[widgets] Draft minutes for 18 November 2010 voice conf

The draft minutes from the November 18 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 December 2 (*tentatively*, 
the next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be 
considered Approved.

-Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

18 Nov 2010


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0680.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-irc


           Art, Robin, Marcos, Steven





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Packaging and Configuration spec
          4. [8]Widget Interface spec
          5. [9]Digital Signature spec
          6. [10]Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec
          7. [11]URI Scheme spec
          8. [12]view-mode Media Feature spec
          9. [13]Updates spec
         10. [14]AOB
      * [15]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: yesterday I sent out a draft agenda (
    80.html ). Any change requests? We will drop Issue-151 because
    Marcos already closed it.

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0680.html


    AB: any short announcements?
    ... Robin is now a member of the group as an Invited Expert

Packaging and Configuration spec

    AB: re interop data for the P&C spec (
    [17]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ ), the report
    shows we still need a substantial amount of data to pass CR.

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

    MC: OBIGO gave me some data

    <darobin>  arg sorry screwed up my reminder :(

    MC: they did a good job
    ... I've been working with them
    ... we've helped each other
    ... I am also retesting with Opera 11
    ... so we have data for a shipping product

    AB: several of the impls are around 50%
    ... is that because they haven't tested the I18N stuff?

    MC: yes, that's right

    AB: do you expect any additional data?

    MC: the I18N tests are difficult to test
    ... some of the tests are very low level that are difficult to test
    ... the I18N tests are manual and as such take a lot of time to test
    ... If the widget object is implemented, some of the test are easier
    to run
    ... some of the I18N test use JS now but the tests haven't changed
    ... Once we get agreement on the TWI spec, the P&C test suite can be

    AB: should we publish a new CR while waiting for data?:

    MC: I'm OK with that
    ... we have handled the LC comments

    AB: so we round-tripped with all the commenters?

    MC: yes, I believe so

    AB: that's my understanding as well

Widget Interface spec

    AB: the ED is [18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
    ... the comment loop for the LCWD is still open re I18N WG's comment
    pis-20100907/ )
    ... where do we stand on this?

      [18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
      [19] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20100907/


      [20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#the-localizablestring-interface

    MC: go to section 7.
    ... I created a new LocalizedString interface
    ... and it returns the language

      [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/widgets-api/Overview.html?rev=1.155&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#the-localizablestring-interface

    <Marcos>  var lang = widget.name.lang

    MC: I made up a use case in the ED
    ... and we can confirm that from the I18N WG

    AB: so that takes care of the "what is the locale?" issue, right?

    MC: yes
    ... navigator.language
    ... the 2nd problem is what is the string
    ... and the 3rd problem is what is the direction


      [22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#getting-localizable-strings

    MC: go to section 7.2
    ... what I discovered is that inserting unicode markers into HTML,
    browsers don't respect the markers


      [23] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#example-2-base-direction-is-left-to-righ

    MC: example in 7.2.2

    <Marcos>  The widget's name is 'olleH'.

    <Marcos>  Should be The widget's name is 'Hello'.

    MC: look at the "Would render as" box
    ... all browsers display the widget's name incorrectly

    AB: so if I understand this correctly, we have a technical solution
    that is good but it has not been deployed/implemented by any
    browser. Is that correct?

    MC: yes, that's correct

    AB: think we need to get some feedback from the I18N WG

    MC: the API does what it is supposed to do it's the browsers that
    don't support it properly
    ... think we are going to have a coding mismatch regardless

    SP: at one level, it's not our problem if browsers don't support it
    ... it is our problem though, indirectly

    MC: think we need to seek some guidance here
    ... I think we've captured the problem
    ... #1 issue: browsers don't respect Unicode Markers
    ... #2 issue: what do we do if the page is not in Unicode

    RB: Unicode markers can be inserted using Entity Refs

    MC: but what if the doc has multiple encodings?

    RB: can't have multipe encodings
    ... in a single doc
    ...<  more details by RB on character sets, encodings and Entity
    Refs ...>

    AB: so I think the next step then is to ask the I18N WG to review
    the new ED ASAP

    <darobin>  [24]http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html

      [24] http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow Ask the I18N WG to review the new Section 7
    of the TWI spec [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-612 - Ask the I18N WG to review the new
    Section 7 of the TWI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-11-25].

    AB: other than review, what else do we ask them?

    MC: I think it is mainly the two issues above
    ... think we need to have advice of implementors and developers

    AB: would like to come back to P&C and promoting to CR or wait until
    we resolve the TWI issue?

