The draft minutes from the November 12 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 19 November 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 Conference
12 Nov 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0631.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcin, Marcos, Arve, Robin, David_Rogers
Regrets
Frederick, David
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]P&C spec: Constrained specification of <icon>
4. [8]P&C spec: Candidate publication plans
5. [9]TWI spec: test suite status
6. [10]TWI spec: Call for consensus to publish LC#2
7. [11]VM-MF spec: issues by Magus
8. [12]VM-MF spec: more precision on full screen
9. [13]VM-MF spec: security considerations by Davi
10. [14]WARP spec: IRI normalization
11. [15]WARP spec: comments from Bryan
12. [16]WARP spec: local addresses and UPnP
13. [17]URI Scheme spec: LC comment processing
14. [18]AOB
* [19]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 12 November 2009
<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing
Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel'
(where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)
trackbot, associate this channel with #webapps
<trackbot> Associating this channel with #webapps...
<Marcos> yikes!
Review and tweak agenda
AB: draft agenda submitted on Nov 11 (
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/06
31.html ).
... One change request is to add a third topic for the VM-MF spec
"more precision on full screen" (
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/05
41.html ).
... another change request is to talk briefly about our plans for
the P&C Candidate #2
... and we will drop 5.b since David won't be here and we'll discuss
that topic on next call if it remains open
... any other change requests?
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0631.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0541.html
[ None ]
Announcements
AB: any short announcements? I don't have any
[ None ]
<marcin> Agenda point 5. should point to:
[22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/
[22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/
P&C spec: Constrained specification of <icon>
AB: during last week's f2f meeting we discussed an <icon> issue that
Magnus raised (
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
45.html ). Since then, one of his colleagues expanded on their
concern via (
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/05
67.html ).
... Marcos and I discussed this issue in IRC earlier today. The P&C
spec doesn't actually specify what a WUA will do with the icon
elements. Thus, it seems like the text about the optional width and
height attributes only applying to formats with "intrinsic"
width/height can be removed.
... what do people think about this issue?
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0445.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0567.html
MC: I don't think removing the text would be problematic
... but I want to review it more thoroughly
... now, width and height processing is limited
... WUA are free to interpret w/h as they want
... thus I think we should remain silent on what the WUA does with
these two attributes
AB: Marcin, any comments?
MH: I haven't looked at it yet
AB: the action now is for people to respond on the mail list
... Marcos, will you do that?
MC: yes, but need to check again the proposal
... my gut feel is that we should leave this to impl
... but if we delete those two statements, I don't think it will
affect implementations
AB: agree on the "will not affect impls"
P&C spec: Candidate publication plans
AB: LCWD#3 comments end on 19 November
... assuming we get no major comments, we will want to publish CR#2
ASAP
MC: yes, that's correct
AB: I need to schedule a director's call
... I started that process
... tentative dates are Nov 23-25 range
MC: those dates are OK with me
<scribe> ACTION: barstow schedule a Director's Call for P&C CR #2
[recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-451 - Schedule a Director's Call for P&C
CR #2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].
RB: we can go to CR while the CfE period is in effect but we can't
go to PR until CfE ends
AB: good; I'll clarify that with the Team
... best case is we enter CR in November
... CfE ends 28 December
... still need to determine interop plans
TWI spec: test suite status
AB: Marcos, you wanted to give a short status on TWI test suite
MC: I've started working on it
... but haven't uploaded test cases yet
<Marcos> [26]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/test-suite/
[26] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/test-suite/
MC: ignore the doc's title
... but this document includes the test file template
... we can gain from the P&C experience
... should be easier to create tests
... and provide better feedback on Pass/Fail
... If people have feedback, please send it!
AB: this is excellent
... to clarify, you are OK with going to LC now but don't want to
enter CR until the test cases are completed?
MC: yes, that's correct
AB: anything else on the test suite for today?
MC: no, not for now
... there are only about 10 testable assertions in the spec
... thus I think there will only be 30-40 test cases
... so realtively small compared to P&C test suite
AB: ok; good
TWI spec: Call for consensus to publish LC#2
AB: last week I sent a heads-up that today we would discuss whether
or not the TWI spec ( [27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api )
is ready to be published as a new LC (LC#2). Comments?
