The draft minutes from the 4 February Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 11 February (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
04 Feb 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0411.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Arve, Marcos, StephenJ, StevenP, Robin, Marcin
Regrets
Josh
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]P&C spec: Any critical comments against P&C CR#2?
4. [8]P&C spec: Interop plans (and exiting CR)
5. [9]TWI spec: test case comments
6. [10]TWI spec: Interop plans?
7. [11]WARP spec: test suite plans
8. [12]WARP spec: use cases for local network access
9. [13]URI Scheme spec: Status of LC comment tracking
10. [14]AOB
* [15]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 4-Feb-2010
Review and tweak agenda
AB: agenda submitted on Feb 3 (
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04
11.html ). We will drop 4.a. because Marcos already closed action
476. Any change requests?
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0411.html
Announcements
AB: any short announcements?
P&C spec: Any critical comments against P&C CR#2?
AB: the comment period for P&C CR#2 ended 24-Jan-2010. About 15
comments were submitted against the spec and its test suite see the
list in: (
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04
10.html ). Marcos said (
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/04
13.html ) "the emails resulted in clarifications to the spec and
fixes in the test suite".
... any comments about Marcos' analysis or any concerns about the
comments that were submitted?
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0410.html
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0413.html
<darobin> +1
AB: I also did not recognize any substantial comments
P&C spec: Interop plans (and exiting CR)
AB: the P&C CR Implementation Report (
[19]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ ) shows 3
implementations pass 100% of the tests in the test suite. I think
that means we can now exit CR and advance to PR.
... any comments?
... any disagreements with my intepretation?
[19] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/
MC: I added one test to the test suite
... thus everyone is down to 99%
... planning to add one more test
... then I think it will be complete
SP: what are the exit criteria?
MC: 2 impls that pass 100% of the tests
Arve: having 2 interop impls doesn't mean there are no problems
... if those impls are widely used
... Perhaps the exit criteria should have been tighter
AB: we are free to create any criteria we want
... I would caution though on being overly constraining
... I am also sympathetic to the concerns Marcos raised
<Steven-cwi> and demonstrated at least two interoperable
implementations (interoperable meaning at least two implementations
that pass each test in the test suite).
MC: we all agree we don't want to rush it
SP: agree and that's not what I was saying; just wanted to clarify
<Steven-cwi> Traditionally, exiting CR was with two impls of each
feature, rather than two implementations of EVERY feature
MC: think we need more "in the wild" usage
<Steven-cwi> but we are being stricter, which is fine
<Steven-cwi> but the wording can actually be interpreted as the
looser version
RB: I think we're OK to ship
... think we've already done pretty good
... if we run into serious probs we can publish a 2nd edition
... we have done a bunch of authoring and not found major issues
MC: if people feel confident, I won't block moving forward
AB: coming back to these two new test cases
<Marcos>
[20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/ta-rZdc
MBExBX/002/
[20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/
ta-rZdcMBExBX/002/
AB: at a minumum, presume we would need at least 2/3 impls to run
these 2 new tests
... one of the new tests is checked in already?
MC: yes
... and the 2nd will be checked in today
AB: after you check in this 2nd test, can you notify the list and
ask implementors to run them?
MC: yes
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C tests and
ask implementors to run them and report their results [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-485 - Notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C
tests and ask implementors to run them and report their results [on
Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11].
AB: so this is BONDI, Aplix, Wookie?
RB: yes
AB: I wonder how long it will take to get data from them?
MC: I think "pretty quick"
RB: agree
AB: so the tentative plan is we should be in a postion on Feb 11 to
decide if the P&C spec is ready to move to PR?
MC: yes
AB: one question I have is about the plan to test optional
functionality i.e. the SHOULD and MAY assertions, in particular the
ITS stuff.
... any thoughts on those?
MC: no, not yet
... we had some tests that covered optional functionality but they
aren't part of the test suite
... I don't have any ITS tests
... but I can add them
AB: I wonder if they should be in a separate directory so it is
clear they do not test Mandatory funtionality
SP: so SHOULD and MAY assertions are not tested?
