- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 10:21:12 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the June 3 Widgets voice conference are available
at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before June 17 (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
03 Jun 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0878.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Frederick, Marcos, StevenP, Robin, Arve, Josh
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Digital Signatures for Widgets spec
4. [8]Packaging and Configuration spec
5. [9]view-mode Media Feature spec
6. [10]GZip, ...
7. [11]AOB
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<darobin> on my way sir!
Review and tweak agenda
AB: the draft agenda was submitted yesterday (
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/08
78.html ). Any change requests?
... we will drop GZip if Arve doesn't join
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0878.html
Announcements
AB: any short announcements?
Digital Signatures for Widgets spec
AB: the LC comment period ended June 1 and no comments were
submitted. As such, I think the spec is ready to be published as a
Candidate Recommendation. Any comments?
SP: if there are no comments, it will raise some suspicion
AB: we published a CR last summer
... the LCs we published since then reflected impl feedback
... we also got review from XML Sec WG
SP: ok; include that data in the Trans Req
AB: will do
... proposed resolution: the group agrees to publish a Candidate
Recommendation of the widgets Digital Signature spec
... any comments?
... any objections?
MC: Opera supports CR
FH: I think it supports a lot of good improvements
... I support it
AB: hearing no objections, I will record a positive decision
RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a Candidate Recommendation
of the widgets Digital Signature spec
AB: who will prepare the CR version including an updated SotD?
Perhaps we should use the WARP CR as a template for the SotD
([14]http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-access/)
[14] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-access/)
MC: I can do it but not until next week
FH: when do you expect to publish?
AB: probably not until June 22 or 24
<scribe> ACTION: macros notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is
updated [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - macros
<scribe> ACTION: marcos notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is
updated [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-559 - Notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD
is updated [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-06-10].
AB: what is the date of the earliest PR? I'd say pub date + 4 weeks
MC: ok with me
AB: re the pub date, how about June 24?
SP: we want to do trans call for VMMF at same time?
AB: yes, that is correct
... anything else on DigSig?
Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: the agenda (
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/08
78.html ) includes pointers to comments from the I18N WG. They were
are marked as "Editorial". What is the status Marcos?
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0878.html
MC: I think I addressed them all
AB: please check and make any editorial changes that are needed
... there was also an email from Addison Phillips the Chair of the
I18N WG (
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/08
63.html ). In this e-mail he voiced support for the spec changes
Marcos has made. As such I think we have "closed the loop" with the
I18N WG and the spec is ready for a new publication which is a
Proposed Recommendation.
... any comments on publishing P&C as a Proposed Rec?
... Marcos, we have implementation data?
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0863.html
MC: yes
... and we can also have some implementation data for the I18N stuff
AB: are we going to need a 2nd impl for the I18N features?
MC: if we can show a JS impl and an Opera impl
... that should be sufficient
SP: if a May, then yes, 1 impl should be enough; 2 would of course
be better
AB: proposed resolution: the group agrees to publish a Proposed
Recommendation of the Widget Packaging and Configuration spec
... any objections?
... any support you want to indicate?
<darobin> +1
SP: yes, go for it
RB: support
MC: support
AB: I also support this
RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a Proposed Recommendation of
the Widget Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: Marcos, please prepare the doc for publication. You may want to
look at other PRs in /TR/ e.g. CSS3 Selectors (
[19]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-css3-selectors-20091215/ )
... this will require a Director's call as well as some additional
process e.g. AC review.
... I need to read up on the Process part
[19] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-css3-selectors-20091215/
SP: need a transition call
... then a vote form gets sent to the AC
... Must make sure that AC reps submit their vote
... We want to get as many votes as we can
AB: excellent advice
SP: do we want to include 3 specs in one trans call?
AB: the advice I got from PLH is to keep them to 1 hour
SP: let's first take care of the TransReq
... and then the call
AB: OK; will do
<scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a TransReq for P&C PR [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-560 - Submit a TransReq for P&C PR [on
Arthur Barstow - due 2010-06-10].
AB: anything else on P&C for today?
... CONGRATULATIONS TO MARCOS!
view-mode Media Feature spec
AB: last week we agreed to publish a CR of the VMMF spec
... Jim Allan from WAI's User Agent Guidelines WG submitted an
e-mail (
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/08
58.html ) about the VMMF spec. Marcos, Robin and I all responded. I
haven't seen a reply from Jim nor the UA WG.
... I did ask Jim to please follow-up
... I am tempted to move ahead with the TransReq to CR
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0858.html
RB: I agree
AB: any concerns about moving forward?
<darobin> "Please consider including a statement such as "The user
agent *must* display the view-modes in a manner that meets the
accessibility guidelines of UAAG20. ""
AB: hearing no concerns, I will proceed with the TransReq
RB: NB the "please CONSIDER" part
... we did consider it
AB: the Plan of Record is to move forward
GZip, ...
AB: during the last call we began to discuss GZip, streaming and
widget packaging, etc. (
[22]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#item06 ) but Arve
wasn't available.
