The draft minutes from the September 3 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 10 September 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
03 Sep 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0935.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Marcin, Art, Marcos, Arve, Steven, Bryan, Benoit
Regrets
Robin, AndyB, Frederick
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]P&C spec: comments from PFWG
4. [8]P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization
5. [9]P&C spec: Conformance Checker (CC) requirements
6. [10]Introduction by Steven Pemberton
7. [11]widget Interface spec: storage
8. [12]WARP spec: LC comments from Marcin Hanclik
9. [13]Widget URIs spec: proposal to publish LCWD
10. [14]View Modes spec: status
11. [15]AOB
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date 3 September 2009
Review and tweak agenda
AB: the draft agenda was posted on September 2 (
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/09
35.html ). I propose adding View Modes before AOB. Any objections to
that?
... any change requests?
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0935.html
[ None ]
Announcements
AB: Reminders on upcoming deadlines: 1) Sep 14 is deadline to
register for Widgets Testing event (
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TestWorkshop2009 ); 2) Sep
15 comment deadline for APIs and Events LCWD; 3) Sep 20 comment
deadline for WARP LCWD
... Does anyone have any other short announcements?
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TestWorkshop2009
[ None ]
P&C spec: comments from PFWG
AB: on August 27, WAI's Protocols and Formats WG submitted comments
against the P&C LCWD (
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/08
43.html ). Although these comments are late, we should still respond
to them. Note these comments have been added to the P&C post-LCWD
comment tracker (
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets/PandC-LCWD-28May2009
).
... Marcos, have you had a chance to review these?
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0843.html
[20] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets/PandC-
LCWD-28May2009
MC: just briefly
... most related to Conformance Checker
AB: let's make sure we respond
MC: OK, will do
<scribe> ACTION: caceres respond to PFWG's comments on the P+C LCWD
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-399 - Respond to PFWG's comments on the
P+C LCWD [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-09-10].
AB: ok thanks Marcos; I don't consider this urgent
<arve> sorry for late IRC arrival
P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization
AB: this topic is continued from our 27 August Voice Conf (
[22]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#item03 ). Has
anyone received feedback from the I18N WG on this issue (
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/06
44.html )?
... I checked their public mail list and it appears they did not
meet on Sept 2
... but I don't know if they meet weekly or not
[22] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#item03
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0644.html
MH: they meet later in the day, Europe time
AB: Marcos, Marcin - have you received any feedback from them?
MC: no
MH: no
AB: OK, I'll ping Addison
<scribe> ACTION: barstow follow-up with Addisson and Richard and
I18N Core WG re the URI/IRI normalization issue for the P+C spec
[recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-400 - Follow-up with Addisson and Richard
and I18N Core WG re the URI/IRI normalization issue for the P+C spec
[on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-09-10].
AB: anything else on that topic today?
[ No ]
P&C spec: Conformance Checker (CC) requirements
AB: on IRC yesterday, Marcos raised the question "What are we going
to do if no one implements the Conformance Checker (CC)
requirements?".
MC: a question is how to we progress the spec if no one implements
the CC reqs
... we could make a call for implemenations
... and try to get a commitment
... Robin indicated in IRC that he could do an impl
... but I think we want "commericially viable" impls
... we need impls beyond academic proof of concepts
AB: what is the status from the MWTS WG on this?
MC: I don't have a update
... they did a "quick-and-dirty" impl
... as part of their validation service
... an add on to that service would be good
AB: is anyone willing to extend what MWTS has done to meet our reqs?
[ No ]
AB: I guess at this point, all we can say is that at the end of CR
we may have some testable assertions for which there is no impl
... perhaps we will be OK if we have test cases and 2 or more impls
for the P+C UA product
<Marcos> [25]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/
[25] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/
AB: even though we may not have impls for the CC product
MC: my priority at the moment is the P+C UA product
... we will probably have about 200 tests
AB: anything else on testing Marcos?
MC: I am having some issues with CVS
MH: I was having a similar issue a few weeks ago
... Kai and Dom can help here
MC: OK; I'll try that
AB: Marcos, if you continue to have problems let me know
MC: looking back, we should have built the test suite during Last
Call and not wait until CR
... before we progress any other spec to CR, we should do real work
on the test suite
... especially for Widgets Interface and WARP specs
... as well as Widgets URI spec
AB: that seems like a good idea to me
Introduction by Steven Pemberton
AB: Steven, thanks for joining us!
SP: I am based in Amsterdam
... been involved with XHMTL, HTML, XForms, CSS, etc.
