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/
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]
