would prolly be the easiest way

    MC: I agree we should do that

    RB: I'm happy to make the related fixes

    AB: I tend to support that proposal
    ... I don't think we'll get any more feedback until we publish a
    ... any objections to preparing a LCWD of the URI Scheme spec?

    [ None ]

    <scribe> ACTION: Berjon prepare URI Scheme spec for LCWD [recorded
    in [41]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-398 - Prepare URI Scheme spec for LCWD [on
    Robin Berjon - due 2009-09-03].

    RB: I'll try to get it ready in one week

    AB: OK, so then let's try to be in a position where on Sep 3 we can
    make a Yes/No decision


    AB: anything?

    MH: re WARP
    ... we in ACCESS are thinking about objecting to this spec
    ... I provided some info a while ago
    ... the feature element and this spec is the basis for our concern
    ... the subdomain attribute of access element is a problem area
    ... think we need a more extensible design
    ... may want to include other URI schemes e.g. sms:, tel:, etc.
    ... also the name of the spec is an issue
    ... need more work on security model
    ... need more spec on what is done in the proc model and what is
    defined in the syntax of <access>
    ... need to have some related discussions in DAP

    RB: can you put your concerns in an email?

    MH: yes, I will do that

    RB: for each issue, please raise a LC issue
    ... if you are not satisified with the WG's response, that will lead
    to a Formal Objection

    MH: my email will include proposals on how to address the issues I

    RB: please indicate the issues are against the LC doc

    AB: anything else on this subject?
    ... one reason we had a long review period for WARP was to give DAP
    some time to ramp up and review it
    ... any other topics for AOB?

    [ None ]

    AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow close issue #96 [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow talk to Hixie about the publication status and
    plans for Web Storage [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Berjon prepare URI Scheme spec for LCWD [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 14:14:15 UTC