The draft minutes from the June 17 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before July 1 (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
17 Jun 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1058.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcos, StevenP, bryan_sullivan, Bryan, Frederick
Regrets
Robin
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Digital Signature spec
4. [8]view-mode Media Feature spec
5. [9]Packaging and Configuration spec
6. [10]Widget Interface spec
7. [11]AOB
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Review and tweak agenda
AB: yesterday I sent a draft agenda to the list (
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/10
58.html ). Any change requests?
[13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1058.html
Announcements
AB: any short announcements?
Digital Signature spec
AB: later today we will discuss publishing a CR with the Team (
[14]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ ). We have 1 hour for
two specs.
... I expect most of the discussion to focus "what's changed?".
... since CR#1 was published, we effectively applied two Change
Requests: the first included moving from C14N 1.0 to 1.1 and some
other fixes and the second change request fixed a few bugs and
increased the spec's "testability".
... the changes between July 2009 CR and April 15 LCWD are briefly
summarized in the status section (
[15]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status )
and more details can be found in the following thread (
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/00
54.html ).
... hoping FH could lead that discussion
... since FH isn't here now, I follow-up with him about the call
[14] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
[15] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0054.html
MC: yes, FH should be on the call to talk about those changes
AB: the changes between the 15 April LCWD and 11 May LCWD are
summarized in the 11 May LC (
[17]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/#changes-si
nce-last-publication- ).
... while we wait for FH to join, any other issues or concerns re
DigSig?
[17]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/#changes-since-last-publication-
MC: I feel confident about this
AB: again the changes between July 2009 CR and April 15 LCWD are
briefly summarized in the status section (
[18]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status )
and more details can be found in the following thread (
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/00
54.html ).
[18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status
[19]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0054.html
FH: yes, I will be there
... have any issues been raised?
AB: not that I know about
... anything else on digsig
view-mode Media Feature spec
AB: re today's CR (
[20]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/CR.html ) call
with the Team, are there any concerns or issue?
... Robin is not likely to attend the call but Marcos agreed to take
the lead
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/CR.html
MC: I looked at the disposition of comments and don't see any issues
AB: anyone have concerns about the view-mode spec?
Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: Marcos added text re "Changes Since Last Publication" (
[21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/pub/#changes-since-last-publi
cation ). Any comments?
[21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/pub/#changes-since-last-publication
SP: no concerns
AB: we need to talk about Normative References and PR. The [Sniff]
spec is a Normative Reference. Does this block us from publishing a
PR?
... I want to understand if this is a problem?
SP: if it is a WIP we have a prob
AB: what is the process here?
SP: a normative ref should be in step with the spec to be published
... it can be one step behind but only briefly
AB: the ref is:
[[
[SNIFF]
Media Type Sniffing. A. Barth and I. Hickson. IETF. November 5, 2010
(Work in Progress).
]]
<Steven> [22]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-05
[22] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-05
AB: what does this mean Steven?
SP: not sure about the status of this spec
AB: I don't know about the IETF process
SP: yes, I haven't referenced IETF WIPs so I don't know how this is
handled
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with StevenP re the [Sniff] IETF
reference in the widget packaging spec [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-561 - Work with StevenP re the [Sniff]
IETF reference in the widget packaging spec [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-06-24].
AB: Marcos, are there any other references issue for P&C spec?
MC: Widget DigSig but that will soon be CR
... CSS21 is still a CR
... I think Sniff spec is the only issue
AB: we will wait to hear from the Team on how we deal with Sniff
spec
Widget Interface spec
AB: The TWI spec ( [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ ) has
a Normative dependency on Web IDL.
... and we also have no active Editor for Web IDL
[24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
MC: one idea is to use OMG IDL
... that was used previously
... we don't really need Web IDL
... we can use prose instead
... the interface is so simple
... In this case, TWI spec doesn't really win anything by using Web
IDL
AB: I came to the same conclusion
... my pref would be to not add a new ref but to update the spec
directly
... by that I mean do not reference OMG IDL
... I noticed only 3 Web IDL refs: ReadONly, Supplemental,
NoInterfaceObject
... and I think we could simply cut-and-paste some definitions and
hence not need the reference
MC: yes, I agree
<bryan_sullivan> +1
AB: we can create a new section that includes these defs and just
explain that since Web IDL isn't ready, we copied the definitions we
need
MC: yes, could do that
BS: yes, that makes sense to me
... but we do need to address the Web IDL Editor issue
AB: yes, agree
... if we go that route to add definitions into the spec, will that
require going back to LC?
... I think the precedence we've followed to date is that if we just
do a cut-and-paste, we haven't really changed anything that would
affect an implementation
... thus, no need to go back to LC
MC: sounds good
SP: I think that would be OK
... I don't think it would change any software
... so that's OK with me
MC: yes, agree
AB: so the consensus is that cutting and pasting definitions from
Web IDL to the TWI spec would not require a new LC
SP: I talked to Ian Jacobs - don't make normative references to
unstable materials
... in this case, Sniff may change
... thus it needs to be stable
MC: I would argue Sniff is already widely implemented
... it has been part of the Web Platform for a long time
... We can get some status from Adam
... I think it is good and matches reality
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos determine the status of IETF's Sniff spec
[recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-562 - Determine the status of IETF's Sniff
spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-06-24].
SP: formally, CSS2.1 is also a problem case for Widget P&C spec
... the mis-match must be brief
... want the references to be at equal states
MC: P&C references CSS pixels
... I don't think we want to copy that entire section of CSS2.1
<scribe> ACTION: marcso work with ArtB and SteveP re P&C's reference
to CSS2.1 [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - marcso
AB: does anyone know the plan for CSS2.1 to go to PR?
MC: I don't know if it ever will go to PR
... since it will need thousands of tests
<Marcos> [27]http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units
[27] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units
MC: we can copy some text re pixels
AB: I thought a spec could be parked in PR even though its refs were
not yet in PR
SP: no, that's not the way it works
... A person couldn't really vote on a spec if it is in PR if its
refs were not stable
... if a ref is not stable, it can still change
MC: we do have an "out" for P&C and CSS2.1 because CSS2.0 includes
the identical text for pixels
AB: the Widget Interface normative refernces HTML5
... so we'll need to think about that as well as Web Storage
... we also still have ISSUE-116 (
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 ) open.
[28] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116
MC: nothing new to report on that
... expect some progress next week
AB: last call for spec discussions for today ...
AOB
AB: Calls during the summer and summer holidays. In general, I don't
want to have a call if lead Editor isn't available.
<Steven> Regrets for next week, 29 Jul, and the first three weeks of
Aug
AB: make the next call July 1
... re planning, roadmap, ToDos, etc., see the Action list and
PubStatus page (
[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Widget_Specificati
ons )
[29] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Widget_Specifications
SP: we are still waiting for WARP PAG to conclude, right?
AB: yes
... anything else for today?
<Steven> [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/
[30] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/
MC: what about a widget conformace checker?
AB: if it is non-normative, we can publish it
SP: yes, agree
MC: OK, I may bring this up later
AB: that would be a great idea
... meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow work with StevenP re the [Sniff] IETF
reference in the widget packaging spec [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Marcos determine the status of IETF's Sniff spec
[recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: marcso work with ArtB and SteveP re P&C's reference to
CSS2.1 [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
