- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:14:44 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the April 8 Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before April 15 (the next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved. -Art Barstow [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - Widgets Voice Conference 08 Apr 2010 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010AprJun/0035.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-irc Attendees Present Art, Marcos, Frederick, Kenneth, Josh, Arve, Thomas, Wonsuk_Lee, Robin, Doug Regrets StevenP Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Review and tweak agenda 2. [6]Announcements: 3. [7]Widget Digital Signature spec 4. [8]WARP spec 5. [9]P&C spec 6. [10]View Modes Media Feature spec 7. [11]View Modes Interfaces spec 8. [12]Widget Update spec 9. [13]AOB * [14]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ <scribe> Scribe: Art <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB Review and tweak agenda AB: the draft agenda was posted yesterday ( [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/00 35.html ). Any change requests? If we have time today, during the AOB topic, I'd like to discuss publishing a new WD of the Widget Update spec. [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010AprJun/0035.html FH: want to talk about DigSig and WARP AB: we can re-arrange the topics Announcements: AB: any short announcements? Widget Digital Signature spec AB: yesterday Frederick submitted a revised Change Request ( [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/00 28.html ) for the C14N bug we briefly discussed last week. Any comments or concerns about this CR? [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010AprJun/0028.html [ no ] AB: this CR will affect existing implementations. Thus the spec will need to return to Last Call WD. FH: the feedback I got is that it is OK MC: I think it is OK; thanks for doing this FH FH: I discussed this with TLR ... and with people within Nokia ... internal feedback and TLR feedback is OK ... don't think we have an backward compat harm ... I think we should adopt it since it will help prevent future interop issues TR: have we had review from other implementors? ... e.g. Bryan Sullivan FH: I haven't seen anything from Bryan TR: who do we expect impl report and what have they said MC: I expect Opera to implement; BONDI may have has already implemented TR: 2nd question - there was another comment on the list ... about optionality here re c14n FH: I think the revised text addresses this concern ... I responded to Andreas on the list ... don't think we want too many options ... it just leads to interop problems <tlr> Ah, I had overlooked this file: "A ds:Reference that is not to same-document XML content <tlr> MUST NOT have any ds:Transform elements." MC: the feedback we get is that we don't want to do c14n on XML lines within the widget FH: I think MC's argumentation is stronger since it is based on implementor feedback AB: this CR will affect existing implementations. Thus the spec will need to return to Last Call WD. FH: yes, it will affect implementations AB: proposed RESOLUTION: the group agrees FH's Widget DigSig Change Request should be applied ... any objections? FH: do we need to deal with BONDI explicitly? AB: I think we have given everyone sufficient time to respond ... any objections to the proposed resolution? [ none ] RESOLUTION: the group agrees FH's Widget DigSig Change Request should be applied <scribe> ACTION: frederick update the Widget DigSig spec to reflect the CR [recorded in [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot> Created ACTION-519 - Update the Widget DigSig spec to reflect the CR [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-04-15]. RB: yes, I support this CR AB: we need to record consensus to publish the new LCWD ... proposed RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a new LCWD of the Widget Digital Signature spec ... any objections? [ no ] RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a new LCWD of the Widget Digital Signature spec AB: review period: I think we should go for the 3-week minimum. OK? <darobin> +! <fjh> +1 <darobin> +1 AB: any object to a 3-wk review period? [ no ] <fjh> +spot <darobin> +his arse AB: other than the XML Security WG, is there any other WG we want to ask to review the new LC? FH: I'd like people to review my change ... let's shoot for a April 15 pub ... I can make the ED changes today AB: great <scribe> ACTION: barstow notify the WG after FH adds the CR to the ED [recorded in [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action02] <trackbot> Created ACTION-520 - Notify the WG after FH adds the CR to the ED [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-04-15]. AB: Frederick, please apply Action-508 "Widget DigSig spec: make sure references to XML Sig 1.1 are