The draft minutes from the April 2 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 16 April 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
02 Apr 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0006.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Frederick, Mike, Marcos, Arve, Andy, David, Mark, Benoit
Regrets
Robin
Chair
Art
Scribe
ArtB
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Widget publication plan for 2Q-09:
4. [8]DigSig: Getting review of 31-Mar-2009 WD
5. [9]DigSig: Issues inventory, actions, plans
6. [10]P&C: Planning
7. [11]P&C: Simple approach for <access>
8. [12]P&C: <access> and URI equivalence
9. [13]P&C: Move <update> element to the Updates spec?
10. [14]A&E: Planning
11. [15]A&E: plan to get inputs on the Red Block issues
12. [16]URI scheme
13. [17]AOB
* [18]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> Scribe: ArtB
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 2 April 2009
Review and tweak agenda
AB: draft agenda posted on April 1
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/00
06.html
... Any change requests?
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0006.html
FH: re DigSig want to add some items
AB: OK
... any other change requests?
[ None ]
Announcements
AB: DigSig WD published on March 31. Good work Frederick, Marcos,
Mark and the rest of you!
... any other short announcements?
[ None ]
Widget publication plan for 2Q-09:
AB: I attended the March 30 BONDI Steering Group meeting and
provided a short summary of my expectations for our publishing plans
for the rest of 2Q-09. Yesterday I sent that plan to the public mail
list (and no, it wasn't an "April Fool's" joke). See:
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/00
05.html
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0005.html
<mpriestl> {can't join conference bridge... trying again)
AB: any general comments on that plan? My preference regarding
issues for a specific spec, is to defer detailed discussion until we
get to the appropriate place in the agenda.
FH: general concern about the excellerated schedule for DigSig
... mandatory algorithms can take more than one month
... need to some consistency
... Do algorithms need to be frozen before LC?
<mpriestl> (sorry can I check that the following are correct
+1.617.761.6200, conference 9231 ("WAF1"))
AB: good questions. How about you, me, Mike and Thomas take this
offline and talk about scenarios
FH: the concern is that XML Sec WG may not agree with our schedule
<marcos> akim, what's the passcode?
FH: do you agree this is an excellerated schedule?
<marcos> mpriestl: ^^^
FH: they may have a real issue with us doing this so fast re
algorithms
... the decision will depend on implementations
... we don't know resource commitments yet
<mpriestl> (success! thanks Marcos)
<fjh> A concern with the proposed last call schedule is that we may
not have a final decision on mandatory algorithms in time.
AB: re excellerated, we could debate that. Again, I think we should
take this offline and talk about the various scenarios
<fjh> The reason for this is that this decision will depend in part
on the ability of stakeholders to implement the algorithms that are
required.
<fjh> This knowledge will require some to allocate resources to
determine what is involved.
<fjh> This will take some time.
<fjh> The XML Security WG is working on this but I doubt will have
this information very quickly since it is a decision that requires
more information.
<fjh> It would help to accelerate this decision making process if
members of the Web Applications Working Group
<fjh> who sent comments and feedback regarding algorithms, such as
Elliptic Curve, to send those comments directly
<fjh> to the XML Security WG comments list at
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Frederick, Thomas and MikeSmith
re the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-327 - Work with Frederick, Thomas and
MikeSmith re the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April [on
Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09].
<fjh> [email protected]
MC: did we reach consensus on ECC?
FH: no
... we have had some discussions
MC: of the ones we listed, are they controversial?
FH: DSA has some controversy
<fjh> The concern is that DSA may have some of the same risks as
RSA, making it less suitable if an issue is discovered with RSA
DigSig: Getting review of 31-Mar-2009 WD
<fjh> The concerns with ECDSA include availability of
implementations and potential IPR risks.
AB: first question is who besides XML Sec WG and BONDI should be
included in the request for comments? Another question is do we need
announcement on public-webapps?
... FH, any other WG?
FH: not sure who would be appropriate
AB: any other suggestions?
MC: maybe MWBP but I don't feel strongly
AB: annouce on public-webapps?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow annouce 31 March DigSig spec on
public-webapps [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Annouce 31 March DigSig spec on
public-webapps [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09].
DigSig: Issues inventory, actions, plans
AB: let's quickly look at the inventory of Issues and Actions for
DigSig and look for "what's missing" rather than actually doing a
deep dive: [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8
... we can track the Issues in the spec or by Tracker; I'm mostly
indifferent provided the issues are documented. Let's start with
Issues. Are there any major issues that are not captured? Last
Editor's Draft is [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
[23] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8
[24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
<fjh> I strongly request algorithm comments be sent to XML Security
WG, [email protected]
MC: want Mark to help clarify Issue #83
MP: I was under the impression this should be closed
... I sent an email about this
MC: I couldn't find any trace
... in the mail archive
... We agreed we didn't think it was a problem
AB: we can close this now, Mark, if that is your pref
MP: I don't think this is a real issue
... I am OK with a resolution that we don't do anything about it
... I will find the email and then either resend or agree to close
it
AB: FH, what issues need to be captured
FH: please, Everyone, send comments about algorithms to the XML Sec
WG
... that will help with Iss #81
... two more issues
... one is related to authoring
... an issue there is what is legally binding
<marcos> ... to do with the semantics of "author"
FH: the wording has people a bit concerned
AB: how do we handle this Issue, or email?
