Re: Rough summary of minutes from the face to face


I think this is very helpful and useful. It makes the status, activity and important items very visible in a concise manner.

Much appreciated, thanks.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On May 7, 2013, at 6:16 AM, ext Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:

> Hi,
> in line with the last item on this list, I committed to make a rough summary of the meeting available to go with the raw minutes. The idea is that people who aren't in the group and weren't there can actually understand what the minutes mean. So here it is.
> Minutes for Thursday[2] and Friday[2] are available
> Notes on the topics listed in the minutes:
> Thursday
> =Dashboard / PubStatus
> Webapps maintains a wiki page[4] with the latest "knowledge" about the specs the group is working on.
> =App Manifest
> This is a manifest for "packaged" (i.e. an installable zip) or "hosted" (something like pages with an appcache manifest) apps, that provides metadata, an icon, etc. It will be moved from the Sysapps group to the web apps group, who already have it as an explicit charter deliverable. There is a comparison chart[5] of Manifest formats available (but not 100% correct - I believe contributions are welcome.
> =AppCache
> There are two initial proposals for fixing it, one from Mozilla[6], and one expected from Google based on Navigation Controller[7]. A key question is whether to have a declarative format (Jonas' proposal has a JSON format that is more or less declarative, Navigation Controller is just script).
> NB Since the meeting we have started to collect use cases[8] in our Wiki
> =Indexed DB
> Hopefully version 1 will be finished in a few months. It seems the last point of disagreement was resolved at the meeting, so we expect a new draft in a couple of weeks that will be more or less the final one.
> =DOM3 Events - Status Update
> Keyboard events are known to be difficult to standardise. They don't have enough tests to be confident that they have this part right, and want more. Maybe they will be ready some time around the end of the year.
> =Web Components
> There are now 4 specifications that are being developed to allow the creation of custom elements in HTML (and XHTML). The work is led by Dmitry Glazkov from Google. There was an introduction to the various specs, where they fit and where they are up to.
> =Web Components Security Model, CORS, CSP
> This was a brief discussion with the Web App Security working group, just describing basic things and meeting the people.
> =IME
> This specification is meant to allow use cases including writing a custom IME to replace the system one (like what we do for translate), to make sure that it is easier to interact cleanly with IME when doing something like suggest, etc. There was a joint meeting with an accessibility group, but they were more concerned about building editors (which is very hard) than actual IME (which is moderately hard, unless you can't interact with the native one which makes it horribly hard).
> =File API
> Mozilla has a new proposal[9] (as of the morning of the meeting). FileAPI has a few outstanding issues, and is likely to try and ship rather than updating to use futures, ...
> =WebIDL
> This probably only matters for people writing specs. WebIDL level 1 is likely to be finished in a few months, with level 2 work ongoing.
> Friday
> =Testing, Move to Github
> The Web needs more tests. There are occasional "Test The Web Forward" events where people make them. W3C is moving its test infrastructure to use a single github repository for everything.
> =Progress Events
> These are used by XHR, the img element, and the Sysapps messaging API. The spec should be finalised in summer
> =XMLHttpRequest
> There will be a level 1 specification that describes the interoperable bits, to be finalized this year. Work will continue on level 2, with CORS, authentication, etc, aiming to be done by late 2014.
> =Coordination (TC39)
> There has been a discussion asking for more coordination with TC39 for things like making sure that when new APIs are developed at W3C (e.g. in Webapps) there is a notice to them so they can give an early review on things like whether the API looks like "normal Javascript", not something mostly designed as if it were in C++ or some other language. The conclusion was "Please do more coordination".
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]
> [6]
> [7]
> [8]
> [9]
> I'm interested in whether this was a useful exercise, by the way.
> cheers
> Chaals
> -- 
> Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
>         Find more at

Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 20:29:49 UTC