The minutes from the September 11 Widgets f2f meeting are available
at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before September 18 (next Widets
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conference
11 Sep 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008JulSep/0617.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Arve, Marcos, Mike, Benoit, Josh
Regrets
Claudio, Bryan, Thomas
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda Review
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Requirement Document
4. [8]is next publication of the Requirements doc another Last
Call or a _plain_ WD?
5. [9]Core API and Events spec
6. [10]Automatic Update Status
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Date: 11 September 2008
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Agenda Review
AB: agenda posted yesterday:
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/06
17.html
... regarding V2/NG features for Widgets, Claudio won't be here
today and asked me to postpone the discussion until next week
... any problems with that?
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2008JulSep/0617.html
ABe: no
MC: no
Announcements
AB: I was hoping for a BONDI Widgets update but Marcos said they are
meeting this week
... I'll add that to next week's agenda
... Marcos was contacted by the Mobile Web Test Suites WG regarding
Widgets test suite
MC: MWTS WG would like to help other WGs with their test suites
... they have identified Widgets as a potential candidate
... Discussions are still preliminary
... For the first step, I've asked Dom to look at the spec from a
"test-ability" viewpoint
... If there is anything we can do in the spec itself to facilitate
testing, we want to know that now and reflect it in the spec
AB: this is great Marcos
... I told Dom we are very interested in engaging MWTS WG
MC: Arve, how does this sound to you?
ABe: it would be best if I was able to get someone from our QA team
involved
AB: I'll do the same
Requirement Document
AB: what is the status on the LC comments, Marcos?
MC: waiting for confirmation from Kryztof
... also Josh
... also I18N WG
... also Bryan and MWBP WG
AB: so that is quite a few loops to close
MC: I gave the MWBP WG a deadline (think it was end of this week)
AB: Bryan submitted some comments about the Closing of Issue #17
... To me, proxy support could be a candidate for the V2/NG feature
list
... Would that make sense?
MC: yes that would make sense to me, especially if it will keep the
doc from being blocked
AB: in general, I don't want to re-open Closed Issues unless there
is large consensus among the people that closed the issue that new
input/evidence suggests we re-open
<MikeSmith> (I agree about not re-opening closed issues.. it's one
of the worst things that a WG can decide to do.)
MS: I agree with Art's comment about not re-opening Closed Issues
... it has caused large problems for some WGs
... Re-opening issues will delay our specs and hence implementations
... This inevitably will result in some people not being happy.
... Unfortuantely that will happen but we also need to be cognizant
about schedule.
... That said, we do need to keep track of all feature requests
... and such requests to the V2/NG list.
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to weigh in on V2 feature-list idea
MC: I agree with what Mike said
... in the case of the proxy, I don't view it as a feature.
... I don't think we can spec the proxy input as Bryan proposed it.
<timelyx> "oops"
AB: other than chasing the commentors, is there any other work that
needs to be done?
MC: no; I think the document is ready for a new publication
is next publication of the Requirements doc another Last Call or a
_plain_ WD?
MC: I want to go straight to another LC
AB: my take on the Process Document is we need to publish another WD
before a LC doc
...
[13]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-to-wg
[13] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-
to-wg
BS: what are the major diffs?
... between the 1st LC and what we now have in the latest ED
MC: the changes are "pretty significant"
... we could do another WD and then a LC but I don't think we'll get
much feedback during that time frame
... People won't submit comments until another LC is published
BS: I agree
AB: I agree as well but I wonder if the process people will raise an
objection
JS: could we just have a short review period for the WD?
BS: yes, I think we can do that
... Is there a minimum review period?
MS: I don't think so but 2-3 weeks is typical
... most people wait until the last day
... to submit comments
... It is very important to stick to the deadline for comments
MC: what if we publish a new WD ASAP and have just a 2-3 week review
period
... and then on October 2, publish the LC
BS: so a WD would have just a 2-week review period
AB: In Turin we said we wanted the LC to end on Oct 13
... If the LC has a 3-wk review period it would then have to
published on Sept 22
... That would then mean we could ony have a 1-week review period
for the WD, assuming it was published on Sep 15
... having a 1-wk review period seems a bit odd
BS: agree, but I think Marcos has done a good job of answering all
questions
<marcos> :)
AB: Mike, what do you think?