FH: I can handle this via email
<scribe> ACTION: hirsch send an email to address this authoring
issue [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-329 - Send an email to address this
authoring issue [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-04-09].
FH: the other issue is the alignment of the requirements
MC: I have aligned the two docs now
... I abstracted the req a bit
<fjh> R52 ok?
MC: I also changed the numbers in the DigSig ED so they align with
the numbers in the Reqs doc
FH: not sure R#52 is correct
<fjh> [26]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#use-and-syntax
[26] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#use-and-syntax
<marcos>
[27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#multiple-signatures-and
-certificate-chains
[27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#multiple-
signatures-and-certificate-chains
<fjh> [28]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#requirements
[28] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#requirements
FH: we just need to tweak the DigSig spec to match
<fjh> all those in requirements doc look like R1?
MC: I think the alignment is done
<fjh> R52. Support for Multiple Signature Algorithms: DSA-SHA-1,
RSA-SHA-1, DSA-SHA-256 and RSA-SHA-256.
MC: I don't think we need to change anything in the digsig spec
... sorry, I understand now
... I do need to change the Reqs doc
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos make sure the DigSig spec is aligned with
the Reqs doc [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Make sure the DigSig spec is aligned
with the Reqs doc [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-04-09].
MP: I think it is good to use the new abstraction
... but in the spec we need to be more specific, as we've done
... must have at least one mandatory algorithm
... I think what we now have is OK
AB: if you have any comments please submit them
... we want BONDI to submit comments ASAP
DR: yes, I will take that message to BONDI
AB: David, you also have an open Action to get BONDI to supply
feedback re the algorithms
FH: David, if people could send comments to XML Sec WG that would be
good
AB: any other Dig Sig topics for today?
FH: no, I think we've covered them
P&C: Planning
AB: any comments on the P&C publication plans I sent yesterday?
MC: I think they are OK, fingers-crossed and such
AB: anyone else?
[ None ]
P&C: Simple approach for <access>
AB: is Robin here?
DR: I think IRC only
AB: last week Robin submitted a proposal for the <access> element
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/09
43.html Any comments?
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0943.html
<drogersuk> Robin is in the OMTP meeting at the moment
AB: any general comments?
... hearing none, please send comments to the mail list
MC: it is similar to what we've alreday proposed
... that is, it is similar to what Opera had already proposed
... we will work with Robin on this
MP: it is similar to what has already been proposed with perhaps a
few additional restrictions
... e.g. the wildcard
... we need to review the wildcard change
AB: any other comments?
... David, please let BONDI know we seek comments on this as soon as
possible
DR: yes, we know about this and given the BONDI meeting this week,
we won't get comments to the group until next week
P&C: <access> and URI equivalence
AB: last week Thomas started a thread on <access> and URI
equivalence
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/09
35.html Any comments?
... Thomas isn't here
... Marcos, what is the relationship between Robin's proposal and
TLR's proposal?
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JanMar/0935.html
MC: it is related to the URI proposal
... but I'm not sure what Thomas' proposal is about; relates to Dan
C's Web URL proposal
<marcos>
[32]http://homer.w3.org/~connolly/projects/urlp/raw-file/008373680ca
e/wah5/draft.html
[32] http://homer.w3.org/~connolly/projects/urlp/raw-file/
008373680cae/wah5/draft.html
MC: I think it's called Web Addresses in HTML5
P&C: Move <update> element to the Updates spec?
AB: The P&C spec defines the <update> element but defers the
processing model to the Updates spec. I'd like to discuss the pros
and cons of moving the definition of this element to the Updates
spec and thus P&C would contain no reference(s) to the Updates spec.
Given the P&C's extensibility model supports elements being defined
in a separate spec, this can be easily done (from an Editorial
perspective). I think the clear advantage of doing this is that it
removes
BS: until the PAG has reviewed this, I'm not sure this is a good
idea
... I think what we've specified is similar to what FF has defined
DR: is the Updates spec frozen?
