- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:58:54 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the September 17 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 24 September 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
17 Sep 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1090.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcin, Arve, Marcos, Robin, Benoit, Frederick, Wayne
Regrets
Josh, Bryan, Jere
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]P&C spec: Media Type status
4. [8]P&C spec: URI/IRI normalization
5. [9]A&E / Widget Interface spec: Comments on section 5.1
protected preferences by Scott Wilson
6. [10]A&E / Widget Interface spec: August 19 comment from
Scott Wilson
7. [11]URI Scheme spec
8. [12]View Modes Media Features spec
9. [13]AOB
* [14]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 17 September 2009
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
98.html
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1098.html
Review and tweak agenda
AB: the Draft agenda was sent on Sept 16 (
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
90.html ).
... When we talk about the A&E/Widget interface spec, we will
include a comment from Scott Wilson (
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
98.html ) which is a reminder we haven't responded to an email of
his from 19 August. Any change requests?
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1090.html
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1098.html
[ No ]
Announcements
AB: reminder that Sep 20 comment deadline for WARP LCWD. Does anyone
have any other short announcements?
... TPAC, please register ASAP
P&C spec: Media Type status
AB: the P&C Candidate spec includes an ISSUE re registering the
application/widget media type (
[18]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20090723/#media-type ).
[18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20090723/#media-type
MC: I plan to get that soon
... I don't think it will affect testing
AB: Do you need something from the rest us?
MC: not really
... I think it's clear what is needed, I just need to do it
... If I need help, I'll ask
AB: does anyone have relevant experience MC can leverage?
RB: will use IANA or the W3C fast track?
MC: W3C fast track
RB: will this require changing the CR?
MC: no I don't think so
... the RFC enumerates the requirements and I need to make sure the
spec includes those
AB: will you create a separate doc?
MC: no I think an appendix of the P+C is OK
AB: any other comments on this topic?
[ No ]
P&C spec: URI/IRI normalization
AB: last week we skipped URI/IRI normalization issue (
[19]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item03 ) because
Marcin was not on the call. After I published today's agenda, I18N
Core WG responded to Marcin's query (
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
99.html ). My interpretation of Addison's feedback is that we don't
need to make any changes.
... Marcin, Marcos, is Addison correct there is no change required?
[19] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item03
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1099.html
MC: need to hear from Marcin
MH: I accept the comments from the I18N WG
... percent encoding should not be used for IRIs
AB: Marcin, please add to the minutes here
<marcin2> Based on I18N comments I understand that the UTF8 usage in
IRI is based on character entities and not pctencoding.
MC: we may need to add a note to make things more clear
... Marcin did have a good point
<marcin2> I can live with the fact that such an IRI - as it would be
written into config.xml - would not be able to be copy-pasted into
the browser to point to any resource
AB: given the Note is non-normative, we will leave it to the Editor
to add clarifying text
MH: in email, MC suggested I create a widget but I don't think that
is necessary
MC: I will create a related test
... and add it to the test suite
AB: any last comments on this topic?
[ No ]
A&E / Widget Interface spec: Comments on section 5.1 protected
preferences by Scott Wilson
AB: on Sept 13 Scott submitted a comment re section 5.1 (
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
53.html ) and then yesterday he submitted a followup (
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
97.html ). What is the status?
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1053.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1097.html
MC: I think we have solved the problem Scott raised
... by using JS' getters and setters
... some recent additions to ES can be used
... the spec will need to use those
... I think Scott can now create a compliant client using JS
AB: is there some additional followup that needs to be done?
MC: yes; there are some additional clarification that need to be
made
... but this is not a blocking issue
... must tighten up some additional text
AB: thanks for working on this one
A&E / Widget Interface spec: August 19 comment from Scott Wilson
AB: on August 19 Scott Wilson submitted the following comment (
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
98.html ) and we have not yet responded.
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1098.html
<Viper23> hi
MC: I still need to investigate Scott's Aug 19 email
... it is related to the structured clone thread I started re
WebStorage spec
... we will need to take some text from WebStorage
... prefs attr needs some explicit behavior defined
Arve: you mean do a Copy-Paste?
MC: yes, that's what Hixie recommended
... see this thread
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
65.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1065.html
Arve: I want to read Hixie's reply
AB: so obviously there is still work that needs to be done on this
spec
Arve: I don't understand why Hixie doesn't want to specify the
general behavior
AB: can you follow-up Arve?
Arve: yes
AB: how much work needs to be done?
