The draft minutes from the October 1 D Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 8 October 2009 (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 Conf
01 Oct 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1493.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcin, Frederick, Robin, Steven, David, Benoit
Regrets
Josh, Arve, JereK
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]DigSig spec: Test Assertions and Test Suite Status
4. [8]P&C spec: Test Suite questions
5. [9]P&C spec: bug in Rule for Identifying the Media Type of
a File
6. [10]P&C: Proposal to move Conformance Checker assertions
from P&C spec to another doc
7. [11]P&C: Test suite status
8. [12]P&C: Next steps & planning
9. [13]TWI spec: Closing widget Interface issues
10. [14]TWI spec: TWI and View Modes
11. [15]TWI spec: A&E LC comments
12. [16]TWI spec: Status of LC comment responses and their
tracking
13. [17]View Modes Media Feature Spec
14. [18]Widget URI spec
15. [19]AOB
* [20]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 1 October 2009
Review and tweak agenda
AB: Agenda posted Sep 30 (
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/14
93.html ). Any change requests?
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1493.html
[ None ]
Announcements
AB: any short announcements? Reminder to register for the Nov 2-3
f2f meeting and TPAC (
[22]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/ )
... any other?
[22] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/
SP: please do register; early bird registration is Oct 5
DigSig spec: Test Assertions and Test Suite Status
AB: earlier this week Dom sent an update on the DigSig Test Suite (
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/14
68.html ). He and MWTS continue to do good work including a DigSig
Test Plan ( [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/tests/ ).
Is there anything else to add re this test suite?
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1468.html
[24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/tests/
FH: it seems we can use assertions for syntactic checking, and then
compare signature values for signature generation and verification
... not sure on the goal
AB: would you please FH ask your question re goal on the mail list?
FH: yes; and I'll add something to the IRC log
AB: anything else on the DigSig test suite?
... any info to share on who is implementing this spec?
<drogersuk> zakim unmute drogersus
<drogersuk> zakim unmute drogersuk
RB: is Nokia implementing it?
<drogersuk> grr zakim
AB: I am not aware of any information Nokia has made about
implementing widget specs
DR: I think you can search the lists
... think the question could be answered by looking at the mail
lists
... is Nokia implemmenting the DigSig and can you Art find out?
AB: I answered the first part of the question
... I can find out what has been stated publicly about what we are
implemting
DR: that would be good
... there is a fair amount of info
<drogersuk> no
<drogersuk> google
<drogersuk> :-)
DR: not sure about DigSig spec but probably more about P+C spec
AB: I am not aware of any public statements that Nokia has made
regarding implementing Widget specs
<darobin>
[25]http://bondisdk.limofoundation.org/docs/Signing_a_Web_Widget/
[25] http://bondisdk.limofoundation.org/docs/Signing_a_Web_Widget/
<drogersuk> Please can you go away and find out?
AB: David, please enter your question into IRC
<drogersuk> If you can make a public statement in relation to
implementation of digsig
AB: AFAIK, Nokia employes are not allowed to make public statements
about their implementation plans
DR: ok; that's what I was asking
<drogersuk> thanks
AB: anything else about impl?
RB: Aplix has released some info
... it supports signing
FH: it would be good to have a list of links
RB: yes, of course
... Marcos, are you implementing DigSig?
MC: not sure
... we can only confirm we are implementing P+C
... I can check though
AB: FH, as to your question, see
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting
... we can add new info
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting
P&C spec: Test Suite questions
AB: Marcos sent an email that enumerates spec redundancies that were
found during the test fest (
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/14
77.html ). He agreed with all but one of the redundancies.
... if anyone disagrees with Marcos' proposals, send your feedback
to public-webapps
... I think there was exchange between RB and MC on one of them
... your proposals seemed reasonable to me
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1477.html
<darobin> should we look at agreeing on
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/14
88.html ?
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1488.html
MC: need to say what to do if zip isn't labeled
... should it be a must if from hard disk
RB: but if on the disc, system could give you something different
than if from the net
MC: do we make this a must?
RB: I don't feel strongly on this
AB: so wrt ta-VngNBkhUXz, leave it as is?
MC: yes
AB: any objections?
[ None ]
AB: what about ta-HTgovPjElK?
RB: it is redundant
... we can try to create something like an Acid test
... we can keep it
MC: I don't think we want Acid tests at this point
<drogersuk> That is potentially on the table for the future in MWI
RB: we need feedback from implementors
... I think we just keep
MC: I agree
AB: any disagreements?
