- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:03:02 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the May 6 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before May 13 (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
06 May 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0445.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcos, Frederick, Arve, Kenneth, Josh
Regrets
Robin, Marcin
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Digital Signature spec
4. [8]Packaging and Configuration spec
5. [9]Widget interface spec
6. [10]WARP spec
7. [11]URI scheme spec
8. [12]View Modes
9. [13]Requirements doc
10. [14]Moving from CVS to DVCS
11. [15]AoB
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Review and tweak agenda
AB: draft agenda posted on May 4 (
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
45.html ). Any change requests?
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0445.html
Announcements
AB: Reminder: comment period for 15-Apr-2010 LCWD of Digital
Signatures for Widgets spec ends May 6:
[18]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/
... Reminder: comment period for 20-Apr-2010 LCWD of View Mode Media
Feature spec ends 18-May-2010:
[19]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-view-mode-20100420/
[18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/
[19] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-view-mode-20100420/
<Marcos> /me tlr, right. We do another LC.
Digital Signature spec
AB: Marcos submitted some comments against the 15-Apr-2010 LCWD (
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/03
92.html ).
... do any of the changes affect an implementation? Do we need to
publish another LCWD?
... I gather we'd prefer not to publish another LC but we also agree
that it would be good to get review on the changes
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0392.html
<tlr> For the record, I'm in favor of doing another LC.
FH: I think we should publish another LC
... we need to get review of the changes
...
MC: I can live with another LC
... we can use it to continue to work on the test suite
<fjh> additional proposed change before last call
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
99.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0499.html
AB: OK, so we will indeed publish a new LC
... also have a comment from Andreas (
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
81.html )
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0481.html
FH: we need to make that change
... but it won't affect an implementation
... we should make that clarificatin
AB: Marcos, have you looked at this comment from Andreas?
MC: yes, I think that was the intention
<fjh> ggest we change 3a from "The URI attribute ..." to be "For
<fjh> references that are not same-document references, the URI
attribute..."
AB: can that change be added to the spec today?
MC: yes
AB: propose we publish a new LC with Marcos' changes plus an edit to
address Andreas' comment
... any objections to that proposal?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: we will publish a new LC of widget-digsig with Marcos'
changes plus an edit to address Andreas' comment
AB: LC comment tracking doc:
[23]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-d
igsig-20100415/ but since we are going to publish another LC, I
don't see a need to track comments for the 20-Apr-2010 LC
... anything else for DigSig?
[23] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-
widgets-digsig-20100415/
FH: status should say it is a revision
MC: yes, I'll add that
<scribe> ACTION: marcos notify Art when the widget-digsig LC is
ready for publication [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-536 - Notify Art when the widget-digsig LC
is ready for publication [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-05-13].
AB: thanks guys!
FH: thanks Marcos
MC: when will LC period end
AB: if the 3-week LC starts May 11, then the comment period will end
on June 1
Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: Marcos, what is the status of tests for the <span> element and
dir attribute?
MC: we are waiting on closure for the I18N WG
... still haven't heard from them
... missing about 1/2 of the tests for the override
AB: I thought we had closed the loop with them
MC: they went quiet; don't know if that means they agree
... need to decide if the I18N tests become part of the main test
suite
AB: if we do that, we loose some of our 100% implementations
... is that correct?
MC: yes
AB: I'm opposed to doing it then
MC: agree, the I18N tests are separate from the core test suite
... an impl Should be able to handle the I18N stuff
... but we can't put UI reqs in the spec
AB: first step is getting closure from I18N WG
MC: we can't go to PR without 2 I18N impls
<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask I18N WG if they approve the span and
dir changes [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-537 - Ask I18N WG if they approve the span
and dir changes [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
AB: ACTION-533 "P&C spec: re the dir attributes "lro" and "rlo"
values, need to define these or add a reference to their
definitions" ( [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/533
)
... Marcos and I talked about this in IRC last
... week without any resolution
... are these override values used much in HTML?
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/533
Arve: no, don't think so
Kenneth: no, not much use
MC: get them for "free" via unicode
... the idea is to say something like: see Unicode's bidi algorithm
for more info about the overrides
AB: OK, so there is agreement something needs to be added
MC: yes, I'll address this action
Widget interface spec
AB: ISSUE-116 "Need to flesh out the security considerations for the
openURL method in the Widget Interface spec" (
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 ).
... MC proposed text here:
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
39.html
... that text looked OK to me
[27] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0439.html
MC: a question is whether or not this becomes normative
... I also asked Adam Barth about that
AB: did Adam respond?
MC: not yet
... and TLR was wondering about Adam's feedback
<scribe> ACTION: barstow follow up with Adam Barth re
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
39.html [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0439.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-538 - Follow up with Adam Barth re
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
39.html [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0439.html
AB: my gut feel is to make that text non-normative
MC: TLR was inclined to make it Normative
AB: I would like that spec to remain in Candidate
<arve> no comments from me
MC: I agree
<kenneth> none from me either
WARP spec
AB: note, that Robin isn't here
... are there any developments on the test suite?
