The draft minutes from the November 3 Widgets f2f meeting are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html **
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before November 12 (the next
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered
Approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
** The date on the HTML page says "2 November" but should say "3
November. That bug will be fixed. The date is correct in the minutes
below.
=====
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets F2F Meeting in Santa Clara CA US
03 Nov 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/
TPAC2009Widgets#Agenda_Items
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Josh, Benoit, Marcos, Jere, Arve, Magnus, Jean-Pierre,
Hixie
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Packaging and Configuration spec
2. [6]View Modes Media Feature
3. [7]AOB
4. [8]TWI spec
5. [9]TWI attributes
6. [10]Hixie: Invited Guest
7. [11]Widgets Planning
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 2 November 2009
Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: P+C Test Suite is first topic
MC: I made some tests pre Dusseldorf
... at that test fest a bunch of tests were created
... I have cleaned those tests
... We now have Present Technologies people helping
... I create the test cases
... Present Technologies then checks the test cases and runs them
... So far they have tested Windows Mobile 6.5 using emulator
... Blackberry emulator
<Marcos>
[13]http://samaxes.svn.beanstalkapp.com/widgets_compatibility_matrix
/trunk/index.html
[13] http://samaxes.svn.beanstalkapp.com/
widgets_compatibility_matrix/trunk/index.html
MC: the Present Technology guys are now Invited Experts
... they have found some issues with the test cases
... they have found some bugs but nothing serious
... we haven't yet moved over the stuff from PT to CVS
AB: do you need help from the Team?
<scribe> ACTION: smith work with Marcos to get test stuff from
Present Technologies moved to CVS [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-435 - Work with Marcos to get test stuff
from Present Technologies moved to CVS [on Michael(tm) Smith - due
2009-11-10].
MC: we want to make the Compat Matrix made Public
... some stuff cannot be tested because of the way we created the
test suite
AB: what's an example of something that cannot be tested?
MC: there is no need for a P+C UA to test TWI dependency
... we want the test cases to all be verified
BS: should the "can't test" test cases be put in a different test
suite?
MC: no, I want these tests in the core P+C test suite
... their coverage of test runs is getting pretty good
... also tested LG, BONDI and Wookie
AB: so the next step is to get all of this to CVS?
MC: yes
AB: what about the BONDI impl?
MC: it is running in an emulator
DR: we are thankful for this work
... if you need anything from us, let us know
MC: there are some prereqs
... UA must support HTML4.01, CSS1, PNG, ISO-8859-1
... for example must be able to display
... and support Red, Green
... we want to implementations to support "feature:a9bb79c1
... to support the feature element
... must be able to support the "en" locale
... Eventually, we can create an Acid Test and it will have more
thorough L10N tests
DR: re this featue: a9*, what does impl need?
MC: just need to return true
... test suite is:
[15]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/
... there are 4 testable assertions that need to be written
... when I finish there will be about 16 more tests
... results are all in an XML file
[15] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/
AB: is the MWTS WG still helping with P+C test suite?
MC: no, Kai is working on the DigSig test suite
... the main goal is to be able to test interop
... I think the suite will do that
AB: any questions or comments?
MC: I need feedback from implementors
DR: the RIM stuff gets compiled into a JAR
... so how do you test?
MC: we test via their emulator
... it is no longer a req that a UA be able to download a package
from the Web
AB: after CR#2 we would have some type of interop fest?
MC: yes and Present Technologies is willing to host it
AB: if we use the same Exit Criteria as CR#1, we need 2 impls
DR: we should have a RI by December for BONDI 1.01
s/BOND 1.01/BONDI 1.1/
<drogersuk> The BONDI Candidate Release for 1.1 (released today):
[16]http://bondi.omtp.org/1.1/CR/
[16] http://bondi.omtp.org/1.1/CR/
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work on an interop plan for P+C spec
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-437 - Work on an interop plan for P+C spec
[on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-10].
AB: when will the test suite be complete?
MC: next week
... want to publish test suite when we publish CR#2
MO: earlier today I sent some P+C comments to public-webapps
... re SVG icons and width and height
MC: there is a viewport
[ Marcos displays section 7.11.1 ]
scribe: I will respond to the email after it shows up on the
reflector
AB: anything else on P+C?
[ None ]
AB: input always welcome!