    MC: would prefer to wait until TWI is sorted out

    AB: that's what we'll do

Digital Signature spec

    AB: the Implementation Report for widgets digsig show no (
    [26]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/ )
    implementation data.
    ... anything new re implementation data?

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

    MC: no, I don't have any additional data for widgets-digsig

Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec

    AB: what's the latest on the WARP spec re implementations (
    [27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/imp-report/ )?
    ... we still have an open PAG
    ... for WARP spec

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

    RB: the PAG should probably move fwd

    SP: who are we waiting for?

    RB: think Rigo
    ... we need to know what the PAG needs to do in specific terms

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow followup with the Team on the status and
    plan for the WARP PAG [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-613 - Followup with the Team on the status
    and plan for the WARP PAG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-11-25].

    AB: no surprise there is no data on the implementation of WARP given
    the PAG is still open

URI Scheme spec

    AB: the URI scheme spec is still in LC (
    ri-20091008/ ). What is the status and plan?
    ... anything new on this spec?

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/

    RB: nothing new to report

    MC: we have implemented it in some products
    ... that with WARP is very useful

    <Steven>  The PAG Charter has expired

    RB: any implementation feedback?

    MC: it works well
    ... WARP + widget uri as origin is working
    ... we don't display the widget origin
    ... but it underlies things

    <Marcos>  MC: we have also implemented navigation of package
    content... so you can browse resources inside a package

    SP: re the WARP PAG, the Charter has expired
    ... the Director can extend it though, so I don't think that is a
    ... perhaps it would be helpful to have Rigo join a call
    ... e.g. to get some momentum behind it

    AB: that's fine with me

    RB: is we set something up, we should tell the PAG

    AB: good point; we should probably re-use the PAG conference time +
    day of week
    ... coming back to URI spec ...
    ... what needs to be done?

    RB: need a URI expert to take a look

    <Steven>  (Spec link?)

    RB: perhaps someone from Opera can help?

    AB: URI ED is: [30]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/

      [30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/

    RB: I'm having trouble understanding some of the comments
    ... last comment was from Julian

    <darobin>  Just define the widget *URI* syntax in terms of RFC 3986
    (URI), not RFC 3987 (IRI).

    <darobin>  Then, state how to map strings that contain non-URI
    characters to URI syntax (such as UTF-8-encode-then-percent-escape).

    <darobin>  (This is something that might change when IRIbis is done,
    but as far as I understand, this is how it works right now).

    <darobin>  [31]http://www.w3.org/mid/4BC70C29.7000709@gmx.de

      [31] http://www.w3.org/mid/4BC70C29.7000709@gmx.de

    <darobin>  that's the sort of stuff that confuses me :)

    <darobin>  (especially the last bit)


      [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526

    AB: so then from a resource perspective, to move the URI scheme spec
    fwd, it appears we need some additional help

    RB: yes, it would be good to get some help

    AB: can Opera help here Marcos/

    MC: yes, I can help

    AB: that would be great

    SP: re Julian's email ...
    ... IRIs over the wire get converted to URIs
    ... there is an encoding from IRI to URI

    RB: for our case, the URI doesn't go over the wire
    ... these widget: URIs do not get typed into a browser, for example

    SP: so how is it used?

    RB: in an ideal world it isn't used
    ... but it does need to be in the DOM
    ... and only valid within a widget package
    ... thinks like network encoding just don't apply to our use case
    ... the IETF requirements are strict
    ... and don't necessarily apply in our scenario

    AB: the A&I database includes Actions for the URI spec

view-mode Media Feature spec

    AB: any implementation data for VMMF (
    [33]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/imp-report/ )?

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

    MC: I don't think anyone implements it yet
    ... we still implement the old stuff i.e. we don't use the new names

    AB: any commitments from other implementers?

    MC: no

Updates spec

    AB: Richard has recently updated the Updates spec (
    [34]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ). How close is this
    spec to being feature complete and hence ready for LC?

      [34] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/

    MC: I think it is pretty close to being feature complete
    ... I think we need to get some review

    <Marcos>  "On receiving an HTTP 410 Gone response, the user agent
    must terminate the widget update and remove the installed widget."

    ... think there is some work that needs to be done

      [35] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/#acquiring-an-update-description-document

    AB: do you expect a CfC for LC this year?

    MC: not clear yet


    AB: re next call: TBD base on agenda topics (definitely no meeting
    on Nov 25).

    RB: makes sense re TBD for Dec 2

    MC: agree

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow Ask the I18N WG to review the new Section 7 of
    the TWI spec [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow followup with the Team on the status and plan
    for the WARP PAG [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 18 November 2010 15:11:27 UTC