The draft minutes from the July 8 Widgets voice conference are available
at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before July 29 (the next Widgets
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved.
-Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conference
08 Jul 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0095.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Laszlo_Gombos, Steven_Pemberton, Marcos_Caceres, Kenneth
Regrets
Frederick
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Packaging and Configuration spec
4. [8]The Widget Interface spec
5. [9]AOB
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Review and tweak agenda
AB: the draft agenda was submitted on July 7 (
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/00
95.html ). If Robin doesn't join, we will drop the URI scheme agenda
item. Any change requests?
[11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0095.html
Announcements
AB: any short announcements? DAP WG has f2f meeting next week so
there will be no call on July 15 and I have a conflict on July 22 so
there will be no call on that day. Next call will be July 29.
MC: I added licenses to the test cases
... did for P&C spec
... reflects the discussion we had with Rigo Wenning
... there is a license in every widget zip
... and it points to the W3C license
... plan to do the TWI spec
... Opera created a Perl script to do the work of adding the license
AB: thanks very much!
<Marcos> [12]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/mkwidgets.pl
[12] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/mkwidgets.pl
Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: Issue-117 "In Widget P&C Spec, need to clarify in the spec that
dir attribute does not apply to attributes that are IRIs, Numeric,
Keywords, etc. The dir attribute only affects human readable
strings." ( [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/117 )
... Marcos asked the I18N WG for feedback (
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/00
41.html ). Anything to report on this?
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/117
[14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0041.html
MC: no I haven't received any replies
AB: this is blocking our P&C PR request
... so I'll follow-up with Richard and Addison
<scribe> ACTION: barstow followup with I18N WG re Issue-117
[recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-565 - Followup with I18N WG re Issue-117
[on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-07-15].
<Steven_> \
MC: re the<span> and dir attribute
... I added some tests
... also added some tests to reflect the VM media feature CR
AB: the P&C had to be updated because the values of the view-mode
media feature had changed
<Marcos>
[16]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/ta-view
modes/
[16] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/ta-viewmodes/
MC: clarified the set of attributes that are Keywords and which
attrs are displayable
... the changes are purely editorial - no normative changes
... Lachlan created over 100 tests for<span> and dir attr
... we will submit them soon
AB: that's great - thanks to Lachlan!
MC: the tests are related to parsing the element and attribute
... we do need to talk to the I18N guys to make sure we are doing
the right thing
... for the purposes of the test suite, must do byte comparison
... After we complete the model, we will send an email that explains
what we did
The Widget Interface spec
AB: Issue-116 "Need to flesh out the security considerations for the
openURL method in the Widget Interface spec" (
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 )
... Marcos proposed resolution to Issue-116 is to remove openURL
from the spec (
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/12
29.html ).
... last week we agreed (
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-minutes.html#item03 ) to get
more input from implementors.
[17] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1229.html
[19] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-minutes.html#item03
MC: I've asked implementors and widget developers
... no one so far has come back with a really good use case
... or that we can't live without it given its issues
LG: I haven't followed all of the discussions
... I would like to understand the security issues
... but I just heard it may not be useful
MC: well, it is useful but its use must be secure
... e.g. when can a widget send a SMS without the user's consent
LG: agree user consent is needed
... the spec doesn't mention user consent
... for example, sms and user consent is left to the implementation
MC: not clear it should open a new app without user intervention
... e.g. could open a URL after some timer expires
... I don't think a URL should be opened without user consent
... need to be careful about windows being automatically opened
<Marcos>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/05
70.html
[20]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0570.html
MC: Adam Barth referenced related issues
AB: is this the one:
[21]http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/ie-pwns-secondlife/ ?
[21] http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/ie-pwns-secondlife/
<Marcos> "I'm not familiar enough with the use cases for widgets to
know what the alternatives are. My perspective is that we'd be
better off with a much weaker window.open() API in the web platform,
but we're stuck with what we have. In the widgets space, it seems
like there's an opportunity to do something better that doesn't
require us to reinvent popup blockers and all the other
pseudo-security cruft we have around to deal with window.open() in
browsers."
<Marcos> Says Adam
MC: in Adam's email, he makes two proposals
... #1 is to remove the API and handle it programatically
... #2 is to use a white list of URLs
LG: do you consider widget openURL as similar to window.open()?
MC: no, the use cases are different
... window.open is to do an overlay
... openURL is fire and forget in Opera
LG: but what about other schemes?
MC: we don't support other schemes except perhaps mailto:
... can use<a> element's click
... also want to use a white list of allowed URIs
LG: so openURL is considered redundant?
... and hence no use for it?
MC: yes, that's our thinking
... we want to defer to the HTML5 security model
... rather than define our own
LG: ok;
MC: I'm leaning towards dropping it
... but want to hear from others
AB: is openURL used in Opera widgets?
MC: yes, it is part of Opera widgets
AB: openURL is part of S60 widgets
... do we want to consider moving it to a separate spec?
MC: I think that is worth considering
... I don't think we want to continue to discuss it
... don't think we loose anything by removing it
... that is, can use other means e.g.<a> and click to get the same
result
AB: I want to get closure but think we need some more time
... we could create a proposed resolution and then on July 29, agree
to a resolution
... would that be OK?
LG: yes, that would be OK
MC: yes that would be fine
AB: since this spec is in CR, I will start a new thread to solicit
input
<scribe> ACTION: barstow start a thread on Issue-117 to gather input
on the various options [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-566 - Start a thread on Issue-117 to
gather input on the various options [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-07-15].
AB: anything else on this topic for today?
KC: nothing new to add
AOB
AB: next call is July 29
... meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow followup with I18N WG re Issue-117 [recorded
in [23]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow start a thread on Issue-117 to gather input on
the various options [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/08-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
