[widgets] Draft minutes from 1 July 2010 voice conf

The draft minutes from the July 1 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 July 8 (the next Widgets voice  
conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved.

-Regards, Steven Pemberton, for Art Barstow

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

01 Jul 2010



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-irc


           Art, StevenP, Josh, Marcos, Frederick


           Art, Steven

           Art, Steven, Steven


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Packaging and Configuration spec and Issue-117
          3. [7]TWI spec and Issue-116
          4. [8]Dependencies on draft specs and publishing PRs
          5. [9]AOB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items

    <ArtB> Scribe: Art, Steven

    <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <Marcos> woops

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: draft agenda was sent to the list yesterday
    226.html>. We will include Marcos' proposal for Issue-116 when
    discussing TWI spec and move Announcements to AOB. Any other change


Packaging and Configuration spec and Issue-117

    AB: Issue-117 <[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/117>
    "In Widget P&C Spec, need to clarify in the spec that dir attribute
    does not apply to attributes that are IRIs, Numeric, Keywords, etc.
    The dir attribute only affects human readable strings."
    ... Marcos' proposed resolution is captured in
    ... I have two questions: are these clarifications really needed and
    is the proposed solution purely editorial?

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/117%3E

    MC: they are editorial
    ... if implemented without this proposal, the problem would be
    ... and the proposed resolution would not affect an implementation
    ... think the spec is clear direction would not affect data like
    ... I do think, however, it would be good to clarify the spec
    ... think e-mail needs to be considered
    ... i.e. if it is a displayable string or a keyword

    JS: by email do you mean content or the email address?

    MC: the spec just says it is a string
    ... could make it as a keyword and thus dir doesn't apply

    AB: think we need to give people to respond to this proposed
    ... it was only proposed two days ago

    SP: should we ask the I18N WG?

    MC: yes, good idea
    ... wanted to first get feedback from WebApps
    ... if there is agreement there, we can then ask I18N WG to review

    <scribe> ACTION: Marcos submit proposed resolution to Issue-117 to
    I18N for comments [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-563 - Submit proposed resolution to
    Issue-117 to I18N for comments [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-07-08].

    <timeless> I'm fine with the proposed resolution

    AB: we also need to make sure people in WebApps have a chance to
    comment on MC's proposal

TWI spec and Issue-116

    AB: yesterday Marcos submitted a proposal
    229.html> to address Issue-116
    ... the previous plan of record was to address this issue "Need to
    flesh out the security considerations for the openURL method in the
    Widget Interface spec" by creating non-normative guidelines. This
    new proposal would remove the openURL method from the spec.
    ... this proposed resolution is also quite new so the WG hasn't had
    much of a chance to reply

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116%3E

    MC: I still need to get feedback from Opera people
    ... so far I haven't received any comments
    ... I personally think it should be dropped
    ... think it can do more harm than good
    ... and that it isn't really needed

    JS: I agree with removing this feature
    ... I don't think we need it

    AB: want the WG to have at least a week to submit comments
    ... I presume that if this method is removed, we need to drop back
    to LCWD
    ... Agreed?

    MC: yes

    AB: we already have 2 impls that pass our test suite, right?

    MC: yes
    ... and those impls would need to remove the method

    AB: so I think we can do a so-called zero-length CR and go right to

    SP: if you have done the tests and then remove the feature; if no
    one complains then you can move ahead fast


Dependencies on draft specs and publishing PRs

    AB: during our last call, we talked about draft references in CRs
    and how that would affect moving the CR to Proposed Recommendation
    ... I copied all of the normative draft references in our CRs to an
    ml>. I also forwarded some information from Ian Jacobs re the
    process question related to draft references:
    ... ideally, a spec shall not contain any references to draft
    documents. However, we all acknowledge that may not be a
    smart/practical thing to do. OTOH, we should work to reduce/minimize
    dependencies on draft specs.


    <fjh> XML Security Algorithm Cross-Reference is intended to be a
    note, don't expect it to go to CR. The normative definitions are in
    other documents for this one.

