[widgets] Draft Minutes for 4 March 2010 voice conference

The draft minutes from the March 4 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before March 18 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

04 Mar 2010


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/04-wam-irc


           Art, Bryan, Marcos, Robin, Arve, StevenP





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements?
          3. [7]P&C spec: <span> element and dir attribute
          4. [8]WARP spec
          5. [9]URI scheme spec
          6. [10]View Modes Media Feature spec
          7. [11]AOB
      * [12]Summary of Action Items

    <darobin> joining in a split second!

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 4 March 2010

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: the draft agenda was posted on March 3 (
    41.html ). Will add View Modes Media Features to the agenda since
    Robin posted an update today (
    45.html ). Any other change requests?

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 


    AB: I have one: No call next week on March 11; next call will be
    March 18. Any other short announcements?

P&C spec: <span> element and dir attribute

    AB: earlier this week Marcos submitted a proposal on how to address
    the <span> element and dir attribute (
    15.html ).

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: I'm waiting to see what the I18N WG says
    ... I added <span> and dir attr to the spec
    ... but I have not spec'ed he behavior
    ... we want to defer the proc model to a sepearate spec

    AB: is that proving to be problematic?

    MC: it's a bit complicated
    ... the bidi stuff that is
    ... if dir attr is set globally, need to set limits
    ... some stuff such as IRI interaction isn't clear
    ... for example <name> has a short name
    ... could have name in English and short name in Hebrew

    AB: are you having a diaglog with I18N group?

    MC: they were supposed to discuss it yesterday
    ... haven't seen their minutes yet
    ... Scott and Addison have been discussing it
    ... not clear how attrs are affected by direction

    AB: what's the prior art?

    MC: HTML5
    ... but I think it is underspecified

    AB: other formats?

    MC: SVG is likely
    ... so we could check it

    AB: I would expect a lot of languages

    RB: SMIL, XForms, etc.

    <darobin> ... DocBook, TEI

    AB: can we minimize the changes to P&C and defer all processing to
    the separate spec?

    MC: yes, that's the intent but not clear if we can get that
    ... when an impl gets back a dir string, it's got additional
    semantics in it

    SP: can't we just use CSS for this?
    ... CSS has a rule that matches bidi algorithm

    MC: there is no style associated with config.xml
    ... that is also discouraged in some places e.g. HTML5
    ... the behavior we are looking for is indeed defined in CSS

    SP: can't we just say the text included behaves the same rules as

    MC: yes, that is part of the solution
    ... but there are additional issues too

    AB: let's pause to see if the I18N WG has posted their minutes from
    yesterday's discussion

    MC: yes, sure

    AB: I just checked their archive and see no postings on March 3 or 4

    <Steven> [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/03-pf-minutes.html

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/03-pf-minutes.html

    <Steven> is that it?

    AB: OK, so what is the plan of action

    MC: need to continue the investigation
    ... in my last email to them I asked them questions
    ... we need to get their answers

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow followup with Richard and Addison re the
    <span> and dir attribute discussions [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-506 - Followup with Richard and Addison re
    the <span> and dir attribute discussions [on Arthur Barstow - due

    AB: the draft agenda includes a discussion on the Widget BiDi spec
    ... I presume there is no need to discuss that now

    MC: yes, that's correct; we need to get feedback from I18N WG
    ... this is a new and complex area

    AB: ok; understood; KUTGW

WARP spec

    AB: the WARP PAG is still in progress and we may continue to work on
    the spec ( [18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ ). Two
    questions here: what is the status of LC comment responses (
    ccess-20091208/ ) and what is the status of the test suite?

      [18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/
      [19] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 

    RB: I think there is only 1 LC comment
    ... and it was from Dom and is straight forward
    ... I'll follow-up today

    AB: my recollection is there are two but I'll need to do some

    RB: I'll check too

    AB: Marcos, you will object to WARP going to CR without a test

    MC: yes that is correct

    AB: a question is, who is willing to work on the test suite?

    SP: what's the problem with entering CR without a test suite?

    MC: we have had problems with other specs because there was no TS
    ... it caused us to have to create multiple CRs

    SP: OK

    AB: so, is anyone willing to contribute to the WARP TS?

    MC: we need another server to test against
    ... need that for cross-domain access

    <darobin> [we can test with www and dev]

    MC: think we can use dev.w3.org and then my server or RB's server

    AB: so finding the servers doesn't seem like a big factor

    MC: could potentially do everything on one server if diff ports are

    RB: could use www.w3.org and dev.w3.org
    ... so think we'll be fine

    MC: ok; let's do it that way
    ... if RB could follow the pattern I used, that would be great

    RB: I can help if you

    MC: but I can help set up the infra
    ... but that's not the test cases

    RB: understood
    ... if you set up the infra, I'll create the tests

    AB: did I capture your agreements properly?

    RB: yes

    MC: yes
    ... are we talking about 20 tests or so?
    ... but could be more like 100

    RB: seriously doubt it will reach that high

    AB: thanks MC and RB

URI scheme spec

    AB: Robin, did you respond to Julian Reschke's 25-Feb comment (
    13.html )?

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    RB: not yet
    ... I will respond to the three comments

View Modes Media Feature spec

    AB: earlier today Robin announced a new ED of the VMMF spec (
    45.html ).

      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    <darobin> [22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/Overview.html

      [22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/Overview.html

    RB: it's really simple
    ... defines one media feature
    ... since it is a UI-related spec, we can't be overly constraining
    ... the spec says UA should make a "best-effort" attempt

    AB: any comments?
    ... I like the simplicity
    ... as well as providing the freedom for the UA to
    ... what about a heads-up to CSS WG and if so, what list do we use?

    RB: yes, we should; I suggest www-style

    AB: what do people think about starting a 2-week pre-LCWD comment
    review period?

    <darobin> +1

    RB: think that's a good idea

    MC: agree

    Arve: yes

    AB: any objections?

    <Steven> I'm OK with that

    AB: OK, I'll start that review
    ... and then I'll forward that announcement to www-style
    ... OK?

    RB: Yes, Mr Barstow

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow start a 2-week pre-LCWD review period for
    the VMMF spec [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-507 - Start a 2-week pre-LCWD review
    period for the VMMF spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-03-11].

    AB: who is willing to contribute to the test suite?
    ... could be a pretty thin test suite

    RB: there is only 1 normative assertion and it is a SHOULD

    MC: could be about 10 test case
    ... there are 5 states plus error conditions
    ... there is also the fallback behavior

    AB: anything else on this for today?

    [ No ]


    AB: Next and last call in March is March 18 (no calls on March 11 or
    ... Heads-up: time for March 18 will be the same in US but 1 hour
    earlier in Europe (14:00 Paris)
    ... would that be problematic?

    RB: should be ok

    SP: US changes on Marc 13?

    AB: yes

    RB: I must send regrets for the 18th

    AB: any other business for today?
    ... Meeting Adjourned

    <Steven> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow followup with Richard and Addison re the
    <span> and dir attribute discussions [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow start a 2-week pre-LCWD review period for the
    VMMF spec [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 14:49:26 UTC