The draft minutes from the MMM DD Widgets voice conference are available
at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before June 3 (the next Widgets
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved.
-Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
27 May 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0849.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcos, StevenP, Wonsuk_Lee, Josh
Regrets
Robin
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Packaging and Configuration spec
4. [8]Widget Interface (TWI) spec
5. [9]View Modes Media Features spec
6. [10]GZIP and widget packaging
7. [11]AOB
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
promise!!
<Marcos> There is a first time for everything
<trackbot> Date: 27 May 2010
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
<Steven> 02Wonsuk Lee01
Review and tweak agenda
AB: I posted the draft agenda yesterday (
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/08
49.html ). Arve asked me in IRC to add gzip discussion (
[13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0849.html
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/08
39.html ) and we will add that to the AOB agenda item.
[14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0839.html
MC: Arve isn't here today
... so he may not join the call
AB: if he joins us, we can discuss it
... any change reqs?
[ None ]
Announcements
AB: June 1 is the deadline for comments for 11-May-2010 LC of
Digital Signatures for Widgets (
[15]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/ )
[15] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/
WL: I am from ETRI in Korea
... I am Editor in W3C
... in the MAWG
... also participate in DAP WG
... also interested in WebApps WG
... as well as HTML5
AB: thanks for that intro; welcome
Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: Richard Ishida submitted 5 comments I18N-related comments last
week. Marcos, what is the status?
... any discussion?
MC: they are all addressed
... I took all of his suggestions
... re #20, they originaly recommended using xml:lang
AB: were all of the changes Editorial?
MC: yes
... #20 would be substantial but they said they did NOT expect us to
change the spec
AB: that is consistent with my interpretation
... On May 20 Richard indicated (
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0032.htm
l ) Addison is going to respond to our request asking if the I18N WG
is OK with our changes (or not). I still haven't received a response
from him
... I followed up with Addison yesterday (
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0044.htm
l ) and still no response.
... is Addison I18N WG chair?
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0032.html
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0044.html
SP: yes
AB: the P&C's PR is blocked on this
... anything you can do Steven to get Addison to reply would be very
much appreciated
SP: I'll do my best
AB: have you heard anything from Addison, Marcos?
MC: no
AB: we'll have to leave this as an open action
... anything else on P&C spec for today?
[ no ]
Widget Interface (TWI) spec
AB: as we know, the PR for the TWI spec is blocked on ISSUE-116 (
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 ) and ACTION-550
( [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/550 ) re Security
Considerations for the openURL method.
... any status to report on this, Marcos?
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/550
MC: I still need to follow-up
AB: is there anything you need from the rest of us?
MC: no, I don't think so
... I just need to restart the conversation
... Adam is suggesting what I think the spec already says
... so we may have general agreement
... I don't want to remove the method
AB: what about enumerating the schemes?
MC: I don't think we want to do that
... a UA can support any number of schemes
... don't want to limit UAs flexibility
... not clear where the spec boundary should be when it comes to
things like the cost to a user to use a particualar scheme
AB: I tend to agree with you and thought your proposal was
reasonable
... Nevertheless we do need to get consensus on the text
MC: yes, agree
AB: anything else on TWI for today?
MC: no, don't think so
View Modes Media Features spec
AB: VMMF ACTION-552 - Add requirements to spec - must be fixed
before next publication (
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/552 )
... the reqs are mandatory before going to Candidate
... Robin knows this and is plannign to do the editorial work
... the 3 commentors on the LC replied they are OK with our
responses (
[21]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-view-mode
-20100420/doc/ )
... as such, I think the spec is ready to publish as a Candidate
Recommendation.
[20] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/552
[21]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-view-mode-20100420/doc/
MC: I agree
AB: any other comments re VMMF and it being "CR worthy"?
... I think it is ready
... there is just one assertion re UA behavior
MC: yes, true
... there could be a set of tests per mode
AB: proposed resolution: the group agrees the VMMF spec is ready for
Candidate Recommendation
... any objections?