MC: I think it can be ready soon
RB: is the plan to go to a 2nd LC?
MC: yes; but as short as possible
RB: that means 3 weeks
AB: seems like we should have a 1-week review after MC completes his
changes
MC: I don't think we need a whole week
... based on experience, we won't get feedback until we publish
RB: I tend to agree we should just publish
<Benoit> I agree as well
MH: yesterday I commented on the latest ED rather than the LC
MC: I haven't looked at your comments yet Marcin
MH: there have not yet been any responses to my comments
MC: I will respond to those comments on Sep 18
AB: when do you think you can complete your edits?
MC: Tueday 22 Sept
AB: so then on Sep 24 we can make a decision on LC # publication
RB: I can help; let me know what needs to be done
AB: this would then mean a publication on the 29th
... not sure we can do better
... that then Plan of Record
... anything else on this spec today?
... since we will publish a new LCWD I don't think we need to
complete the Comment Tracking document we created for the August 18
LC.
MC: I am also trying to get ready for the Sep 21-23 Widget Test Fest
... I've already added the TA ids
... hope they create some tests for this
URI Scheme spec
AB: the URI scheme spec should be ready to publish as a LCWD (
[25]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ ) if Robin
updated the spec (
[26]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item06 ).
[25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
[26] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item06
<darobin>
[27]http://www.w3.org/mid/FF1199B3-7D6A-4481-A3F8-57F46E25D5A0@berjo
n.com
[27] http://www.w3.org/mid/FF1199B3-7D6A-4481-
A3F8-57F46E25D5A0@berjon.com
<darobin>
[28]http://www.w3.org/mid/9C10B32C-7F49-4CD0-B929-2622077CDA7D@berjo
n.com
[28] http://www.w3.org/mid/9C10B32C-7F49-4CD0-
B929-2622077CDA7D@berjon.com
AB: Robin, please give us a quick status
RB: have two major comments
... think the spec needs to be updated before we publish
... Jere's comment needs to be addressed
... think we may be mis-using the IRI spec
... these changes will take some time though
... the spec focues on abs URI
... but lacking some support for relative URIs
... Marcos also submitted some comment that need to be addressed
... I think this is going to take at leas one week
... It would be helpful for people to start discussing
<darobin> """
<darobin> So taking a different tack to defining the syntax, we
could state that for a URI to be a valid widget URI, then it must
match the IRI production in RFC 3987, with "scheme" being "widget".
That pretty much makes us as safe as can be syntax-wise.
<darobin> We then need a "Rule for converting the ipath-* bits to a
file name field", and anything that cannot be converted is simply
considered to resolve to nothing (the equivalent of a 404). This
requires a bigger change than I'd hoped, but I think it's probably
the right thing to do.
<darobin> """
<darobin> - should the requirements in WURI be moved to the
requirements document
<darobin> - HTML 5 origin issue
RB: we need input on the above comments from Jere and Marcos
AB: so it's going to be another week or two before we are ready to
make a decision about LC ready
View Modes Media Features spec
AB: we need to get the VMMF spec (
[29]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-mediafeature.src.html )
ready for FPWD as discussed last week (
[30]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item07 ). Marcin,
what's the status?
[29] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-
mediafeature.src.html
[30] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-wam-minutes.html#item07
MH: what is required for FPWD?
AB: I am not aware of any hard reqs
... are there any things you need to do?
MH: needs a ToC
RB: there are no absolute reqs for FPWD
... but want to think about IPR and exclusions
... by publishing a FPWD, the exclusion period starts
... the 2nd period starts when the LC is published
... want to make sure FPWD is as feature complete as possible
... at least mentions all of the features expected in the final
Recommendation
... even a simple paragraph that isn't well-defined is OK
MH: should we do a round of edits before we do a FPWD?
RB: do you think it is feature complete?
MH: yes
... but I will add a ToC
AB: everyone should review the spec and submit comments by Sept 24
... let's plan to make a decision about FPWD during the Sep 24 call
... besides myself, can anyone else do a thorough review?
RB: I will
AB: anything else on this topic for today?
MH: nothing from me
... note I will be traveling at this time next week
AOB
AB: good luck to those attending the Widgets Test Fest next week.
... who's going?
RB: me
MH: me too
AB: the meeting will be held in #wam?
RB: yes
AB: sorry I can't make it
<Viper23> me
AB: any other topics?
MC: I won't be able to join next week
Arve: I may not be able to join next week
AB: Meeting Adjourned; next meeting is Sep 24
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 13:59:44 UTC