... involved with two WGs and some various Task Forces
... I was asked to help with this group but my time is limited
AB: OK; thanks for joining and we look forward to having your
expertise to help us!
widget Interface spec: storage
AB: last week we discussed Scott Wilson's thread (
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/07
83.html ) related to the Web Storage spec (
[27]http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ ). Marcos, during our 27
August call you indicated (
[28]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#item06 ) you were
going to send a response to Scott.
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0783.html
[27] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
[28] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#item06
MC: I haven't completed that yet
... but I will respond before the end of the week
AB: anything else on this topic?
... a new WD of the Web Storage WD should be published next week
... we need that spec to continue given our dependency on it
WARP spec: LC comments from Marcin Hanclik
AB: on August 27, Marcin submitted comments (
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/08
44.html ) for the WARP LCWD. We want detailed discussions to occur
on public-webapps but let's take some time now to let Marcin
summarize his proposed changes.
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/0844.html
MH: the access element and its syntax and semantics
... it would be changed to be based on the feature element
... I propose some syntax changes
... the subdomain attr is problematic e.g. doesn't support more
protocols
... the uri attr is also a prob
... e.g. the value "*" is too loose
... I propose we move from the access element to the feature element
... Need to support other protocols beyond http e.g. tel:, sms:,
etc.
MC: we also thought about enabling network via the feature element
... but we think using access element simplifies the model a bit
... Doing it all via feature is a bit convoluted
... The sec policy will permit or not stuff like tel:
... The feature stuff should eventually go away as things get
included by the UA; that they will be there by default
... I see some value in Marcin's proposal but I prefer the current
model
... Want to hear more feedback from the WG
MH: we need to define security and policy
... and that is the scope of the DAP WG
... don't think WARP should define security model or policy
... there are several use cases we need to consider against warp
e.g. mailto:
MC: I think we should take this up on the mail list
MH: I'm OK with that
... please answer my e-mail
MC: I will but after I take care of some P+C issues
... I do think we think about whether WARP is too over-reaching
... and I also agree we may need to discuss this with DAP
MH: should we Cc: DAP WG?
MC: I don't think so; I suspect WARP will end up going back to WD
AB: further discussions should continue on public-webapps
... the deadline for comments for WARP LC is 20 September
... are there related discussion in BONDI about WARP?
MH: yes
... BONDI has an access requirement
... we need something like WARP
... but we access to be done via features
... we defined an element that similar to WARP's <access> but it is
different
... BONDI wants to be based on W3C spec
AB: any last comments on this topic?
Widget URIs spec: proposal to publish LCWD
AB: on September 2 Robin completed his action to get the Widget URIs
spec ready for LCWD (
[30]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ ). By publishing
a LCWD we are stating the spec is functionally complete and meets
all of the relevant requirements. Are there any objections to
publishing this document as LCWD?
[30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
MC: I have reservations
... I sent a bunch of feedback about one hour ago
AB: I haven't looked at it
MC: the spec meets the relevant reqs
... but it doesn't define everything that it should
... it also doesn't have a Conformance section
... and doesn't define a "product"
... I think Robin should fix the problems I found before we publish
it
... If he fixes the issues I raised, I think we would have a better
LCWD document
AB: what do others think?
... Do we wait until Robin addresses MC's concerns or publish as is?
MC: I think we should fix the problems first
MH: I need to review MC's comments
... if Robin can fix MC's comments RS that would be good
Bryan: I support that as well
AB: you mean you want MC's comments addressed first?
Bryan: yes
AB: I'm hearing the majority of people want to postpone publication
until Robin has addressed MC's comments
... so that's what we will do
... anything else on this topic for today?
[ No ]
View Modes spec: status
AB: Marcin, what is the status of the View Modes spec (
[31]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm/ ). Has the spec
been split?
[31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm/
MH: the spec isn't split yet but I intend to do the split by the end
of the week
AB: excellent
... any other status to report?
MH: not today
AB: anyone else have something for this topic?
[ No ]
AOB
MH: regarding TPAC
... can attend as a group participant
... or as an Observer
... the UI of the registration form doesn't permit a person to
register as a participant for two WGs on the same day
Bryan: I have the same issue
AB: I'll raise this issue with our Team Contacts
Benoit: WebApps will have two rooms, right?
AB: yes
... any other AOB items?
... Next meeting: next week, same logistics. This meeting is
adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow follow-up with Addisson and Richard and I18N
Core WG re the URI/IRI normalization issue for the P+C spec
[recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: caceres respond to PFWG's comments on the P+C LCWD
[recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