[ No ]
P&C spec: bug in Rule for Identifying the Media Type of a File
AB: Marcos identified a bug in the ABNF for zip relative paths (
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/14
75.html ). Marcin proposed a fix.
... have you looked at Marcin's patch?
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1475.html
MC: could change the prose instead of changing the ABNF
... option #2 is to just change some prose
AB: options are to change the ABNF or the prose and there are two
ways to handle it via prose changes
MH: I don't think we need to update the prose but do need to change
the ABNF
MC: agree the ABNF has an ambiguity
... think we need to change ABNF and prose
MH: I am OK with modifying both
... i.e. add sniffing
AB: would like MC and MH to work on a proposal and submit it to the
list
MC: OK; I'll do that
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos submit a proposal to address the Rule for
Identifying MT of a file bug [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-408 - Submit a proposal to address the
Rule for Identifying MT of a file bug [on Marcos Caceres - due
2009-10-08].
P&C: Proposal to move Conformance Checker assertions from P&C spec to
another doc
AB: since we are not aware of any implementations of the Conformance
Checker requirements, Marcos proposed (
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/14
76.html ) they be moved into a separate spec. Any comments on this
proposal?
... does anyone object to this proposal?
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1476.html
RESOLUTION: P&C Conformance Checker requirements will be removed
AB: we can figure out later how to handle it
<darobin>
[32]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
[32] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
MC: it's already in a new standalone doc
P&C: Test suite status
<Marcos>
[33]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
[33] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
AB: Marcos, Kai, Dom, et al. have done some good work on the P&C
test suite (
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting#Widgets_1.0:_P
ackaging_and_Configuration_spec ). What's the status of the test
suite?
[34] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/
WidgetTesting#Widgets_1.0:_Packaging_and_Configuration_spec
<scribe> ACTION: barstow add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8
agenda [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-409 - Add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct
8 agenda [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-08].
MC: all of the tests were verified during the test event
... that means someone checked each of them
... I now to copy them into the master XML file
... and check for consistency
... also need to remove some redundant assertions
AB: what type of time frame?
MC: about a week
... there are about 160 tests
AB: are there still some TAs that are outside our repo?
MC: no, I was told they are now in w3 domain
AB: cool; last comments?
P&C: Next steps & planning
AB: we've had a couple of thread related to next steps for P&C,
latest one is (
[36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/14
99.html ). The fact is, sufficient issues have been identified in
CR#1 that we must go back to Working Draft.
... although in theory we could skip CR#2, I am reluctant to do so
as I indicated in (
[37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/14
99.html ). Any comments on that?
[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1499.html
[37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1499.html
RB: I don't see any value in skipping CR#2
... same timeline diff
<drogersuk> Art you stated that you don't know that anyone is
implementing P&C - there are some public statements about that
RB: we should go to CR ASAP
DR: we have quite a few implementations we know about
... e.g. Microsoft
... we know Opera has implemented
... we think Nokia has as well
AB: re the plan going forward, according to Dom, we can publish a
new LC before CR#1 ends. This seems like a process bug to me because
I think a reasonable interpretation of "a PR will not be published
before Nov 1" is "I have until October 31 to submit comments about
CR#1". As such, I'm concerned that publishing CR#2 on or before Oct
31 could mean we miss comments.
DR: how long is CR#2?
RB: we must go to LC
... LC starts an exclusion period that lasts 8 weeks
... shortest LC period is 3 weeks
DR: is this a sequential period?
RB: during the exclusion period we can pub a new CR but we cannot
exit CR
BS: not sure about exclusion period
RB: the only exclusion we have is on Updates spec
... DR was aksing about timeline
<drogersuk> what would be the earliest date we could exit LC#2
<drogersuk> a date to aim for
RB: when ever we publish LC, we can expect to exit CR at the
earliest about 8 weeks after entering LC
<drogersuk> for CR
<Steven> CR can be zero length
DR: if we publish LC next week, earliest we can exit CR is 8 weeks
later
<drogersuk> So realistically we're looking at about Christmas eve?
<drogersuk> A nice Christmas present?
<drogersuk> lol
AB: on the other hand, we all want P&C to continue to progress ASAP
... what needs to be done before we can publish a new LC?
MC: we need to add fxes for ABNF
... need to remove redundancies
... before we publish a new doc want to have TS completed
AB: note we must also address all other comments that came in during
the CR e.g. the WAI P+F WG
RB: we must address all comments before LC
AB: agree
<drogersuk> Art - I just noticed you're attributing some of Robin's
comments to me :-) RB and DR
AB: here is a pointer
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets/PandC-LCWD-28May2009
... please respond to WAI comments
... anything else on P+C for today?
