The minutes from the March 5 Widgets voice conference are available
at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 12 March 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
05 Mar 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0622.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Marcos, Arve, David, Benoit
Regrets
Claudio, Bryan
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]DigSig + P&C synchronization
4. [8]Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet
required use cases and requirements;
5. [9]Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets
6. [10]Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML
<access> and Widget <access> element.
7. [11]Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to
read digital signature.
8. [12]Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail
from Thomas:
9. [13]Open Actions
10. [14]June f2f meeting
11. [15]TPAC meeting in November
12. [16]Window Modes
13. [17]Editorial Tasks
14. [18]Anything Else
* [19]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 5 March 2009
<fjh> widgets signature editors draft update
<fjh>
[20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
[20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
signatures
<fjh>
[21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
[21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
signatures
Review and tweak agenda
AB: agenda posted March 4 - is
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/06
22.html
... the main agenda items are Open Issues. I only want to spend a
few minutes on each of them to get a sense of where we are e.g.
still Open, pending inputs, can be Closed. Any detailed technical
discussions should occur on public-webapps mail list.
... Are there any change requests?
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0622.html
[ None ]
Announcements
AB: I don't have any urgent announcements
... what about others?
FH: please submit comments on XML Sig 1.1 drafts
DR: I will respond to Art's BONDI 1.0 email so please look at that
<fjh> please review XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties
FPWD
<fjh> [23]http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25
[23] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25
MC: I uploaded the Window Modes spec; would like to get that on the
agenda
DigSig + P&C synchronization
AB: earlier this week Frederick asked me if the DigSig + P&C specs
are now in synch, based on last week's discussions?
<fjh>
[24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
[24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
signatures
AB: I believe the answer is yes.
... where are we on this?
MC: FH and I talked about this
... I think this is mostly now addressed
... P&C has no real depedency on DigSig
<fjh> marcos notes merged steps 4 +5, moved locating to dig sig,
removed signature variable from p + c
MC: I haven't completed the P&C changes yet
... e.g. renumber some steps
<fjh> fjh notes revised text on locating to fit it within digsig but
essence is same
FH: I had to revise the location text a bit but the logic is the
same
... Josh asked about the sorting
... I need to think about that a bit more
JS: need to clarify diff between "9" and "009"
... we can take this discussion to the list
FH: I agree we need more rigor here
MC: I agree too
... need to address case sensitivity too
AB: can we point to some existing work?
FH: I don't think this is a big issue and agree we can discuss on
the list
AB: what needs to be done then?
FH: I need to make a few changes to DigSig and MC needs to do a bit
more on P&C
JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding
readability
MC: I can help with that
FH: I'll take a pass at that
DR: re the ell curve issue, I have asked OMTP to provide comments by
March 9 so I should have data for the WG by Mar 12
Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use
cases and requirements;
AB: do we now consider this issue adequately addressed to close it?
... <[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19>
... my gut feel here is this is now addressed and we can close it.
... any comments?
[25] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19%3E
MC: the DigSig enumerates reqs it addresses
... it's a bit out of sync
... we need to sync the Reqs doc with the DigSig spec re the reqs
... so I think we can close it
AB: any other comments?
FH: not sure how much synching we need to do on the reqs
... I do think we can close this issue
RESOLUTION: we close Issue #19 as the spec now adresses the original
concerns
Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets
AB: are there still some pending actions and input needed?
... <[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/80>
... what is the plan for the next couple of weeks?
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/80%3E
MC: I added a new example to the latest ED
... I still have some additional work on the model
... I talked with JS earlier today
... I'm still uneasy re the fwd slash "/"
... we must maintain the semantics of URI
... Need to understand if we can do it without the leading /
... and to still have the fallback model
<Marcos>
[27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#fallback-behavior-example
[27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#fallback-behavior-example
AB: note there are related actions 298 and 299
... are there other inputs you need?
MC: by the end of the day I hope to have something to share with
Jere and Josh
JK: I will review it later and send comments
AB: we need not just Editors but technical contributors too
DR: it would be helpful if MC could identify areas where Bryan can
help
AB: any other comments on #80?
... we will leave that open for now
Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML <access> and Widget
<access> element.
AB: What, if anything, should be done?
... <[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82>
[28] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82%3E
MC: re last Topic, Jere, please consider XML Base when you review
the new inputs
JK: yes, good point and that should be reflected in the spec
MC: this can be conceived of as a virtual file system at the
conceptual level
JK: don't want the spec to specify a file system
MC: agree; I was just using that as part of my mental model
<JereK> I thought it was just shuffling URLs also in impl
AB: re #82 was not discussed in Paris
... what are people thinking?
MC: I think we can close this since we are using a separate
namespace
Arve: agree
AB: other comments?
... I completely agree
<timeless> "namespaces will save us ;-)"
AB: propose we close this with a resolution of "we address this by
defining our own namespace"
... any objections to this proposal?
<JereK> or "believe in namespaces or not" :)
RESOLUTION: close Issue #82 - we address by defining our own
namespace
Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital
signature.
AB: What is the status of this issue and is this against P&C spec of
DigSig spec?
... <[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/83>
... did you create this Marcos?
[29] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/83%3E
MC: yes. It was raised by Mark
FH: this issues identifies an potential attack
AB: is this something we must address in v1?