MC: no, Rigo said we can we keep working on it
AB: would like to hear Mike's perspective on this
MS: we can keep working on it and even publish a new WD of the
Updates spec
AB: we can indeed then do as proposed
BS: will still need something in the config file
... it is the engine that is requesting something
MC: the question is whether the update element is specified in the
P+C spec or a the separate Updates spec
... it doesn't really matter where it is specified
... thus technically it doesn't matter
... P+C doesn't say what to do with the element
BS: P+C says it has to be there
AB: I don't think someone is not going to know the Updates spec
exists
MS: I agree with Art
MC: I like this proposal from a separation of concerns perspective
... but politically, it is a bit irritating
BS: there is no one document that captures everything
<Benoit> looking at it on the side onf the developpers, it makes
sens to have one single place to view the xml file
AB: the model, by design, is that P+C defines the core set of
elements
... and anyone else can define additional elements
<mpriestl> (sorry had to drop off the call)
BS: but would like some type of umbrella spec that identifies all of
the parts
... I don't object to removing update element
... and I'm OK with a Red Block in the LC that warns this element
may be removed
AB: it appears we do not have consensus to move the update element
to the Updates spec
MC: I agree with Benoit we would need a doc that talks about how the
specs fit together
<Benoit> there is a widget engine on one side and the widgets on the
other, and the IP information we have is applying to one program
updating itself but here we have one program updating another (much
like the Firefox program updates it's plugin)
MC: but I think we should take it out
... and do as Mike suggested and continue to work on the Updates
spec
... we could even make the move and publish a new WD of Updates
within a couple of weeks
AB: I haven't read the IP, I don't plan to read the IP and I'm not
sure we should base our decsion on the IP
... I propose we move the <update> element to the Updates spec
... comments?
<Benoit> I object
AB: mainly looking for do you agree or object
MC: Arve and I agree
BS: I object
AB: what is your basis for the objection?
BS: I want to wait for the PAG to discuss this
... I don't think we need to do this now
MC: it would simplify the P+C spec
... and it is a good technical separation
... it doesn't really even belong in the P+C spec
DR: does anyone have a link to Rigo's email?
AB: we have no consensus
... Mike, what do we do
... rigo:
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2009JanMar/00
90.html
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/
2009JanMar/0090.html
MS: we can handle this a couple of ways
... Editors can make the decision
... Chair can make a decsion
... We don't have to make a decision now
AB: I agree with Marcos
... I ask him to go ahead and make those changes
A&E: Planning
AB: any comments on the A&E publication plans I sent yesterday?
Arve: I am fine with the plan
AB: any other comments about the plan?
[ None ]
A&E: plan to get inputs on the Red Block issues
AB: last week Arve said he would submit a proposal to address the
A&E's red block issues. What is the status Arve?
Arve: I haven't had the time
AB: how can we help you?
Arve: the red block issues that are mostly trivial
... there is one substantial change
... we agreed to move the Window object
... [34]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
[34] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
AB: can we get a proposal for these before the next meeting?
Arve: when is the next meeting?
AB: April 9
Arve: that is a public holiday in NO
AB: how about April 8?
Arve: that should be do-able
AB: is that true for the other Europeans?
Arve: NO has several days of Easter holiday
DR: not in the UK
<drogersuk> Easter Monday is a bank holiday
AB: I'm trying to determine if we will have critical mass on April 9
MC: probably I won't be available
AB: FH won't be available on April 9
RESOLUTION: we will not have a Voice Conference on April 9
AB: Arve, what's the plan for these Red Block issues in the A+E
spec?
Arve: I will address them ASAP and send my proposal to the mail list
... if there is no major pushback, we can determine if the next step
is a WD or LCWD
<arve> "the group can determine"
<arve> I will not object to the group's decision even if I'm not
present
AB: any last comments on the A+E spec?
[ None ]
URI scheme
AB: Before we get to the status and plans, I want to first
understand the dependency(s) other specs have on this scheme. What
is the dependency chain?
... more specifically, will P+C, A+E or DigSig have a dependency on
this scheme?
<marcos> All specs can make use a of a URI scheme, but they are
designed in such a way that they don't depend on any
AB: so P+C, A+E and DigSig can go to Candidate and be implemented
without this URI scheme being nailed down?
MC: I would argue yes
... but TLR may argue no
AB: what do other people think?
[ No comments ]
AB: what is the status and plan? I believe Robin has agreed to lead
this work.
... Marcos, did you and/or Arve agree to work with him on this?
MC: yes, I can work with Robin
... would be good to have timeless / Josh to help
AB: last I talked with Josh he had higher priorities
MC: we could create an absolute minimal scheme ie. just the path and
scheme
... but that will receive negative feedback to
... no matter what we do we will run into other people's agenda
... expect a defacto standard here
... but maybe Robin can come up with a proposal everyone can agree
with
AOB
AB: I don't have anything; do others?
BS: what about the next meeting?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow send London June f2f meeting wiki page to
the mail list [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-331 - Send London June f2f meeting wiki
page to the mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09].
AB: anything else?
MC: I18N model - I created a rather large doc about how to localize
a widgets
... need to get consensus soon
... it was a lot more complicated then I had originally imagined
... I expect to send the proposal to the group within a few days
AB: is this going to be a separate spec?
MC: no; my doc includes different proposals
... want people to pick from the various solutions
AB: this sounds great
... looking forward to reading this
... so early next week?
MC: yes
AB: anything else?
... Meeting Adjourned; next Voice Conf will be April 16
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow annouce 31 March DigSig spec on public-webapps
[recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow send London June f2f meeting wiki page to the
mail list [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Frederick, Thomas and MikeSmith re
the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: hirsch send an email to address this authoring issue
[recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos make sure the DigSig spec is aligned with the
Reqs doc [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[End of minutes]