... I support CR
MC: I support it
<wonsuk> I support it as well
SP: fine by me
WL: support it as well
RESOLUTION: the group agrees the VMMF spec is ready for Candidate
Recommendation
AB: any thoughts on the length of the Candidate?
MC: I would go with the minimum
... there are already several impls that support the modes
... probably need about 20 tests
AB: I don't think a CR has a minimum period
MC: probably should say at least one month
AB: OK, so 4 weeks after the CR is published
... we need to add requirements
... the SotD needs to reflect CR
... we should also create at least a stub Implementation Report
<Marcos> MC: this is the requirement
[22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#display-modes
[22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#display-modes
<scribe> ACTION: marcos create an Implementation Report doc for the
VMMF spec [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-555 - Create an Implementation Report doc
for the VMMF spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-06-03].
<scribe> ACTION: robin notify ArtB when the VMMF is ready for a
TransReq [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-556 - Notify ArtB when the VMMF is ready
for a TransReq [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-03].
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with StevenP to schedule a Candidate
call with the Director [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-557 - Work with StevenP to schedule a
Candidate call with the Director [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-06-03].
AB: anything else on VMMF for today?
MC: there is a redirect problem: "I just noticed that
/TR/widgets-vmmf is not redirecting to /TR/view-mode. To avoid
confusion, can you please make sure it does."
GZIP and widget packaging
AB: the original thread on widget packaging and GZip started on
April 28 with an email by Gregg Tavares (
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/03
49.html ). A point of interest is a stream-able format.
... since then, Doug started some renewed discussion (
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/08
39.html ) perhaps because of Google's announced a way to package Web
Apps in Chrome browser.
... note WebApps proposed charter extension (
[28]http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html#deliverable
s ) includes a "Widgets Embedding" deliverable that, if approved by
the Director, could potentially be used to rationalize at least part
of these use cases "a mechanism to allow embedding of packaged
applications within other Web content, such as referencing via the
HTML object element"
... without Arve here, we won't do a deep dive
... but we can talk about it
[26]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0349.html
[27]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0839.html
[28] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html#deliverables
MC: if we do another format, P&C should be split up
... put the config file in a separate spec
... and packaging seperate
AB: it is an interesting idea and one we should discuss
... but I don't think it should be done before P&C goes to PR
... we should complete P&C before doing any kind of splitting
MC: Arve is suggesting separating configuration doc from the
packaging mechanism
<Marcos>
[29]http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026
506.html
[29]
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026506.html
MC: some related discussions in WHATWG channels
AB: oh, this is interesting, I hadn't seen this
<Marcos> MC: this is also quite relevant to the debate
[30]http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026
503.html
[30]
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026503.html
AB: I do like the idea of separating the config data from the
packaging mechanism
<timeless_mbp> hsivonen's message is
[31]http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026
503.html
[31]
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026503.html
AB: this is good info Marcos
... I think we should plan to add this topic to the June 3 call
... anything else on this topic for today?
AOB
AB: any other topics for today?
MC: I've done some more work with a QA colleague on the I18N tests
... we have about 1/2 of them ready
... will submit to CVS
... there is an open question about licensing
... we now have a script that adds the license
AB: is that what Rigo suggested?
MC: yes, we are following Rigo Wenning's recommendation
AB: ok; excellent
... notify me when you have checked in one of these test cases as
I'd like to see how the licensing is done
... next call is June 3; there will be no call on June 10.
... depending on the nature of any comments we receive for the
Digital Signature for Widgets LC, we may be in a position on June 3
to discuss publishing a Candidate of that spec
... that would give us 5/7 widget specs in Candidate
MC: perhaps we can do a combined Director's call
AB: I thought of that too
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with StevenP on the logisitics of two
CRs during the same Director's call [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-558 - Work with StevenP on the logisitics
of two CRs during the same Director's call [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-06-03].
AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow work with StevenP on the logisitics of two CRs
during the same Director's call [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow work with StevenP to schedule a Candidate call
with the Director [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos create an Implementation Report doc for the
VMMF spec [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: robin notify ArtB when the VMMF is ready for a
TransReq [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