[38] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets/PandC-
LCWD-28May2009
<Marcos> ACTION: Marcos to respond to
[39]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/08
43.html [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0843.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-410 - Respond to
[41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/08
43.html [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
[41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0843.html
RB: have we agree to a timeline for P+C?
AB: AFAIC, we should publish a new LC when we are ready
RB: Marcos, how much time do you think you need?
MC: I will try for 1-week
AB: I know I want some review time
... what do I review?
... is the TSE going to be the main spec?
MC: yes but without the styles
<Marcos> [42]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html
[42] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html
AB: so everyone should start reviewing the TSE
TWI spec: Closing widget Interface issues
AB: the Instance versus Origin issue has plagued this spec for quite
a while now (
[43]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/14
56.html ). It appears there is now agreement to use Instance and to
remove the dependency on Origin as defined in the Widget URI scheme
spec.
... so we now need to agree on a defn of Instance, correct Marcos?
[43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1456.html
MC: yes that's true
AB: what is the plan for a proposed definition?
MC: I will check in changes soon
RB: this change is OK with me
MC: TWI has no dependency on URI spec
... defining Instance is a bit tricky
<scribe> ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of
Widget Instance [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-411 - Submit a proposal for the definition
of Widget Instance [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
TWI spec: TWI and View Modes
AB: last week Marcin sent an email about TWI and View Modes spec (
[45]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/12
03.html ).
[45] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1203.html
MH: I have an answer to the main question
... it will need some discussion when we get to VM-I spec
AB: anything else on this for today?
[ No ]
TWI spec: A&E LC comments
AB: Marcin sent two sets of comments re the TWI LC spec: (
[46]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
80.html ) and (
[47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/10
81.html )
... do we have consensus yet?
[46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1080.html
[47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1081.html
MH: localization is still open
... and don't have consensus on features
... I still need to follow-up
<marcin2> I plan to respond to
[48]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/11
73.html
[48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1173.html
RB: I think we should push this to v2
MH: I think there are use cases for these
... think we should follow-up on the list
TWI spec: Status of LC comment responses and their tracking
AB: Marcos, what is the status of the TWI LC comment tracking doc (
[49]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-a
pis-20090818/ )?
... you want to maintain this doc even though we will publish a new
LC
[49] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-
widgets-apis-20090818/
MC: yes; I think we need to do this because we may not get any
comments during LC#2
AB: so you will add all of the data?
MC: yes
... there are only 3-4 threads
AB: anything else on TWI for today?
... if we want to get a new LC before TPAC, we just have a few weeks
6. View Modes Media Features spec:
View Modes Media Feature Spec
AB: we still haven't published a FPWD of VM-MF spec. I think it is
particularly urgent to get something published before we republish
P&C spec so we have a "real" spec to reference (not just some ED).
Robin sent some comments (
[50]http://www.w3.org/mid/f4f5ecf4-4db8-4a8f-9744-7c6e0200a...@berjo
n.com ).
... where are we?
[50] http://www.w3.org/mid/
f4f5ecf4-4db8-4a8f-9744-7c6e0200a...@berjon.com
MH: I tried to address his comments
... I agree with all of them
... I changed the layout quite a bit, especially Section 3
... I will continue to work on it
<darobin> +1
AB: you think it is ready now for FPWD?
MH: yes; want to get Public feedback now
AB: if we were to record consensus now that it is ready for FPWD,
then it could be published by Oct 6 and that would give MH some time
to add prose.
... is this what we want to do?
RB: yes; works for me
MC: good plans
MH: yes, OK
AB: propose VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD
<darobin> [51]http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
[51] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
AB: I think MC and RB can help with pub rules
Widget URI spec
<darobin>
[52]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/Overview-LC.html
[52] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/Overview-LC.html
RB: I re-wrote it entirely
... it's much better
... think it is ready for LC
MC: think it's good and fun to read
... it address the concerns I had
AB: any other feedback?
... I haven't looked at it yet and want to review it
... how about we give people until Tues morning to submit comments
and if none are submitted, I'll submit a Trans Req for LC?
RB: OK with me
MC: OK
RESOLUTION: we will publish a LCWD of the Widget URI scheme spec if
no major issues are raised by Oc 6
AOB
AB: any topics?
[ None ]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda
[recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of Widget
Instance [recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos submit a proposal to address the Rule for
Identifying MT of a file bug [recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos to respond to
[56]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/08
43.html [recorded in
[57]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[56] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0843.html
[End of minutes]
