W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

[widgets] Draft minutes for 5 August 2010 voice conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:09:30 -0400
Message-ID: <4C5AC61A.2040509@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the August 5 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 August 12 (the next Widgets 
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved.

-Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

05 Aug 2010

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/08/05-wam-irc


           Art, Marcos, Josh

           Frederick, Kenneth, Robin




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [5]Announcements
          3. [6]Packaging and Configuration spec
          4. [7]Widget Interface spec
          5. [8]AOB
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: the draft agenda was posted a few days ago: (
    44.html ). Any change requests?


    MC: no


    AB: any short announcements?

    [ none ]

Packaging and Configuration spec

    AB: Marcos uploaded several I18N test cases to the P&C test
    repository (
    38.html ).
    ... how many I18N tests have been uploaded and are there any more?


    MC: we uploaded about 170 and have a few more
    ... we also need to remove some redundancies

    AB: I counted about 277 last week for all of P&C

    MC: that sounds about right
    ... don't expect any more

    AB: what about review of the I18N tests?

    MC: Lachlan and one other guy at Opera reviewed them
    ... and I reviewed them too
    ... we still need to get review by the I18N WG

    AB: agree we should ask I18N WG for comments
    ... but we should wait until we are "done"

    MC: Hari Kumar will notify me when the tests are ready for I18N WG

<scribe> ACTION: Marcos notify the I18N Core WG about the I18N test
    cases and ask them for comments [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-567 - Notify the I18N Core WG about the
    I18N test cases and ask them for comments [on Marcos Caceres - due

    AB: Marcos also uploaded several viewmode attribute parsing test
    cases (
    96.html ).


    MC: yes, those test fill a hole we had in our test suite

    AB: as a result of these new test cases, none of the P&C
    implementations is even at 50% compliance (
    [14]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ ).
    ... a question is whether or not the I18N support is "optional" or

      [14] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/

    MC: no they really aren't because the parsing algorithms are now
    directly included in the spec
    ... whereas before when we pointed to the ITS spec the algorithms
    were external
    ... These new test cases are important and Lachlan did a very
    thorough job

    AB: so the UA must adhere to the syntax and parsing constraints but
    the UA doesn't really have any requirements on how to display
    internationalized attributes
    ... is this right?

    MC: yes, that's right
    ... how the UA displays the internationalized strings is platform

    AB: we now need to get at least 2 implementations that can pass all
    of the test suites
    ... Issue-117 ( [15]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
    ... to address this issue, I believe Marcos already updated the spec
    with some "editorial" fix several weeks ago. Is this correct Marcos?

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/117

    MC: yes, I have already uploaded the fixes
    ... this required creating the "displayable attribute"
    ... so this issue can be closed

    AB: so this was editorial, right?

    MC: yes, definitely - it did not affect the processing

    AB: OK, would then please close this issue Marcos?

    MC: yes, I just closed it.

Widget Interface spec

    AB: Issue-116 ( [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116
    ) "Need to flesh out the security considerations for the openURL
    method in the Widget Interface spec" is blocking advancement of this
    spec to Proposed Recommenation.
    ... Marcos proposed openURL be removed. If that is done, what is
    there an alternate way a developer can get similar functionality?

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

    MC: I can take an action to define some mechanism

    AB: can you submit a proposal to the list?

    MC: yes, I can do that

<scribe> ACTION: Marcos create an alternative mechanism for openURL
    and send it to the mail list [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-568 - Create an alternative mechanism for
    openURL and send it to the mail list [on Marcos Caceres - due

    MC: I also looked at removing the Web IDL ref
    ... it is a lot more than difficult than I would have guessed
    ... and even if we do that, we still have HTML and Web Storage refs

    AB: given those dependencies, I don't think it make sense to remove
    the Web IDL ref

    MC: agreed

    AB: after the group discusses your openURL alternate proposal, then
    we can get formal consensus on removing openURL or not
    ... if the group accepts this change, the TWI spec will need to go
    back to LCWD
    ... but since we already have more than 2 implementations that pass
    the TWI test suite,
    ... we can skip another CR and go straight to PR
    ... anything else on the TWI spec for today?

    MC: no


<timeless> oh

<timeless> perhaps action to look at mozilla's package thing

<timeless> marcos, can you drop in a link

    MC: I'm wondering if we should put some effort into the old P&C
    conformance spec
    ... we could publish it again

    AB: could it be published as an informative WG Note

    JS: It is OK with me if openURL is removed
    ... I agree decision on Web IDL


      [18] http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg22629.html

    JS: there was some discussion about web app packging on WHAT WG list
    this week
    ... should review this email
    ... don't think we want them to reinvent the wheels we created in

    AB: thanks for the headsup

    MC: the BONDI SDK implemented a conformance checker

    AB: agree that functionality could be useful for Widget developers

    MC: we have some tests for WARP spec

    AB: that's great

    MC: we updated the template for test suite generation

<Marcos> [19]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/test-suite/

      [19] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/test-suite/

    MC: we are working on the dig sig tests

    AB: re, next call, I think we need Robin

    MC: agree

    AB: tentatively schedule a call for next week but only if we can get
    ... it would be good to get that to Candidate as soon as possible
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos create an alternative mechanism for openURL and
    send it to the mail list [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos notify the I18N Core WG about the I18N test
    cases and ask them for comments [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2010 14:11:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:10 UTC