The draft minutes from the May 28 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-minutes.html#item08>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 18 June 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 Conf
04 Jun 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0728.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Robin, Thomas, Arve, Marcos, Josh, Jere, David,
Frederick, Mark
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]DigSig LCWD comments by Vodafone
4. [8]Widgets Dig Sig spec: agree on candidate exit criteria:
5. [9]Widgets Dig Sig spec: Dependency on XML Sig 1.1
6. [10]Widgets Digital Signature spec: Proposal to publish
Candidate Recommendation
7. [11]WAR spec: UCs and requirements
8. [12]Prepare for June 9-11 f2f meeting Draft agenda:
comments, priorities, etc.:
9. [13]Open Actions
10. [14]AOB
* [15]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 4 June 2009
<arve> Zakim: P2 is me
Review and tweak agenda
AB: I posted the agenda on June 3
([16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
728.html). The only change I propose is to change the order of 3.b
and 3.c. Any change requests?
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0728.html).
TR: move f2f preps to end of meeting
AB: OK; we will do that
... add Mark's latest email re DigSig to the agenda
... Robin, will you represent Mark on this call?
<darobin> mpriestl: can you get on the call?
RB: no, not really
Announcements
AB: I have one short announcement: for those of you following the
Draft DAP WG Charter () discussions, Frederick has been designated
as a Chair (along with Robin)
DR: what is the Chair selection process?
TR: it is mostly opaque
... and Team driven
DR: if you would direct me to the Proc Doc; I'm not clear on it
TR: sure, I can do that
... I think the only relevant text is "the Director will appoint the
Chair"
AB: any other announcements?
[ None ]
DigSig LCWD comments by Vodafone
AB: Mark submitted comments this morning which is 3 days too late
... my recommendation is to postpone the handling of those comments
until after the CR is published
... comments on my proposal?
MP: that is fine for VF
... I am sorry those comments were late
... I don't think any of the comments will affect Candidate
... one may be a bit problematic
AB: want to emphasize we will always accept comments
... we do have to be careful though about moving the target date
... proposed Resolution: we will handle VF's LCWD comments of June 4
during CR
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: we will handle VF's LCWD comments of June 4 during CR
Widgets Dig Sig spec: agree on candidate exit criteria:
AB: a few days ago I proposed some text for the WidDigSig's
Candidate "exit criteria"
([17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
700.html). Any comments about that proposal?
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0700.html).
<Marcos_> +a
AB: any objections to the proposed Exit Criteria?
[ None ]
Widgets Dig Sig spec: Dependency on XML Sig 1.1
AB: one issue we need to discuss before resolving to publish a
DigSig CR is "how far can this spec go in the Recommendation track
with a normative dependency on a WD of XML Digital Signatures 1.1?".
My understanding is PR but no further. Thomas or Mike, would you
please clarify?
TR: I believe your understanding is correct
... but I'll check
... I think the doc is well hidden
AB: XBL2 has a precedence of this
TR: let's proceed as if this won't be an issue and we can deal with
it later if we need to
MS: +1 to TR
AB: we then proceed as planned
Widgets Digital Signature spec: Proposal to publish Candidate
Recommendation
AB: the WidDigSig spec is ready to be published as a Candidate
Recommendation. Any objections to that?
MC: I have concerns about the cannoicalization aspects
... have they been resolved?
TR: are these general issues or ones that can be dealt with during
CR
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that we have not hard-and-fast
rule
MC: I hear cannoicalization doesn't work
TR: the only concern I know of is complexity
<arve> gotta call back in in a minute
TR: the way the spec is used tho, there is no breakage
FH: we profiled it down
MC: so OK, it sholdn't be too bad
... I heard it is difficult to implement in .NET
TR: which cannonicalization?
MC: the one in the spec
TR: if .NET it could be a 1.0 vs. 1.1 concern
<timeless_mbp> what does that mean?
DR: yes, I think that is true
TR: doesn't matter whether we use 1.0 or 1.1
<fjh> what i said about profiling is this, since the case is narrow
enough
<tlr> ... or exclusive
<fjh> sounds like a comment that needs to be on the list
AB: my recommendation is that if this is an issue, it be raised
during CR
MC: yes, I think that is OK
TR: this will affect interop
... it may be worthwhile to shift to Exclusive right now
FH: I think that would be reasonable
... I don't think we need the features of 1.1
... let me check the spec ...
... 6.3 requires Canon 1.1
<timeless_mbp> fjh: if i want to give feedback, should i to: you and
cc: wg?
FH: we can change to Exclusive and that would address the concern
... TR, is that OK with you?
TR: Exclusive isn't strictly mandatory
... think Exclusive is the one to take
MP: is there a ref that could be put in IRC?
... are we confident we'd end up with the same result?
<fjh> [18]http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/
[18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/
TR: the two disagree with the handling of namespaces
... and some subset [missed details ...]