MC: yes. Need a 1-liner in the DigSig spec
FH: I don't quite understand the issue though
MC: me neither
FH: we already have some security consids
... I recommend we get some more information from Mark
AB: so we need to get more info from Mark?
MC: yes
FH: I don't understand the real threat scenario
MC: me neither
JS: same with me
FH: I suggest this be closed unless we have new information and ask
Mark to provide more information
DR: or could leave it open until Mark responds
AB: we'll leave it open for now and I'll take an action to ping Mark
for more information on the threat scenario
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about
the real threat scenario re Issue #83 [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#action01]
Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail from Thomas:
AB: Thomas submitted some comments against Req #37 and I don't
believe we have yet responded
...
<[31]http://www.w3.org/mid/9dd110c1-d860-40c9-b688-2e08f4d86...@w3.o
rg>
... perhaps we should take the discussion to public-webapps and drop
it from today's agenda. OK?
... any comments?
[31] http://www.w3.org/mid/9DD110C1-D860-40C9-
b688-2e08f4d86...@w3.org%3e
Open Actions
AB: last week we created about 20 Actions and about 15 are still
open.
... To continue to make good progress on our specs we need to
address these actions ASAP
... Please review the actions and address any assigned to you.
... Also do indeed feel free to submit inputs to address others'
actions
... Widget Actions are:
<[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8>
... Let me know if you want agenda time for any of these Actions
[32] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8%3E
June f2f meeting
AB: re location, we now have three proposals: Oslo/Opera,
Edinburgh/OMTP and London/Vodafone. That's certainly sufficient to
close the call for hosts.
... re the dates, June 2-4 are preferable.
... it will of course be impossible to satisfy everyone's #1
priority
DR: June 2-4 conflicts with OMTP meeting
AB: we should also be as Green as we can as well as to try to
minimize travel costs and simplify logistics for everyone, including
those attending from other continents
<fjh> that first week of june is not good for me
AB: are there any other conflicts with June 2-4?
... are there any conflicts with June 9-11?
<abraun> there are always places in North America. I can think of
one place with lots of hotels ;)
DR: not from OMTP's side
MC: that's OK with Opera
AB: anyone else
... it looks like June 9-11 then is best
... any comments about the location?
<timeless> abraun: there's already SJ later in the year
<timeless> so i think the us is out for this meeting
DR: We are happy to cede with Dan's offer to host in London
... I think London is probably the most cost effective
JS: housing in London can be very expensive
... I assume Edinburgh would be cheaper
... I expect to pay for this trip out of my own pocket
<fjh>
[33]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
[33] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
signatures
Arve: lodging in London is not cheaper than Oslo
DR: London is an inexpensive hub to get to
... i think airfare costs will dominate the overall cost of travel
MC: we can live with London
... but want to host the next meeting
AB: any other comments?
JS: I need to check another calendar
AB: I will make a decision in a week or so
... the leading candidate is London June 9-11
JS: I just checked, no conflicts that week
TPAC meeting in November
AB: Charles asked everyone to submit comments about the W3C's
proposed TPAC meeting in November
... see
<[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2009JanMar/0
044.html>
... I think the general consensus is: a) it's too early to make a
firm commitment; b) we support the idea of an all-WG meeting; c) if
there are sufficient topics to discuss then we should meet that
week.
... Does that seem like a fair characterization? Does anyone have
any other comments?
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/
2009JanMar/0044.html%3E
<Marcos> ?
<arve> did everyone, or just us get dropped from the call?
<timeless> just you
<arve> our call appears to be up, but we can't hear
AB: Charles and I need to report to the Team by the end of next week
... again that November TPAC meetingn is in Silicon Valley
JS: if Moz has a meeting I can piggy-back then that would increase
my probability of attending
FH: XML Security is tentatively planning to meet at TPAC on Thursday
Friday, so to avoid overlap can Widgets meet Mon and Tue
AB: I think the most we can report to the Team is "Yes, we
tenatively have agreement to meet during TPAC"
Window Modes
<Marcos> [35]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html
[35] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html
AB: this is Excellent Marcos!
MC: give the credit to Arve :)
AB: so this captures last week's strawman?
MC: yes
Arve: it also includes some interfaces
MC: the APIs will be moved to the A&E spec
... it will only contain the defn of the modes and the Media Queries
BS: this is a good start
AB: anything else on this topic Marcos?
MC: we will work on this over the next few weeks and get it ready
for a FPWD
AB: so a FPWD in the beginning of April?
MC: yes, that would be ideal
Editorial Tasks
DR: I asked OMTP members if they can contribute
... we have an offer from Bryan and ATT
... they want to know specifics
AB: that's a good idea
... I want to first talk to the editors
DR: OK. I will also see if I can get more support
AB: any other comments on this topic?
Anything Else
DR: I just responded to Art's BONDI Release Candidate e-mail
... we have extended the comment period to March 23
... the comments should all be public
JS: I tried to submit feedback and I ran into problems with OMTP's
web site
... it would be really good if the comments could be sent to a mail
list
DR: if you send me the comments that would be good
JS: OK; will do but not this week
AB: is the URI of the public comment archive available?
DR: yes Nick sent it to public-webapps
... depending on the comments we will determine our next step
... the next OMTP meeting is the following week
AB: thanks for the update David
... anythign else?
... Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about the
real threat scenario re Issue #83 [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