    AB: if we agree a spec is "done" in the sense that a) the CR exit
    criteria is met and b) we do not want to make any more changes, then
    I think we should move it to PR to signal to the community "this
    spec is done and we do not plan any more changes".
    ... I think there is value in "parking" a spec in PR even if we know
    it could be while before it can move to Recommendation. There is a
    precedence in W3C for doing this.

    <fjh> Expect CR for XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties
    in the Fall 2010, per xml security roadmap

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Roadmap

    AB: re P&C spec, we have a CSS2.1 CR reference

    <Marcos> [20]http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/06/an_update_on_css_21.html

      [20] http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/06/an_update_on_css_21.html

    <Steven> Scribe: Steven

    <scribe> scribenick: steven

    Marcos: I'm OK for the spec to be parked; there's no links to
    anything unstable in P&C
    ... can even park in CR if we want
    ... but PR is also great
    ... either will do
    ... Anyone else have a position?

    Art: The spec parked in CR gives a perception that it could change
    ... but in PR the message is that we're done
    ... since the AC has to vote
    ... so I think there is real value to have it in PR asap

    Marcos: Adam made it clear that his spec won't change, at least the

    Art: My gut feel is that we don't want to wait for CSS 2.1
    ... and that we have evidence to argue to the director
    ... I would ask for a PR of P&C knowing that some refs are not yet
    in the final stage, and that we made it clear in the status
    ... and in the PR request
    ... that we would remain in PR until they are ready

    Steven: Do we need to have a contigency plan for if those specs
    change, and therefore messing with our spec, or do we just cross
    that bridge when we get to it?

    Art: Good question; I think that it is unlikely to occur and we
    don't need to worry

    <scribe> ACTION: Art to discuss with team and Marcos the plan to
    publish P&C as PR with the dependencies as is [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-564 - Discuss with team and Marcos the
    plan to publish P&C as PR with the dependencies as is [on Arthur
    Barstow - due 2010-07-08].

    Art: The next one is less comfortable, Widget interface
    ... there we have more unfinished dependencies
    ... we could copy and paste parts of WEBIDL into the spec,
    ... but we still have refs that we can't do that for
    ... so we may not be able to move to PR

    Steven: Because the refs are not solidified enough, and might damage
    our spec?

    Art: Yes
    ... Webstorage last call period ended recently, so a CR could be
    published soon (this Summer)
    ... anybody got an idea about LC for HTML5?


    Marcos: Next year sometime
    ... last call period will last three years!
    ... Reviewing needs one day per page on average, so three years for
    last call is about right
    ... considering the number of pages

    Art: So we could do some analysis for Webstorage and Webidl, but we
    still have HTML5

    Marcos: HTML5 ever reaching recommendation is going to be
    complicated by the complexity of the spec

    Art: If it is important enough to go to PR, then we have to copy the
    parts of HTML5 into our spec

    Marcos: I will look at removing the reference to HTML5, we don't
    have any other choice
    ... or making it non-normative reference

    Art: Good, and something similar for Webidl

    Marcos: Webidl has a dependency on HTML5, so it has similar problems

    Art: So we may be able to do a PR in the next couple of months
    ... Next spec is DIGSIG
    ... the dependencies are going to CR in the fall
    ... anyhow we aren't going to CR until October, so we're probably OK
    ... and we can move to PR at the end of the year

    Marcos: We need to sort out the test suite, but that's all

    Art: Next spec is viewmode
    ... reference to media queries, which is in CR
    ... don't know if that will create a problem for us
    ... And then widgets URI, which has a dependency on packaging; no


    Art: Any announcements?
    ... When is the next call?
    ... No call July 15
    ... No call July 22
    ... So maybe call July 8, if we have anything to discuss. Otherwise
    I'll cancel it.
    ... July 8 call will be on issues 116 and 117


Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Art to discuss with team and Marcos the plan to
    publish P&C as PR with the dependencies as is [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos submit proposed resolution to Issue-117 to I18N
    for comments [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 13:57:44 UTC