... we don't use qnames and content
... only 1 case there could be some diffs and it is if gratuitous
namespaces are used but not needed
<fjh> proposal - change required algorithm in 6.3 from Canonical XML
1.1 omits comments to
<fjh> Exclusive XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments)
<fjh> [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n
AB: can we agree to make this change and also agree to move directly
to CR?
TR: the question is if this would "invalidate" a review?
<fjh> also add reference for Exclusive Canonicalization
TR: does anyone think it would?
RB: no
FH: I think this is the right thing to do
... I don't think we'll have any problems
<fjh> proposal - 1. change required alg in 6.3, 2. add reference to
exclusive c14n
AB: are there any objections to FH's proposal?
[ None ]
<fjh> Exclusive XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments)
AB: since we agreed to make this change, are there any objections to
going to CR directly?
<fjh> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n
[ No ]
AB: propose: RESOLUTION: the group agrees Widgets Digital Signature
spec is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation
<fjh> with additional changes agreed today
AB: any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: the group agrees Widgets Digital Signature spec is ready
for publication as a Candidate Recommendation
<scribe> ACTION: hirsch notify Art when the excl c14n change has
been made and the SoTD is updated for CR [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-minutes.html#action01]
WAR spec: UCs and requirements
AB: we've had a Call for UCs and Reqs
([22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
581.html) and two related ACTION: Action 347
([23]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/347) and Action
348 ([24]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/348).
... besides not having agreement on UCs and Reqs, we also do not
have consensus on the definitions of Origin nor Domain of Trust
([25]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/#security-model).
... additionally, there now seems to be an attempt to add UA
behavior for the <feature> element regarding security policy e.g.
Robin's proposal
([26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0
732.html).
... lastly, I agree with concerns raised by some members of this WG
about us specifying something that is going to "tie the hands" of
the DAP WG's security policy work.
... any status of UCs and Reqs?
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0581.html)
[23] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/347)
[24] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/348).
[25] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/#security-model).
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0732.html).
[ None ]
<darobin>
[27]http://www.w3.org/mid/e3625432-e1af-42f6-9e5e-73b29ee8d...@berjo
n.com
[27] http://www.w3.org/mid/E3625432-
[email protected]
RB: I sent a related email
<timeless_mbp> arve: does
[28]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ show "Copyright ©
2009 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability,
trademark and document use rules apply." in Opera (10beta)?
[28] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/
AB: I wasn't sure how the proposal would be reflected in the spec?
RB: has anyone read it?
[ No responses ]
RB: it supports one of the options we have discussed
... network access requires <access>
<timeless_mbp> does the widget have access to the iframe?
RB: but <access> does not provide access to "sensitive APIs"
... Arve, any comments?
<timeless_mbp> we can't hear you
<timeless_mbp> tlr: were you OK or Not OK w/ the original?
Arve: I agree with a model where a doc outside of the widget does
not get any additional access rights
<arve> artb's summary is right
RB: is there consensus here?
TR: I only had a superficial review
... I am OK with this being added to the FPWD
FH: I have not reviewed it
TR: if no one has read it, we can resolve to publish it as FPWD if
no objections by some date
RB: I haven't reflected my email into the spec
AB: I would prefer to get RB to reflect his input into the ED, then
notify the group and then we can make a decision about FPWD
RB: I can do that tomorrow
TR: OK with me
<timeless_mbp> so basically this spec says that a widget has as much
access as the browser?
AB: next Tues we can make a decision about FPWD
... any last comments about WAR spec for today?
[ None ]
Prepare for June 9-11 f2f meeting Draft agenda: comments, priorities,
etc.:
AB: yesterday I tweaked next week's agenda
([29]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsLondonJune2009#Agend
a_Items) and will probably make additional small changes over the
next few days. Any comments?
... the only firm time for a subject is Tues June 9 13:00-14:30 and
it will be Security Policy. Priority will be P&C, and the issues
related to advancing W/V Modes, A&E, WAR, and URI specs.
... any comments on agenda?
[29] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/
WidgetsLondonJune2009#Agenda_Items)
TR: I must stop at 15:00 on Tues
... <access> element is the highest priority
AB: any other comments?
<tlr> (and the widget uri scheme, ugh. Forgot about that one)
[ None ]
<fjh> I also have firm stop at 15:00 on Tuesday
Open Actions
AB: please address Open actions before the f2f meeting:
[30]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8
[30] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8
<timeless_mbp> ArtB: i might be able to make it if i can get some
wiggle room w/ managers, i'll pick up transportation and someone
will host a room, so i'd just need a manager not to complain about
my lack of physical presence
AOB
AB: any topics?
... I don't have any
... meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: hirsch notify Art when the excl c14n change has been
made and the SoTD is updated for CR [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
[37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
