- From: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:01:07 +0100
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi, I will not be able to join the call this Thursday. Thanks, Marcin Marcin Hanclik ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465 Mobile: +49-163-8290-646 E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com -----Original Message----- From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:14 PM To: public-webapps Subject: [widgets] Draft minutes from 11 February 2010 voice conference The draft minutes from the 11 February Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before 18 February (the next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved. -Art Barstow [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - Web Applications Working Group Teleconference 11 Feb 2010 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0532.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-irc Attendees Present Art, Robin, Bryan, StevenP, Marcos, Arve, Doug Regrets Stephen_Jolly, David_Rogers, Marcin_Hanclik Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Review and tweak agenda 2. [6]Announcements 3. [7]P&C spec: Important Test Suite Updates 4. [8]P&C spec: Action-486: Create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite 5. [9]Widget Interface spec: openURL() security considerations 6. [10]Widget Interface spec: general comments by Cyril Concolato 7. [11]Widget Interface spec: window object comments by Cyril Concolato 8. [12]TWI spec: test suite 9. [13]AOB: charter renewal 10. [14]AOB: ISO's MPEG-U and Widgets * [15]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ <trackbot> Date: 11 February 2010 <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB <scribe> Scribe: Art <scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference Date: 11 February 2010 <Marcos> member:Zakim, +1.479.524.aaaa is me <scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference <Marcos> bah Review and tweak agenda AB: yesterday I sent out the draft agenda for this meeting ( [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/05 32.html ). Are there any change requests? ... we will add MPEG-U discussion to AOB ( [17]http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-u/pt1.zip ) ... we will drop 5.a discuss Action-490 ( [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/490 ) since I hoping to get to it before this meeting but did not and thus have nothing to report. ... any agenda change requests? [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0532.html [17] http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-u/pt1.zip [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/490 [ no ] Announcements AB: two normative refs in Widgets DigSig to XML Signatures specs entered LCWD on Feb 4 ( [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/05 31.html ). Any other short announcements? [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0531.html P&C spec: Important Test Suite Updates AB: last week Marcos mentioned he would add a new test case to the P&C test suite. He has done that ( [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04 85.html ). Thanks Marcos! What is the status of people running this new test? [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0485.html MC: it has been run by Aplix, BONDI, Wookie have all run this new test and passed it AB: wrt the P&C Interop Report, are we back to 3 impls that pass 100% of the test suite? MC: yes, that is correct P&C spec: Action-486: Create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite AB: Marcos, what is the status of the P&C ITS testing and Action-486 ( [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/486 )? [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/486 MC: I haven't done that yet AB: do you need some help wrt coordinating with the I18N WG? MC: no, I just need to create the test or tests ... it's not that much work ... I don't think it should block us from going to PR AB: I agree but we know the Director has indicated he would like to see that test ... do you need an impl of ITS to test the tests? MC: yes, that is correct ... I am not aware of any impl that will support it ... it is indeed optional AB: would like SP to help us with the process here SP: if it is optional then there should be at least one impl ... with something like this, not sure what to suggest ... to go to REC with an unimplemented feature would mean the feature is at risk AB: but what about going to PR? SP: should try to find something that can do something with the test <scribe> ACTION: barstow work with MC and the Team to determine how to test the P&C ITS test(s) [recorded in [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot> Created ACTION-491 - Work with MC and the Team to determine how to test the P&C ITS test(s) [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-18]. SP: input mode on XHTML Basic, we did find an internal impl we could use ... without revealing confidential info ... [so there is a precedence that could be followed] MC: could it be placed in Widgeon Robin? RB: if you want to do so :-) MC: just need to insert the right unicodes RB: agree it could be done but I don't have the bandwidth to do it ... it is OSS so anyone can do the impl SP: I think that would be fine RB: agree it would take care of the process ... not sure though about how useful it is SP: may not have one complete impl for PR but all features must be implemented by some set of the impls ... need to show it is implementable, not necessarily implemented RB: we have tighter constraints MC: we said all MUST assertions must have tests ... support for ITS is Not Mandatory ... it wouldn't harm the spec if it was removed AB: to wrap up, I have Action-491 and I'd like to be in a position next week during our call to deteremine if we have consensus to move P&C spec to PR ... anything else on P&C for today? Widget Interface spec: openURL() security