MC: I am not aware of any work on the WARP test suite
AB: is some additional text needed re the default policy (
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
56.html )
... this thread was started by Scott Wilson
... Marcos' replies provided good info
... do we need some new text about default policy?
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0456.html
MC: I think we should wait for Robin's input here
... need to have more discussion especially re embedded widgets
... embedded widgets get their origin from the Web page
... we need a spec about what happens here i.e. Web sec model or
Widget sec model
<scribe> ACTION: robin work with Marcos on what WARP should or
should not say for the default security model re AB: is some
additional text needed re the default policy (
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
56.html ) [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0456.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-539 - Work with Marcos on what WARP should
or should not say for the default security model re AB: is some
additional text needed re the default policy (
[35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
56.html ) [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-05-13].
[35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0456.html
URI scheme spec
AB: without Robin, we won't do a deep dive today
... ACTION-526 "Widget URI scheme: define the widget *URI* syntax in
terms of RFC 3986 per
[36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/01
41.html" ( [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526 )
... ISSUE-16 "Do widgets need their own URI scheme?" (
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/16 )
... what do we do with this Issue?
... should we just close it?
... we have a spec which certainly implies we need it
[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0141.html
[37] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526
[38] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/16
MC: yes, I would close it
<scribe> ACTION: barstow close Issue-16 base on the widget: URI
scheme LC [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-540 - Close Issue-16 base on the widget:
URI scheme LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
<scribe> ACTION: barstow can tracker be rigged so that the assignee
is sent an e-mial when an action is created? [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-541 - Can tracker be rigged so that the
assignee is sent an e-mial when an action is created? [on Arthur
Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
View Modes
AB: ISSUE-97 "How is ViewModes DOM related to CSSOM?" (
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97 ).
... we have decided to use CSSOM spec
... and not a View Modes API spec
... thus I think we can close this
[41] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97
MC: agree
<kenneth> im fine with closing it
<scribe> ACTION: barstow close issue-97 given the WG's decision to
use CSSOM [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-542 - Close issue-97 given the WG's
decision to use CSSOM [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
AB: ACTION-535 "VMMF spec: respond to CSS WG re timeline for the
CSSOM spec" ( [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/535
). Discussion with CSS WG is public (
[44]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hypertext-cg/2010AprJ
un/0005.html ). We are asked about timelines.
... does anyone have any input on the timelines for CSSOM?
[43] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/535
[44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hypertext-cg/
2010AprJun/0005.html
MC: no; but think we need to submit our use cases
... to the CSS WG
... I sent them to Robin
... He gave me some feedback
... I need to integrate that feedback and then send them to the CSS
WG
AB: ok, we will leave this open for now
Requirements doc
AB: It's now over one year since the Widget Requirements doc was
last published. As such it is out-of-date with our specs as captured
in ACTION-534 "Widget Reqs: update to include latest versions of
specs (TWI, WARP, VMMF, P&C, etc.)" (
[45]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/534 ).
[45] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/534
MC: I need to update some refs
... and do some edits
... After we are done the widgets specs we can publish it as a WG
Note
... I can identify those reqs we met and those we do not meet
AB: what do you mean by "done" here
... do you mean LC or CR?
MC: I don't think there is anything to be gained by publishing it
AB: do we have some reqs in specs that point to the Reqs doc but
aren't actually in the Reqs doc?
MC: yes, there probably are some of those
... so in that case, a new pub would make sense
AB: I understand there are priorities but keeping specs in sync with
Reqs doc would be good
MC: we do need to update the refs
... it would be some make work
AB: it is the only spec that still includes 1.0
<kenneth> it did cause me some confusion in the beginning :-)
<scribe> ACTION: barstow review the Reqs doc and update refs
[recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-543 - Review the Reqs doc and update refs
[on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
Moving from CVS to DVCS
AB: Marcos proposed moving the widget specs from CVS to DVCS (
[47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
41.html ). So far the comments have been positive.
... in principle this is OK but support it IFF old links point to
the new stuff
... have you done a trial?
[47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0441.html
MC: no but I know Robin is using the system
AB: I assume in the long term it will save us time
... like bulk checkins
JS: easy to do things like directory deletes
MC: also easier to do branches
JS: slight syntax diff between Mercurial and git
<timeless_mbp> there are minor command differences between hg and
git
<timeless_mbp> but conceptually they should be feature equivalent
AoB
AB: Next voice conference is May 13
... meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow ask I18N WG if they approve the span and dir
changes [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow can tracker be rigged so that the assignee is
sent an e-mial when an action is created? [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow close Issue-16 base on the widget: URI scheme
LC [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow close issue-97 given the WG's decision to use
CSSOM [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow follow up with Adam Barth re
[52]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
39.html [recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow review the Reqs doc and update refs [recorded
in [54]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos notify Art when the widget-digsig LC is ready
for publication [recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: robin work with Marcos on what WARP should or should
not say for the default security model re AB: is some additional
text needed re the default policy (
[56]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/04
56.html ) [recorded in
[57]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[52] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0439.html
[56] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010AprJun/0456.html
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 14:04:01 UTC