[27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api
[ None ]
<darobin> +1
AB: proposed resolution: the group agrees The Widgets Interface spec
is ready for LCWD publication
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: the group agrees The Widgets Interface spec is ready for
LCWD publication
AB: do we want a 3-week comment period?
... given this is LC#2, I think 3 weeks is OK
MC: ok with me
AB: any other feedback?
MH: ok with me too
AB: we will use a 3-week comment period
... who should we ask to review this LC?
... Marcos, do you recall who we asked to review the 1st LC?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow determine the list of reviewers for TWI
LC#2 [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-452 - Determine the list of reviewers for
TWI LC#2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].
<scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a publication request for TWI LCWD
#2 [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-453 - Submit a publication request for TWI
LCWD #2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].
<scribe> ACTION: marcos prepare TWI spec for LCWD #2 publication on
Nov 24 with a comment period ending December 15 [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-454 - Prepare TWI spec for LCWD #2
publication on Nov 24 with a comment period ending December 15 [on
Marcos Caceres - due 2009-11-19].
MC: can we get it published sooner
AB: oops, that's my mistake; the pub date will be Nov 17
... and the 3-week comment period will end Dec 8
... Thanks for catching that MC!
VM-MF spec: issues by Magus
AB: on November 2 Magnus submitted an email re viewmode issues (
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
46.html )
... my comment on point #1 is that the titles for the views carry
quite a bit of historical baggage
... and thus are somewhat confusing
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0446.html
Arve: re point #1
... this is a legacy issue
... Opera's initial impl only supported one mode
AB: would you please Arve, respond to point #1 on the mail list?
Arve: yes, will do
ACTION Arve respond to point #1 in
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
46.html
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0446.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-455 - Respond to point #1 in
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
46.html [on Arve Bersvendsen - due 2009-11-19].
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0446.html
AB: re point #2, is that in scope for VM-I spec?
MH: yes, it is
<marcin>
[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/00
47.html
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0047.html
MH: I submitted an email about this
... we need to discuss what the view modes mean
... in my email I deteremined quite a large number of possible
values
... I agree "all" could be removed
... it is the same as not specifying any
<Marcos> +q
<Marcos> -q
AB: re point #3, Marcos responded but Magnus did not reply
Arve: re point #2, the VM spec doesn't include any sec
considerations
... and that's a bug, especially for full screen
<drogersuk> David here
<drogersuk> I proposed some security considerations
AB: we will discuss VM-MF sec concerns next week
<drogersuk> I'm here - happy to discuss now
<drogersuk> can't join the call though
david - can you join the call next week?
I'd rather discuss this when we can talk about it. OK?
<drogersuk> yes but I'd prefer we agree this now
<drogersuk> I put it into the F2F and that was over a week ago
we decided at the beginning of the week to not include this today
<drogersuk> Why?
because "I'd rather discuss this when we can talk about it."
<drogersuk> ok, let me leave the meeting and join the call
<drogersuk> let's do it now
Arve: I will respond to Magnus mail
AB: OK
VM-MF spec: more precision on full screen
AB: an old thread was re-started about the viewmodes, in particular
the full screen mode (
[35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/05
41.html ). Marcos, Robin?
... where do we stand on this?
[35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0541.html
MC: I think we agree we need to define base semantics to each mode
... with each mode there are some potential security implications
... our discussion was about to what level of detail the modes must
be defined
RB: nothing else to add; agree with Marcos' summary
AB: have we captured all of the relevant properties?
... is the set of properties complete?
MH: we may have some issues with full screen and the properties
<marcin>
[36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/00
47.html
[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0047.html
MH: we may need another property
... we have one media feature now but maybe we need more than one
... otherwise, we may have some border cases that aren't defined
MC: at the f2f I proposed a viewport media rule
... I need to formalize that proposal
... I don't understand the interactivity proposal
<marcin> arve, probably yes
Arve: re interactivity, either the media is interactive or not (e.g.
print or screen)
... think we should ask AnneVK
... not sure how to specify this or if we should specify it
AB: can you Arve chat with Anne about this?