MC: yes, that's correct
... with a few exceptions
SP: normally, SHOULDs should be treated as regular tests
... re MAYs, should have at least an example of how it is used
MC: we have 1 normative SHOULD in the spec
... we also use OPTIONAL
... e.g. with the ITS functionality
AB: if we follow SP's recomendation, then we just need one more
test?
MC: yes and I already created that test
AB: then it seems like we should ask the implementors to run that
test as well
MC: yes
SP: if ITS is optional, what is your expectation if it is used?
MC: used to denote certain text spans are rendered LtoR or RtoL
SP: what is the normative requirement you'd have to test if it is
implemented?
... is it a "don't crash" type test?
MC: would make sure the right Unicode indicators are inserted
... and no crashes :-)
SP: wanted to understand if there is some functional behavior
... or is it about translating text
MC: similar to HTMLs LtoR and RtoL tag
<Marcos> For example, <name>Yay for the "<its:span
dir="rtl">متعة
الأسماك!</its:span>" Widget</name>
<Steven-cwi> BDO
AB: to summarize, the test suite will have 3 new tests that all
implementations will need to run. Is this correct?
MC: yes
... but ITS may require more than one test case
AB: what is the time frame on getting the ITS test case checked in?
MC: tomorrow and I will collaborate with I18N Core WG
<scribe> ACTION: marcos create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test
suite [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-486 - Create ITS test case(s) for the P&C
test suite [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11].
MC: I don't want to block on comments from I18N Core WG
... shouldn't be complicated
AB: anything else on P&C for today?
[ No ]
TWI spec: test case comments
AB: Scott submitted comments about the two of TWI test cases (
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/02
22.html ) and (
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/03
00.html ). Has anyone looked at these?
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0222.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0300.html
MC: Scott's corrections are fine
AB: he checked in changes?
MC: yes, I think so
TWI spec: Interop plans?
AB: the Implementation Report (
[25]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/imp-report/ ) is still
sparse. What are the plans and expectations here?
... Marcin, can ACCESS provide some results?
[25] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/imp-report/
MH: I can't promise anything
AB: do we know what Aplix is planning?
MC: I can ask Kai
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos to ask Aplix about their plans to contribute
results on testing the Widget Interface spec [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-487 - Ask Aplix about their plans to
contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [on Marcos
Caceres - due 2010-02-11].
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos to ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their
plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec
[recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-488 - Ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their
plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [on
Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11].
AB: Marcos, I can help with these two actions re TWI test results
... anyone know Widgeon's plans?
RB: it hasn't been a high priority for me ATM
AB: what about Wookie?
MC: yes, I think so but he hasn't published anything yet
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow to ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about their
plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec
[recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-489 - Ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about
their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface
spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-11].
AB: do you consider the TWI test suite complete?
MC: no
... one issue was raised by Dom
... some of the tests were built manually and some were
auto-generated
... some of the auto-generated tests need review and possilby some
work
... there are still some other issues with that test suite
... I can fix the manual things by Feb 5; no big issues
... Would say the TWI test suite is about 90% done
AB: anything else on the TWI spec for today?
WARP spec: test suite plans
AB: Marcos indicated he does not support publishing a LC spec before
a test suite exists. Any comments on this?
RB: I'm fine with either plan
... I think the time is the same if test suite is done before or
after CR
... I do want the WG to consider the spec as frozen
AB: I think the fact that we already recorded consensus to publish
the LC means the spec is frozen
RB: there aren't very many testable assertions
... but it will require some special setup
MC: we need some help from the W3C
... we need to have at least 2 domains to test against
... because we will do cross-domain requests
<darobin> [there are 10 MUSTs, 0 SHOULDs]
AB: wonder if there is any precedenc in W3C for this
MC: Dom mentioned some related work being done in a test suite WG or
QA group
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with MC, RB and Dom on creating a
infrastructure to test the WARP spec [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-490 - Work with MC, RB and Dom on creating
a infrastructure to test the WARP spec [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-02-11].
AB: anything else on WARP testing for today?