updated" ( [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/508 ) [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/508 <fjh> not Candidate Req but change request FH: sure, I will do that AB: anything else on dig sig for today FH: after the ED is done, I do pub rules AB: after it passes pubrules, notify me ... anything else on DigSig for today? WARP spec AB: Robin, please check Action-511 "Check if WARP spec should use RFC2181 instead of RFC1034" based on a comment from Yves ( [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/511 ) ... Robin completed the WARP LC disposition of comments (DoC) document several weeks ago. Today we want to approve this document ( [21]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-a ccess-20091208/doc/ ). ... any issues with this WARP DoC document? [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/511 [21] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- widgets-access-20091208/doc/ [ no ] AB: last week we discussed advancing the WARP spec to Candidate Recommendation. Does anyone have any concerns about that? ... proposed RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish the WARP spec as a Candidate Recommendation ... are there any objections to that? <darobin> +1 AB: or voices of support? RB: support MC: support RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish the WARP spec as a Candidate Recommendation <scribe> ACTION: barstow schedule a Director's call to publish a CR of the WARP spec [recorded in [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action03] <trackbot> Created ACTION-521 - Schedule a Director's call to publish a CR of the WARP spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-04-15]. AB: Robin, you'll need to attend ... anyone else want join? DS: I should be there AB: anything else on WARP for today? P&C spec AB: this topic is intended to review the latest comments the I18N Core WG has re Marcos' latest proposal ( [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/00 21.html ). But I haven't seen any recent replies. [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010AprJun/0021.html <Marcos> fjh, I can help you with processing the doc MC: I haven't seen anything more from them AB: should we start the process of moving this spec to PR? MC: we won't be able to show ITS support AB: my take on this issue from previous discussions, is that SteveP has indicated we don't need to have implementations but able to show it can be implemented MC: I thought we need the test and a screen shot it had been implemented ... I don't think having tests is enough DS: technically, think you just need to show it can be implemented MC: I've implemented it in JS DS: some people think the impls must be in real products MC: this functionality was a MAY ... we only added it to satisfy the I18N community ... we never had impl support for it AB: so is this functionality optional MC: no, it is part of the language DS: I think Steven is correct to pass PR MC: we have the tests ... we need Robin's impl ... and with Opera we can show some screenshots ... think wookie is going to implement AB: are these tests part of the core test suite or off on the side? MC: off on the side AB: is this going to affect Implementation Report we already have? MC: we will leave these out ... and put them in a separate impl report AB: I think that's OK ... and it can be a really simple report ... so until we have the screenshots and impls, we can't go to PR MC: that's right <darobin> [I have no idea at all] AB: any timeframe for screenshots or implementations? <darobin> ["weeks"] MC: no, not at this point; could be in a few weeks AB: are there any other action items re P&C spec? ... can we go from CR to CR? DS: no, must go thru LC <darobin> [straight to PR!] AB: OK, so we continue to sit in CR until we have at least 2 implementation reports of the <span> and dir atrribute DS: if you know you have to wait, it could be more efficient to go back to LC AB: thanks for that input View Modes Media Feature spec AB: ED is: [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/ ... what is the status of responding to comments, updating the spec? [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/ RB: I expect to make progress today AB: great ... anything you need from the rest of us? RB: nothing now AB: anything else for VMMF? KC: think chrome definition needs some work <darobin> [send an issue :)] KC: as I said on the list RB: I will go through all of the emails; won't miss it KC: sounds good View Modes Interfaces spec AB: Kenneth proposed to rename ViewModeChanged to ViewModeChange ( [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/00 02.html ). Any comments on this proposal? [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010AprJun/0002.html <darobin> +1 JS: need to look at what HTML does ... have onMouseDown ... and similar <timeless_mbp> OnViewChange JS: could argue for onViewChange KC: onWidgetModeChange <kenneth> yes <kenneth> I