MS: I think this plan is OK
... We should do whatever it takes to make the Mandelieu f2f meeting
as productive as possible
MC: what is the point of the 2nd Last Call?
BS: I assume those that submitted comments
MC: but they have already received confirmation from them that we
have addressed their comments
AB: another proposal would be to just have no _plain_ WD and a LC
with a 4-week review period
... Mike, can we do that?
MS: we would need to provide some rationale
AB: the PD says "In the case of substantive changes, the Working
Group MUST republish the technical report as a Working Draft."
... in section 7.4.6
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-to-wg
[14] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-
to-wg
MC: we want to be as productive as possible
AB: Mike what do you recommend?
<marcos> "A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:
<marcos> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its
relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or
requirements document) in the Working Draft;
<marcos> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied
significant dependencies with other groups;
<marcos> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that
these dependencies have been satisfied.
<marcos> "
MS: we can review the PD here as a guide and not be overly
restrictive
... I think we can just publish a new 2nd LC WD
... without a new _plain_ WD
... But we must make sure the LC addresses all of the comments that
were submitted by the deadline for LC #1
AB: propose we do not publish a _plain_ WD and make the next
publication the 2nd LC
... any objections?
BS: no
MC: no
ABe: no
MS: no
JS: no
RESOLUTION: we will not publish a _plain_ WD; our next publication
will be LC #2
AB: what date are we shooting for?
MC: September 15
<MikeSmith> (ideally, anybody who submitted comments on the LC draft
should be directly contacted -- with a CC to the list -- that we
have published an updated draft)
AB: actually, I will neded to send a notification to the Chairs list
Core API and Events spec
AB: what's the status
ABe: I think the Sep 15 deadline I provided in Turin is still mostly
do-able
... I am adding some input
... have a question about all of the properties
MC: I am wondering if rather than a list of props we use some type
of Get and Set methods
ABe: regarding the Window interface, we have an open issue
<marcos> MC: I will spec that linkage between the default properties
and the Widget interface (hence bridging the two specs so that the
correct properties from the correct config doc are loaded).
ABe: using Web IDL, I don't know how to associate the relationship
between the Window interface and the Widget interface
<arve> I'm not seeing any way in WebIDL where I can express that
WindoWidget extends the Window interface, rather than replacing it
MC: does Web IDL have a notion of extends?
ABe: not really
<marcos> interface WindowWidget extends Window{ .... }
ABe: for the purposes of what we need
... I will contact Cam about this
JS: do we really need to clearly specify this?
... could prose be sufficient?
ABe: we could do that
... but in practice, I think it should be more explicit, especially
for implementors
AB: how do we get consenus here?
<timelyx> I think we don't want interface declarations to bind an
interface to a specific other interface
<timelyx> because it excludes the ability to bind it to some other
interface
<timelyx> what we should want is an independent declarative
statement:
<timelyx> Window supports WindowWidget;
<timelyx> so that someone elsewhere could write:
<timelyx> MyObject supports WindowWidget;
<timelyx> and this is really independent of the definition of
WindowWidget, enabling others to later make similar statements for
other objects.
ABe: this is probably good
... but should we ask Cam to express this in Web IDL
... It would be better to express this in Web IDL than in prose
... I will follow-up with Cam
Automatic Update Status
AB: what's the pub plan?
MC: I want to publish this ASAP
AB: propose we publish FPWD of the Automatic Update spec as soon as
it is pub ready
... any objections?
ABe: I have plenty of issues with the doc but no objections to
publishing it as is as the FPWD
BS: no
JS: no objections to FPWD
RESOLUTION: we approve the FPWD of the Automatic Updates spec as is
ABe: when is the publication moratorium?
AB: not sure but I'll let you know
... Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