... we can discuss this today
[22] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#item06
Arve: the major diff between Zip and GZip Tarball
... is the Zip has an index at the end of the file
... need to wait for the zip to get loaded
... with GZip, there is no such index
... data stored in chunks
... header contains the data needed
... For packaged resources, GZip would allow immediate processing
... so don't have to read everything before starting to process
... Could place config.xml at the BoFile and then process it
immediately
... could process config.xml while the rest of the zip is still
downloading
... some widgets could benefit from this
... e.g. large video or audio files in the package
... could initialize and start game without the entire resource
being available
... this is a good advantage
... Inserting this support into the current spec would just bloat
the spec
... and delay P&C
... If we are to take this on, we should separate config into one
spec and packaging into a separate spec
... It would then allow Tar + GZ to be in a separate packaging spec
MC: if the market wants another signing format, we can specify one
... XML Sig does work
... we understand JAR signing could work too
... on a technical level, XML Sig is OK
JS: one requirement is that it be easy to do
... thus our use of Zip
... relying on features on that are not readily available for on
multiple platforms is not good
... e.g. ordering of files in a Zip varies
Arve: if we have good use cases, tools will follow/exist
JS: the claim that Zip can't be used for streaming I question
Arve: but end up doing more requests
JS: I think we have met our original reqs
... there is no req for partial archives
... I think the entire archive must be validated
... concerned about partial archive validation
... e.g. some file being deleted during the streaming
... that would invalidate the signed archive
<timeless_mbp> OK
<timeless_mbp> The Game use case
<timeless_mbp> The game has a start video
<timeless_mbp> which is somehow "streamable" (it sounds like in
order to make this work it needs to be interlaced, and I suspect
that's either split across files or not done w/ tar)
<darobin> [The Streaming Widget Use Case: you want to embed a widget
in a web page. You want that to be fast. End of UC]
<timeless_mbp> the game also has a file which it uses to verify that
the game is licensed to this specific user
<timeless_mbp> the game archive has a signature which ensures that
the archive isn't tampered with
<timeless_mbp> if the archive is retransmitted and someone deletes
that file which was used to verify the license
<timeless_mbp> then the author is surprised
<timeless_mbp> because the author was relying on the signing of the
complete package
<timeless_mbp> and the package validation to protect the archive
<timeless_mbp> --
AB: does anyone plan to push this into WebApps charter?
Arve: not sure it is important enough at the moment
... we do need to think about market forces
... If there is going to be a round 2 of widget specs, we should
consider UCs like tar-gz
... Should consider the spec split regardless of whether the tar-gz
UC will be addressed
JS: I am not opposed to making things extensible
s/opposed as/opposed to/
Arve: re Robin and streaming embedded widgets, agree you want that
to be fast
RB: don't think range requests will work
JS: not sure tar allows interleaving
Arve: yes, tar is one at a time
JS: perhaps MPEG tech could be used
RB: we need to be careful with MPEG because of W3C Patent Policy
... think WebM support carouselling (sp?)
Arve: WebM is video container format
... not sure it is relevant for packaging web apps
<darobin> [and I meant interleaving more than carouselling actually]
AB: want to stop this discussion for today
... but we can resume June 17
Arve: want to propose a resolution ...
... to repackage P&C into packaging and config spec
JS: I'm OK but not sure if our charter permits it
<Steven> I think that the *content* is chartered, so splitting
should be trivial, since there is good reason
AB: so is the proposal, after P&C PR is published, you want to split
P&C into two separate specs?
Arve: yes
RB: I don't want to delay REC
Arve: what about WDs?
MC: I need to evaluate the spec
... it could be viewed as Editorial
... there could be some different ways to address the issue
... e.g. make it clear a different packaing format could be used
AB: I am reluctant to record a resolution now
... I need to think about it
MC: yes, we need to think this through first
<darobin> [I would be happy with a resolution to do that right after
Rec, for a no-change 1.1]
SP: if one could argue there would be no change in technical
content, it would be safe
<darobin> [if we have guarantees from W3M that we can safely split,
then fine]
Arve: so safe to split the spec into two?
SP: yes
<darobin> [additional consideration: if we split well enough, it's
not widget-specific anymore]
AB: I agree that if we split the spec, it would not require a
charter review
<darobin> [we have Simple Web Packaging, Widget Configuration,
Widget: Media Type and File Extension]
AB: it could be this split would be a natural outcome of the Widget
Embedding deliverable that has been proposed
<darobin> [then we just add Streamable Web Packagin]
<arve> [streaming web packages may very well be a core requirement
of embedded widgets]
<darobin> [I think it ought to be]
<darobin> [without it, loading files directly will feel faster than
the compressed, packaged version :)]
AOB
AB: does anyone have anything to discuss?
<darobin> [23]http://www.w3.org/2010/api-privacy-ws/
[23] http://www.w3.org/2010/api-privacy-ws/
AB: no call on June 10; next call is June 17
RB: don't forget about the Privacy Workshop!
JS: where?
RB: London
... mid July
... before DAP f2f meeting
... it is open to the Public
Arve: one must submit a Position Paper to attend
JS: how long?
RB: length isn't important - cogent ideas are
AB: meeting adjourned
RSSAgent, make minutes
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow submit a TransReq for P&C PR [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: macros notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated
[recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated
[recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 14:22:08 UTC