think opera uses onwidgetmodechange JS: not sure we want to use that triple ... also pretty sure we do not want to include the term "widget" <kenneth> the problem with onviewchange is that it didnt change to another view <kenneth> include? JS: perhaps "presentation" is better ... could look for prior usage of it ... onPresentationChange or onRepresentationChange <timeless_mbp> I'm done :) <kenneth> i got dropped from the call wait AB: if people have counter-proposals, please respond to KC's email on the list ... Kenneth suggests we need an API for requesting view mode changes from JavaScript? ( [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/00 02.html ). Any comments? [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010AprJun/0002.html <kenneth> I cannot get the phone to work :-( <kenneth> ArtB, any way, what about the -d ? changed vs change? AB: there is no consensus on your proposal ... continue discussion on the mail list <darobin> [FWIW I think that dropping the -d is fine, it's more consistent with the rest] <kenneth> ok <darobin> [I also think that naming issues shouldn't be discussed by groups, they are editor territory] KC: we need that API ... so apps can change view modes ... but some widgets may not support all modes ... thus need a request ... also a question about where the API should be defined ... e.g. the Widget Interface spec MC: we can't put it in TWI spec since that spec is in CR RB: could be put in TWI spec 1.1 MC: don't want versioned specs but supplemental specs <timeless_mbp> TWITNG MC: if we can put this in CSSOM [Views] that would be good <darobin> Anne van Kesteren KC: who can talk to about doing that? MC: Anne van Kesteren and/or the CSS WG <kenneth> sounds frisian :-) <kenneth> ah MC: Opera's view is to use CSSOM as much as possible AB: can you take a cut at what should move to CSSOM and what, if anything, would be left for us to specifiy MC: I got some pushback from AvK (see list) ... may need to take this to the CSS WG ... perhaps Robin or Josh can help here AB: we do indeed need someone to agree to do spec split analysis <darobin> [I will look into it, but just like timeless I need time] MC: I can ask AvK <scribe> ACTION: marcos talk to AvK about how to split the VM-I spec and the CSSOM spec [recorded in [27]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action04] <trackbot> Created ACTION-522 - Talk to AvK about how to split the VM-I spec and the CSSOM spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-04-15]. MC: perhaps we can co-edit the spec with him AB: anyone else beside KC that can help with this spec split analysis? MC: I will push internally AB: ok, sounds good ... anything else on VM-I for today? Widget Update spec AB: I believe Marcos has added all of the PAG's recommendations to the ED MC: yes, that is correct ... it was actually Robin that did the edits AB: thanks Robin! ... I think it would be useful to get a formal WD published that just reflects the PAGs recommendations ... thus I'd like to see a new WD published as soon as we can MC: I agree ... it needs to be labeled as a snapshot AB: we can address that via the Status of the Doc MC: I'll add some more stuff AB: propose that we publish the Widget Update spec as soon as Marcos can get it ready ... any objections? [ none ] AB: can you get it ready for publication next week? MC: yes, I can get it pubrules compliant today <scribe> ACTION: marcos notify ArtB when Widget Update spec is ready for a new WD publication [recorded in [28]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action05] <trackbot> Created ACTION-523 - Notify ArtB when Widget Update spec is ready for a new WD publication [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-04-15]. MC: perhaps we can coordiante the publications AB: there is some value in that but also some additional coordination overhead ... anything else on Updates spec for today? AOB AB: any other topics for today? ... next meeting is April 15. This meeting is adjourned. <kenneth> I might not be joining as I'm travelling to US Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: barstow notify the WG after FH adds the CR to the ED [recorded in [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action02] [NEW] ACTION: barstow schedule a Director's call to publish a CR of the WARP spec [recorded in [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action03] [NEW] ACTION: frederick update the Widget DigSig spec to reflect the CR [recorded in [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action01] [NEW] ACTION: marcos notify ArtB when Widget Update spec is ready for a new WD publication [recorded in [32]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action05] [NEW] ACTION: marcos talk to AvK about how to split the VM-I spec and the CSSOM spec [recorded in [33]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action04] [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 14:15:54 UTC