Arve: yes, ok
AB: so there is an open action for all to continue discussions and
for Marcin to drive toward closure on the open issues
MH: yes, and I will start by removing all to align with P&C
VM-MF spec: security considerations by Davi
<Marcos> d
AB: View modes security considerations; David Rogers (2-Nov)
[37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
38.html
... David?
[37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0438.html
DR: this is an input for the VM-MF spec
MH: I can add this info
DR: I presented it at the f2
... not clear why we need to wait for ratification
AB: the general process is if there is no discussion on an input
then we add it to the agenda
MC: have you looked at the sec consids in the P&C spec?
DR: yes; tried to align it with what is in the P&C spec
... understand we want a sec consids section per spec
<Marcos>
[38]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#media-type-registration-for-
applicationw
[38] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#media-type-
registration-for-applicationw
MC: we had to do it for P&C because of the IETF req for that info be
in the P&C for the MT reg
DR: I will need to look at it
MC: the deadline is Nov 19
... for P&C LC#3 comments
DR: does anyone object to my input?
MC: we have no objections
... think we need considerations per view mode
... i.e. "these are the sec consids" for fullscreen, etc.
... we can build on your input
DR: I'm happy if the Editor will add my input
AB: anything else on this topic?
WARP spec: IRI normalization
AB: on November 2, Dom submitted two comments re the WARP spec (
[39]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
42.html and (
[40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
43.html ).
... any feedback on Dom's comments?
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0442.html
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0443.html
ACTION darobin respond to Dom's two comments about WARP submitted on
Nov 2
<trackbot> Created ACTION-456 - Respond to Dom's two comments about
WARP submitted on Nov 2 [on Robin Berjon - due 2009-11-19].
MC: are there any updates to WARP spec?
RB: not since TPAC
MC: when will it be ready for review?
RB: please review ASAP
AB: last week I sent out a call for comments
... we can set aside a big chunk of time on Nov 19 for WARP if
needed
WARP spec: comments from Bryan
AB: on November 2, Bryan submitted some comments re WARP (
[41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
37.html ). Marcos and Bryan have been going back and forth on this.
... without Bryan here, not sure we should deep dive on this
[41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0437.html
MC: Marcin also responded
MH: yes, I did
MC: would be good if Robin also responded
RB: yes, I'll get to that
AB: let's skip this topic for today ...
WARP spec: local addresses and UPnP
AB: on November 2, Marcin submitted some comments comments re WARP
and local addressees and UPnP (
[42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
56.html )
[42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0456.html
MH: we talked about UPnP a bit during last week's f2f meeting
... we may want to add some additional support for local hosts
... support private IP ranges
... local nets with IPv6 can be problematic
... IPv6 provides a means to know if an address is local
... want to make the spec future-proof
AB: who can we ask to review this proposal?
MH: perhaps some IETF people
Arve: I think we need an agreement within the group before talking
to IETF
... I need some time to understand MH's proposal
AB: can you get some comments within 1 week Arve?
Arve: yes
AB: all should send comments to the list
... if needed, we can discuss this next week
... anything else on this topic?
[ No ]
URI Scheme spec: LC comment processing
AB: the LC comment period for the 8-Oct-2009 URI Scheme LC (
[43]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/ ) ended on
November 10. I believe there was only one comment. Robin, what's the
plan for responding?
[43] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/
RB: yes, just the one comment from Larry Masinter
... I haven't yet responded to him but will do so
<scribe> ACTION: barstow create a Comment Tracking Doc for the
8-Oct-2009 Widget URI LC [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-457 - Create a Comment Tracking Doc for
the 8-Oct-2009 Widget URI LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].
AB: after Robin replies to LM, please follow-up if you have
additional comments
AOB
AB: I don't have anything for today. Does anyone have any AOB for
today?
[ No ]
AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow create a Comment Tracking Doc for the
8-Oct-2009 Widget URI LC [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow determine the list of reviewers for TWI LC#2
[recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow schedule a Director's Call for P&C CR #2
[recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow submit a publication request for TWI LCWD #2
[recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos prepare TWI spec for LCWD #2 publication on Nov
24 with a comment period ending December 15 [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[End of minutes]