View Modes Media Feature
AB: there are comments from Marcin and David
... and Magun had some comments
... MC wants to delete the view mode values from P+C
MC: I already did that
AB: the P+C spec was never going to tell a WUA what to do with them
so this deletion is OK
MC: yes, that's right and the mistake was to list them
... but I've fixed that
... one issue here is the default view mode in the Table of Config
Defaults
... currently it says default is "floating"
... but I'm proposing it be changed to null
AB: would this change an impl?
MC: no because a WUA would just ignore it
AB: so your proposal is in CR#2 to change the default to "null"
... does anyone object to changing the default value of viewmodes to
null?
... this means the impl will do-the-right-thing
[ No Objection]
RESOLUTION: the viewmode default will be changed to "null"
AB: so MH on Oct 5 wrote:
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/00
47.html
... and there have been no responses
... my take on these comments is they will affect VM-MF and/or VM-I
but not P+C spec
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0047.html
MC: using "all" in this email is equiv to "null" i.e. leave it to
the impl
AB: David had comments on VMMF on Oct 22:
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/02
92.html
... I think this email raises a couple of questions: do we need
generic widget security guidelines and does the VMMF spec need some
security considerations
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0292.html
[ Marcos shows some images of S60 Widgets ]
DR: we have discussed a widget security guidelines document
... my email about VMMF talks about some scenarios to consider
AB: we can have sec considerations per spec
... and if something doesn't fit, document it separately
DR: I'm OK with have a Sec Consids section per spec
... I sent some info to Marcos
[ Josh and David talk about various security scenarios ... ]
DR: I think we need to document some basic security considerations
... I have some examples in the social engr context
AOB
AB: on Tues afternoon, want to swap the 15:30-16:30 and 16:30-17:30
slots
... we will have Widget planning at 15:30-16:30
... any objections?
[ None ]
AB: meeting adjourned
<arve> (and is the bridge up?)
<arve> I have a very young working group-member-by-extension here
attempting to say hi
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 3 November 2009
<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conf
<scribe> Agenda:
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets#Tuesday.2C_N
ovember_3
[20] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/
TPAC2009Widgets#Tuesday.2C_November_3
TWI spec
AB:
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets#The_widget_I
nterface_.28TWI.29_spec
... any change requests?
[21] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/
TPAC2009Widgets#The_widget_Interface_.28TWI.29_spec
[ None ]
AB: the latest ED [22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
... is 19 October your latest version MC?
[22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
MC: yes, that's the latest modulo some editorial changes
AB: the email MC just sent to the list is:
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
59.html
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0459.html
MC: the main reason we need Instance defined
... is it tells how the widget operates
... the specs have some built in assumptions
... i.e. some things are assumed
<arve> do we want to _allow_ navigation?
MC: a single package could have multiple instances
... each instance must have a unique storage
... this can also affect the viewport
Arve: I'm puzzled by why this isn't just a WUA problem
BS: affects what is in the package
<arve> a+
JS: can't we just take care of this via a test
MC: must define the navigation model
Arve: that is a different issue
... I see the need for links to be handeld the same way
... but as for defining widget instance
... not sure we need to do that
... Opera's UA allows multiple instnaces of the same widget
MC: agree but we don't want to restrict
AB: does the text restrict it now?
MC: no, it doesn't restrict it in any way
... so it may be a non-issue
... but we do need a definition
Arve: how does the spec deal with referencing resources in the
package?
MC: the TWI spec doesn't address that issue
... but the URI Scheme spec does
AB: let's capture the issue now
... proposed text: make sure the URI Scheme spec facilitates widget
instance navigation
<Marcos> I.e., the spec needs to make it clear how to resolve
relative paths
AB: is this right?
ISSUE: the URI Scheme spec needs to make it clear how to resolve
relative paths
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-109 - The URI Scheme spec needs to make it
clear how to resolve relative paths ; please complete additional
details at [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/109/edit
.
[24] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/109/edit
AB: if we look at the current defn of Widget Instance, what needs to
change?