considerations AB: earlier this week Marcos proposed some security considerations text ( [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/05 01.html ) for the openURL method. [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0501.html MC: we proposed some text ... Adam raised some good issues ... want to wait for additional feedback ... would be good to hear from TLR AB: other than chasing down Adam, et al., is there anything else you need from the group? MC: no, that's it AB: the idea is to create non-normative guidelines? MC: yes but there is a question about if the file:// URI should not be used AB: would that change require us to go back to LC? MC: not sure; want to make this non-normative ... a UA may want to support file:// URI ... we can't keep an impl from doing that AB: any other feedback for MC on this? ... I'd like to see this added as non-normative text MC: I agree Widget Interface spec: general comments by Cyril Concolato AB: Cyrll posted some general comments about the TWI spec ( [24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04 79.html ). There were quite a few follow-ups. Where do we stand on these comments? ... will addressing any of these comments require the TWI spec to go back to LC? [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0479.html MC: I don't think any of these comments affect normative text ... I consider them clarifications ... it does expose the window object issue AB: I think he raised that in a separate thread MC: yes, but it's in thread 0479 too AB: here is the other thread by Cyril: [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04 76.htm [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0476.htm <Marcos> Cyril said "* What happens to the "storage" event fired by the setItem or removeItem methods when the UA does not implement the window object ?" AB: do any of the non window object changes affect normative text? MC: no; the others are all clarifications AB: does anyone disagree with MC's characterization Widget Interface spec: window object comments by Cyril Concolato AB: Cyril also submitted some comments about the window object ( [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04 76.html ). [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0476.html MC: the issue is the dependency on HTML5's window object ... we use the browsing context as defined in HTML5 ... this does create a problem for non HTML languages ... I don't think this means much wrt normative text for TWI spec ... could say if you implement HTML5 then put Widget object on the Window AB: does anyone have concerns about this? RB: I'm not convinced we need to change anything ... we can talk about global object but that could create problems for other impls ... I think what we have is good enough MC: I think we should just leave it as is AB: I agree with Robin's concern about a global Widget object ... any other comments on this? ... does it appear Cyril is OK with what you and RB are saying MC? MC: yes; he acknowledged that what we said was correct (we pointed out some info he had not seen) AB: proposed resolution is: the window object as currently specified in the TWI CR is OK as is ... any objections to that proposed resolution? [ None ] RESOLUTION: the window object as currently specified in the TWI CR is OK as is TWI spec: test suite AB: is the TWI test suite still incomplete? MC: yes, that's correct ... I need to get together with Dom after he returns next week ... If anyone can help with the Web IDL, please let me know RB: I can take a look but I recommend you ask Dom first ... I think it is correct MC: I think what Dom proposed makes sense ... but there are problems with the automatically generated tests the Dom created ... that is the only real blocker at the moment ... some implementors are already running the test suite ... Wookie has been reporting some results and Opera too AB: how does the report process work? MC: an implementor creates and maintains their own XML file ... of the test results ... we are not verifying results AB: do people drop their test results in CVS or email them to you? MC: preferably the implementors just put their results in CVS AB: anything else on the TWI spec for today? AOB: charter renewal AB: Doug sent out a call for comments on WebApps charter renewal ( [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04 93.html ). Scott Wilson requested some new deliverables ( [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/05 25.html ). ... I think the #1 priority for the new charter is completing the work we already have in progress. [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0493.html [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2010JanMar/0525.html SP: I don't have any comments on the charter yet <Steven> [29]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/chartergen?chairs=Charles+McCathieNevi le%2C+Arthur+Barstow&tc=Doug+Schepers%2C+Steven+Pemberton&oldcharter uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2009%2F04%2Fwebapps-charter.html&end-d ay=30&end-month=March&end-year=2012&fte=30&confidential=public&patpo l=w3c&mtgtel=1&mtgftf=1&makefromold=Generate+charter+from+existing+d ata [29] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/chartergen?chairs=Charles +McCathieNevile%2C+Arthur+Barstow&tc=Doug+Schepers%2C+Steven +Pemberton&oldcharteruri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2009%2F04% 2Fwebapps-charter.html&end-day=30&end-month=March&end- year=2012&fte=30&confidential=public&patpol=w3c&mtgtel=1&mtgftf=1&makefr omold=Generate+charter+from+existing+data SP: the copyright is incorrect DS: thanks for that pointer ... we wanted to re-use as much of the existing charter as possible ... I will look at that output ... we will include a pointer to our publication status: [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus [30] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus AB: I prefer a pointer to a living