- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:01:35 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, Richard Cohn <rcohn@adobe.com>
- CC: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@adobe.com>, "Henry.Story@Sun.COM" <Henry.Story@Sun.COM>, Michael Stahl <Michael.Stahl@Sun.COM>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM>, Michael Stahl <Michael.Stahl@Sun.COM>, "Henry.Story@Sun.COM" <Henry.Story@Sun.COM>, "eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org" <eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118A460EE4A@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
Hi all, I think there is considerable interest in a broad community in the topic of ZIP based packages, specifically MIME types for them and intra-package URI references within them, and possibly for standardizing metadata as well. Procedurally, I don't think it is appropriate to attempt to resolve these issues in the WebAPP working group, if only because a number of the affected groups have little additional overlap with WebAPPS. I know the W3C TAG has discussed the URI issues at some point. I'm not sure if the overhead of starting a new W3C working group focused specifically on this topic is too high, but if so, an IETF activity with W3C participation might be a way of getting broader participation, as well as getting additional IETF involvement in the MIME/URI issues. Larry From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 5:40 AM To: Jon Ferraiolo; Richard Cohn Cc: Marcos Caceres; Bill McCoy; Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [widgets] Minutes from 30 October 2008 Voice Conference Jon - thanks for your e-mail and contact information! Richard - thanks for this information. Ideally, it would be best if Adobe would directly participate in our effort i.e. join the WebApps WG. If that isn't going to happen then we would appreciate any feedback Adobe has on our suite of Widgets specs [Widgets], with the top priority ATM being our Packaging and Configuration spec, latest Editor's Draft is: <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/> -Regards, Art [Widgets] <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Main_Page#Widgets> On Oct 30, 2008, at 12:50 PM, ext Richard Cohn wrote: For what it's worth, here's some info on Microsoft's URI scheme: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163372.aspx#S9 I think we considered doing something like this but decided not to because from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to introduce new schemes (unless, say, you own a browser :-) ). On the other hand, I seem to recall that we used some sort of scheme during the processing of a Mars document but didn't persist it in the file. I can't speak for the people currently responsible for Mars, but I suspect we'd be interested. I'll forward this message within Adobe. Richard At 12:14 PM 10/30/2008, Jon Ferraiolo wrote: Hi Art and Marcos, Regarding the widget URI scheme, you might also want to reach out to Adobe to find out whether there is anyone from the Adobe Digitial Editions world (ebooks/epubs) or PDFXML world (Adobe Mars) who might have an opinion on the pros and cons of a widget URI scheme. When I left Adobe 2.5 years ago, both ADE and PDFXML were using pretty much the name ZIP packaging approach that is being used by W3C Widgets. There was definitely talk about inventing some sort of zip: protocol for relative referencing within the ZIP package, but I don't believe it ever became part of any specs. I used to have the Microsoft ZIP spec memorized (the one that they use for XML Paper Specification) but now I can't even remember the name of the spec. They might have invented a new protocol for addressing objects inside the ZIP package. I have copied two of my old buddies at Adobe, Richard Cohn and Bill McCoy. Probably neither of them will respond directly, but they might be able to get other people from Adobe (or other companies) who are actively involved in ADE or PDFXML to comment on the widget URI scheme. Jon PS Hi Richard and Bill! <b0166e.jpg> Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com<mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com>> Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com<mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com>> Sent by: public-webapps-request@w3.org<mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org> 10/30/2008 07:10 AM <b0167d.jpg> To public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org<mailto:public-webapps@w3.org>> <b0167d.jpg> cc <b0167d.jpg> Subject [widgets] Minutes from 30 October 2008 Voice Conference The minutes from the October 30 Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: < http://www.w3.org/2008/10/30-wam-minutes.html> WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before November 6 (the next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered approved. -Regards, Art Barstow [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - Widgets Voice Conference 30 Oct 2008 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2008OctDec/0201.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/30-wam-irc Attendees Present Art, Arve, Claudio, Mark, Marcos, Josh, Bryan Regrets Thomas, David, Jere Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Agenda review 2. [6]Annoucements 3. [7]URI scheme 4. [8]Version String 5. [9]ID attribute 6. [10]DigSig 7. [11]AOB * [12]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ <timeless> zakim +??P18 is Marcos Date: 30 October 2008 <scribe> Scribe: Art <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB <arve> +??P19 <timeless> zakim +39.011.228.aaaa is Claudio Agenda review AB: any changes? [None] Annoucements AB: any annoucements? <timeless> # who is on the phone? <timeless> who is on the phone? AB: Workshop deadline is now Nov 5 <timeless> Zakim: who is on the phone? AB: who plans to submit a Position Paper? <Bryan> very noisy <arve> ArtB: Arve just spoke, and I said we were planning on submitting a position paper AB: am