MC: we need a clear definition
... make it clear how instance relates to the DefaultView, Viewport
and Document
JS: Window is the global object
... what is ViewPort
MC: it's for styling
<arve> I would like to point out that two window instances of the
same URI, in HTML5 terms, can access each other's data
<arve> we would not like that to happen with separate widget
instances
JS: when a UA instantiates a widget, by loading the default URI
... it applies the widget interface to the Window object
... For any page loaded as the top-level resource into the widgets
... if the location is same origin to the widget instance then this
rule always applies
... the above is mostly right but needs some editorial changes
... some other things are also bound
<timeless_mbp> Any other widget specifications which specify
bindings to objects have the opportunity to bind their Interfaces at
this time according to the same rule
MC: we want to use the storage attribute that behaves the same as
local storage or session storage - whichever one persists thru
navigation of page to page
JK: this is localStorage then that we want
AB: so not sessionStorage but localStorage?
MC: yes
[ We view Web Storage spec ...
[25]http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ ]
[25] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
AB: so going back to MC's email today:
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
59.html
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0459.html
<arve> [no comment]
MC: yes, sessionStorage isn't what we need
AB: do you now have enough feedback for points 1-4?
MC: yes, I do
AB: let's move to point 5
JS: I claim this is an impl detail
<arve> +1
MC: I agree
BS: should the spec say something about cloning?
MC: no, that would be too much detail
JS: yes I agree; we don't want to go there
Arve: may want to use "top browsing context" here as defined in
HTML5
<arve> top level*
JS: yes, good idea; that could be used instead of the text I
proposed earlier
<timeless_mbp> "top-level browsing context"
AB: what about point #6?
<arve> "The browsing context with no parent browsing context is the
top-level browsing context of all the browsing contexts nested
within it"
<arve> :D
AB: would #6 be too restrictive?
<arve> 6 is, IMO; out of scope for TWI
<timeless_mbp> If we imagined a Widget impl modeled after Maemo 5
<timeless_mbp> which doesn't actually follow the behavior described
in 6
<timeless_mbp> as it happens, no one likes this inconsistent
behavior
<timeless_mbp> I could demo this unsatisfactory behavior for people
...
<timeless_mbp> ----
<timeless_mbp> It's out of scope, but basically I doubt any widget
instance is likely to be foolish enough to choose not to get this
right
<timeless_mbp> otoh, it's free to lose while competing in the market
MC: I agree this doesn't need to be in the spec
... but we need to make sure we don't explicitly preclude it
... browsing context is a concept
... and the WindowProxy is the thing that can then be operated upon
JS: we may want to bind on WindowProxy but I'm not sure
[ We look at Browsing Context in HTML5
[27]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/ ]
[27] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/
MC: we may be able to use DOM L2 View spec
... I need to read this part of HTML5
<arve> Again, if the widget interface spec needs to reference DOM
L2, it's a separate spec
MC: need to understand all of the relationships
<arve> (It actually is, if we reference CSS-anything as well)
Arve: if need to reference CSS2 or DOML2 View, need a new spec
MC: yes, true
... we may want to stay silent and just focus on the storage
<annevk> DOM2 View will be obsoleted fwiw
<annevk> (its concept of views, anyway)
<Marcos> annevk: what supersedes it?
<annevk> CSSOM View
<Marcos> ok
MC: view and default view are defined by HTML5
<annevk> (HTML5 will remove its concept of views too, accordingly)
<scribe> ACTION: marcos work with Hixie and Anne on a definition of
Widget Instance [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-438 - Work with Hixie and Anne on a
definition of Widget Instance [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-11-10].
TWI attributes
MC: I get questions about why some of the metadata in the config
file is not an attribute of the Widget object
<arve> no
<arve> Baby cried
BS: how about just adding all of them?
AB: and just making them DOMStrings
<arve> But, read the context, and would not object
AB: propose add license and short name to the Widget object as new
attributes
... any objections?
RESOLUTION: will add license and short name to the Widget object as
new attributes
BS: what about icons?
MC: I don't want to add them until we have a proper API
... the icons are complicated
AB: Marcin's comment #1 Sep 23:
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/12
03.html
... Marcin's comment #2 Sep 23:
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/12
05.html
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1203.html
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/1205.html
MC: those two threads are related to VMMF and VMI specs
AB: so not TWI?
MC: correct, not TWI
AB: Dom did some TWI test work:
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/04
05.html
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/0405.html
MC: these tests dont' really help to verify the spec
... not clear if I'll be able to use what he has done
... but I won't know for sure until I do a deep dive on it
AB: anything else about TWI?