document SP: the charter should include a pointer to that pub status page AB: yes, it does DS: Art, I have now included the change you proposed ... I expect to get management review next week so a formal AC review could happen late next week ... what new widget delieverables do we want? AB: Scott Wilson proposed a few things <darobin> +1 AB: the Social APIs need more info ... there is also a widget intercommunciation proposal ... some have said that should leverage HTML5's mechanisms as much as possible and I agree with that DS: if we want to add any new work, we should make it explicit Arve: I don't think we want a widget-specific spec for communication, we want a Web communcation spec DS: so a "Web messaging" spec? Arve: yes, something like that addresses discovery ... don't know where we will end up e.g. one spec versus two and scope ... we should probably start with use cases ... need messaging to signal between windows for example ... not sure postMessage will be the best way to solve it <shepazu> [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html [31] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html [ Doug reads related text he has added to the draft charter [32]http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html ] [32] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html DS: I think we should have an explicit deliverable Arve: yes, agree ... there may be some relationship between notifications and messaging ... we can also consider widgets embedded on a web page e.g. Google gadget DS: think this format can be used by other apps e.g. flash <darobin> DS: it is very common for designers to need to send a file with all its resources, this would be very useful for that DS: I can add messaging and discovery ... and that will take care of Scott's #1 point ... re point #2 from Scott, I think that's a reasonable use case ... re point #3 and Social api, not sure Arve: I'd like to see some use case about the Social API MC: there is some related work onging in one of the XGs Arve: I don't think we can add something like Social API without more information AB: I agree with Arve <scribe> ACTION: wilson submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [recorded in [33]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action02] <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - wilson <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ChrisWilson, swilson3, awilson2) <scribe> ACTION: scott submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [recorded in [34]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action03] <trackbot> Created ACTION-492 - Submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [on Scott Wilson - due 2010-02-18]. AB: I think we given Doug sufficient info for points #1 and #2 DS: not sure I have wording about the embedding proposal ... but I will work on some wording AB: anything else on charter? MC: in the scope of the charter, should say something about packaged client-side applications ... perhaps i.e. widgets ... make it very clear that widgets are in scope [ Doug reads latest related text form the scope ] MC: that's good enough <shepazu> [[Widgets Embedding:: a mechanism to allow server-side deployment of packaged client-side applications, within a Web page or as standalone content.]] <darobin> +1 to Marcos <arve> [Widgets Embedding: A mechanism to allow deployment and embedding of packaged widgets in web applications, within a web page or as stand-alone content] MC: not sure about "deployment" here DS: perhaps I should remove stand-alone content Arve: yes [ DS reads updated proposed text ... ; positive nods from attendees ... ] AB: thanks Doug! <arve> +1 thanks AOB: ISO's MPEG-U and Widgets AB: ISO' MPEG-U group is "embracing and extending" our widget specs e.g. see: ( [35]http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-u/pt1.zip ). ... without Cyril here, not sure we should have this discussion today? ... has anyone there spec? [35] http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-u/pt1.zip [ No ] <scribe> ACTION: barstow invite Cyril to our widget call on 18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [recorded in [36]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action04] <trackbot> Created ACTION-493 - Invite Cyril to our widget call on 18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-18]. DS: I skimmed it RB: I skimmed it too ... some parts are concerning DS: I propose we send an immediate response and will respond with details later ... think they want to finish their work in April ... I think some of their work will conflict with our widget messaging work AB: how about we invite Cyril to next call and use that as a way to explain our concerns ... that would give everyone 1 week to review their doc DS: OK RB: OK AB: then that's what we'll do ... anything else on this topic? ... anything else for today? ... meeting adjourned; next meeting is Feb 18 Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: barstow invite Cyril to our widget call on 18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [recorded in [37]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action04] [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with MC and the Team to determine how to test the P&C ITS test(s) [recorded in [38]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action01] [NEW] ACTION: scott submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [recorded in [39]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action03] [NEW] ACTION: wilson submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [recorded in [40]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action02] [End of minutes] ________________________________________ Access Systems Germany GmbH Essener Strasse 5 | D-46047 Oberhausen HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda www.access-company.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 02:29:26 UTC