I the only one that cannot understand anything that is being said? <Bryan> I can't understand either <arve> muting me didn't help <arve> I can't understand a word being said <Bryan> I hear a 2nd conversation AB: everyone hang up and re-dial, please ! <Bryan> OK <marcos> Arve, you are very noisy AB: is anyone going to submit a PP for the workshop? MC: I will AB: how about Vodafone? MP: no Arve: I believe Opera will submit a paper JS: no Bryan: we may submit something but we won't be present CV: we won't submit a paper but are very interested in the outcome URI scheme AB: we had a good conversation with TAG last week ... would like to know what people think are the next steps for this issue MC: I think we have enough technical arguments to push forward ... we do need to fleshout the reqs ... We may also want to coordinate with other groups ... e.g. the ODF group ... they need a similar URI scheme ... for packaging <timeless> ack BS: we recognize (in OMA) that some type of URI scheme for widget interaction is needed CV: I agree with Marcos and Bryan ... I think a widget-specific URI scheme would be useful JS: I haven't changed my mind ... agree we need to flesh out the reqs <marcos> Arve, you might need to type out your answer <arve> ArtB: Your assesment of my opinion is essentially correct AB: I'd like to understand the ODF coordination point MC: I've had some conversations ... I don't want to block on them or create a dependency ... I will continue to talk with them AB: are there some actions we can assign? MC: think we need to look at the implications vis-a-vis the API spec ... we use the widget URI scheme to resolve the DOM at run time ... this affects the APIs we will define Version String AB: Marcos [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/01 83.html ... where are we on this? [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2008OctDec/0183.html MC: there were no strong objections AB: OpenAjax recommend we consider their model? MC: they proposed another way to write the scheme ... they have a proc model for version strings ... Arve showed their model has problems ... I want to follow the KISS principle AB: I propose we agree with Marcos' version string proposal ... any objections? JS: what about leading zeros? MC: they are just opaque strings AB: Josh, please enter an example <timeless> MIDlet Suite Versioning suggests: <timeless> Major.Minor[.Micro] (X.X[.X]) <arve> Does this mean any string difference is "a new version" MC: we aren't adding that complexity ... If they are differen, then they are different <timeless> do we need to suggest that we're aware that leading zeros are ignored by MIDlet <timeless> and that people should avoid using leading zeros (or at least inconsistently) <arve> What I actually meant is that "new" is that the UA, or the server, can decide whether it's "newer" or no <arve> +t AB: Marcos, what do you think about JS' recommendation? MC: we can recommend a format ... and that there is no special processing <arve> yes <Bryan> +1 AB: can we live with the model Marcos has proposed? JS: yes <timeless> yes <claudio> yes RESOLUTION: Marcos' proposal for version string is acceptable ID attribute AB: [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/01 84.html ... there was no follow-up discussion ... see also [15] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20081027 [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/%A0> 2008OctDec/0184.html [15] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20081027 MC: the question is about whether xml:id should be used or we define our own ID attribute JS: could "name" be used? MC: we already have a name element ... we would have to rename that to "title" element <timeless> ack BS: are we planning to use the title attribute in a semantic way? MC: no, just a name <claudio> +q AB: Marcos, should you followup and make the proposal you and Josh just discussed? MC: yes, I can do that ... we are currently following what other people are doing ... but I'd like to hear from others CV: will there some semantics about the widget in the config doc? ... Req #12 is related to widget semantics MC: no, not at this point CV: so the manifest is extensible? MC: yes, can add other elements <timeless> ack MC: the name element could be use in that use case BS: there is a core set of metadata attributes already defined ... and it is extensible MC: right, via using another namespace AB: are you still looking for more input, Marcos on your ID attribute proposal? MC: I can make the change if people are OK with it <arve> did the channel just go dead? MC: my fear is confusing widget authors <arve> I'll have to give up on this, all audio just disappeared <marcos> MC: widgetid AB: what is your proposal? <marcos> MC: uid <marcos> MC: name <marcos> CV: wid AB: I am mostly indifferent MC: it is a URI to identify the widget JS: could use href MC: but that implies something that http can get <timeless> ack BS: so you want something that is unique, right MC: yes BS: what about uniqueid then? MC: yes, we could ... that's what I meant by "uid" <marcos> arve, do you have an opinion? MC: Are we providing at leas a non-normative suggestion about how to add semantics to the widget? <arve> leaning towards making it "just a string" <arve> I do not like the notion of saying it's an ID <marcos> arve, what would you call it? <marcos> ok, no probs AB: I propose you make a proposal on the mail list with a default resolution MC: OK DigSig AB: I will take 4.a and 4.b agenda items to the mail list MC: Mark and I have been making some edits ... need comments from XMLSec WG ... perhaps that can be done while I am away AOB AB: Marcos will be offline for the next three weeks; not online again until 21 November ... I will decide on Tues or Wedn of the next 3 weeks if we will have a voice conf on Thursdays - or not <arve> Have a nice trip, marcos AB: meeting adjourned <marcos> Thanks! RRRSAgent, make minutes Summary of Action Items [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 15:04:33 UTC