MC: no, I think we've covered the main points
... after I have defined Instance and its relationship to origin and
URI spec, we'll be done
... I need to talk to Robin about it
AB: so the status is that MC needs to do some work before the spec
will be ready for a new review
... It will probably take me about two weeks before the spec is
ready for review
... anything else on TWI for today?
<arve> That was the session from 11:00 to 13:00?
<arve> Just said: Have fun, resolve all issues.
<arve> Byebye
<scribe> Chair: Art
Date: 3 November 2009
Hixie: Invited Guest
[ MC explains the 1 package 3 instances scenario to Hixie ... ]
MC: each instance has its own localStorage
... Zip has multiple HTML files
... want to use the "right" terminology from HTML5
IH: the circles/instances are top-level browsing context
MC: are these TLBC's WindowProxy or something else
IH: any BC has a WindowProxy object
... a session history is bound to a BC
MC: the BC is an abstract concept
IH: the BC is accessible from script via Window
... can only compare WindowProxy
... a BC has a session history
... do these instances have back and forward?
MC: yes they do
IH: session history is a list of docs but has other things
... two entries in sess history
... each doc in the history has a Window object
JS: we want to add some properties to Window or WindowProxy
MC: origin retention is important
IH: origin is an opaque identifier derived from the UUID
JS: we are just saying its an opaque id
IH: any resources loaded from the instance will have the same origin
MC: so, we just need to talk about TLBC
JS: and the properties are off the Window object
IH: take a look at Window Modal IDL
<Hixie> this is the WindowModal example i was talking about:
[32]http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#windowmodal
[32] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
#windowmodal
MC: next problem is ViewPort
... we want to reuse existing spec if we can
IH: want to create an @viewport rule
MC: we need viewport landscape, portrait
IH: CSS already defines viewport
MC: we need to define viewport rule to work for web pages and not
just widgets
[ Josh demos orientation changes with mobile device ]
IH: you should probably talk to the CSS WG
MC: we will say widget prefs will be localStorage
<timeless> anyone here?
<MikeSmith> yeah
<timeless> we'll be there in 5mins
<timeless> liar
<MikeSmith> heh
Widgets Planning
AB: widgets pub status is:
[33]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Widgets_Specificat
ions
[33] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/
PubStatus#Widgets_Specifications
BS: I will upload an image of MC's diagram from earlier today
MC: I'll add it to the TWI spec
<Benoit>
[34]http://www.slideshare.net/bsuzanne/widget-instance-model
[34] http://www.slideshare.net/bsuzanne/widget-instance-model
<scribe> ACTION: barstow determine a plan for P+C CR#2 and beyond
[recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-443 - Determine a plan for P+C CR#2 and
beyond [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-11].
MC: there are too many issues with adding license to the Widget
object
AB: any objections to keeping it out?
<scribe> ACTION: benoit submit a proposal for adding license to the
Widget object [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-444 - Submit a proposal for adding license
to the Widget object [on Benoit Suzanne - due 2009-11-11].
<scribe> ACTION: marcos to remove license from the ED of the P+C
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-445 - Remove license from the ED of the
P+C [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-11-11].
<scribe> ACTION: barstow send a request for pre-LC comments for the
TWI spec [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-446 - Send a request for pre-LC comments
for the TWI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-11].
<scribe> ACTION: barstow send a reminder to review URI scheme spec
[recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-447 - Send a reminder to review URI scheme
spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-11].
MC: my prios are: P+C test suite, TWI spec
... need to spend time on test suite for DigSig
<scribe> ACTION: barstow review DigSig test suite; get comments from
Frederick [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-448 - Review DigSig test suite; get
comments from Frederick [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-11].
MC: Opera opposes URI and WARP going to CR without a prior test
suite
... I think these two will be relatively easy to test
... will need to discuss with Robin
... may need to get some help from Consortium to set up a persistent
test domain
... but that will be needed by CORS, XHR, etc.
AB: Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow determine a plan for P+C CR#2 and beyond
[recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow review DigSig test suite; get comments from
Frederick [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow send a reminder to review URI scheme spec
[recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow send a request for pre-LC comments for the TWI
spec [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow work on an interop plan for P+C spec [recorded
in [45]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: benoit submit a proposal for adding license to the
Widget object [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos to remove license from the ED of the P+C
[recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos work with Hixie and Anne on a definition of
Widget Instance [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: smith work with Marcos to get test stuff from Present
Technologies moved to CVS [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