[ No ]
WARP spec: use cases for local network access
AB: Yesterday Stephen sent some use cases for local network access (
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/03
85.html ). Let's start with an overview from Stephen.
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0385.html
SJ: the UCs are related in that they all require access to resources
on a local network
... can expect these resources to have API a widget may want to call
... e.g. to access a camera
AB: any comments on these UCs?
Arve: these UCs are consistent with what Opera considers "local
network"
... not sure where to go from here
... not sure how the service discovery will be done
... could reference some other spec or could add that function to
WARP
MC: I'd prefer not to add this functionality to WARP
... automated discovery has a lot of prior work
... want to keep WARP spec scope as is
... and then we can add on top of WARP
Arve: the definition of local network can change during an
invocation of widget i.e. while it is running
AB: so what is the next step for SJ and this proposal?
SJ: I can understand the consensus to not change WARP scope
[ Note taker missed some of SJ's comments .... ]
MC: I don't think WARP should include service discovery
... don't want to list things the spec doesn't do
RB: agree with Marcos
SJ: if local net discovery could be standardized somewhere e.g. in
DAP WG
... could WARP then reference that spec
... so this functionality could be added in a subsequent spec?
RB: yes, we could add it to something like WARP 1.1
<darobin> [I would like to clarify that I am very supportive of
these local network things]
<darobin> +1
AB: perhaps we should have followups on the mail list
SJ: I'm OK with that
Arve: if widget must connect to local net and then to the public net
... options are to give completely open access or to just the local
net plus the one specific public service
... definition of local is tricky and don't want to open too much
AB: would be helpful if you Arve would respond on the mail list
Arve: yes, I'll do that
SJ: where can I ask questions about service discovery? Is it this WG
or some other?
Arve: I think DAP is more appropriate
RB: I think this WG is OK
... but this isn't really in DAP charter
... so you can expect some pushback
... I am open to discuss this in DAP but think we'll get pushback
AB: I'm not aware of any other WGs for which service discovery is in
scope
... anything else on this topic for today?
URI Scheme spec: Status of LC comment tracking
AB: the tracking document for LC comments for the URI scheme spec is
(
[31]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-u
ri-20091008/doc/ ). Seven of the comments are labeled "tocheck" and
this implies some additional communication with the Commenter is
needed.
... what's your sense on the next step Robin?
[31] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-
widgets-uri-20091008/doc/
RB: we can make a few changes based on the TAG's input
... not sure if we should submit registration before or after CR
AB: the PoR says after CR
... is there some input that would change that?
RB: depending on the feedback from IETF we may need to go back to LC
... may want to have IETF feedback before Director's Call for the CR
AB: I'm certainly OK with doing the registration before we propose
CR to the Director
... how can we satisfy the "thismessage scheme doesn't meet our
reqs"?
RB: I don't think that will be hard; AFAIK, it hasn't been
implememted
... I can take an action to do the registration
AB: there is a related action
[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/416
[32] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/416
<darobin> action-416?
<trackbot> ACTION-416 -- Robin Berjon to register URI scheme for the
Widgets URI spec -- due 2010-01-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/416
[33] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/416
<darobin> action-416 due 2010-02-11
<trackbot> ACTION-416 Register URI scheme for the Widgets URI spec
due date now 2010-02-11
AB: OK, then let's get the registration submitted and then we will
have more information to use in our decision on what to do next
... anything else on this spec for today?
... does anyone have experience with scheme registration?
... I'm wondering what the expecations are re timeframe
RB: HTML5 may have done something recently re WebSockets
AB: OK; I'll check that
AOB
AB: I don't have anything for today. The next call is scheduled for
11 February.
... anything else?
<darobin>
AB: Meeting Adjourned for today
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow to ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about their plans
to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [recorded
in [34]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow work with MC, RB and Dom on creating a
infrastructure to test the WARP spec [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite
[recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C tests and
ask implementors to run them and report their results [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos to ask Aplix about their plans to contribute
results on testing the Widget Interface spec [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos to ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their plans
to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [recorded
in [39]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[End of minutes]
