The draft minutes from the September 2 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before September 16 (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
02 Sep 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0662.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
ArtB, SteveP, Marcos
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Packaging and Configuration spec
4. [8]Digital Signature spec
5. [9]Widget Interface spec
6. [10]WebIDL
7. [11]WARP PAG
8. [12]AOB
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<abarsto> ScribeNick: ArtB
<abarsto> Scribe: Art
<abarsto> Date: 2 September 2010
Review and tweak agenda
<abarsto> AB: the draft agenda was posted yesterday (
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/06
62.html ). Any comments or change requests?
[14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0662.html
Announcements
<abarsto> AB: TPAC week is November 1-5. I don't expect widgets
group to meet since we can use voice conferences. A request for
agenda topics was submitted a few days ago (
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/06
48.html ). For TPAC info see ( [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/
).
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0648.html
[16] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/
<abarsto> SP: yes, use corridors for discussions
<abarsto> MC: that's OK with me
<abarsto> SP: I have a clash with WebApps' meeting
Packaging and Configuration spec
<abarsto> AB: Marcos and others at Opera have been working on the
P&C test suite ( [17]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/
). What's the status?
[17] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/
<abarsto> MC: we finished the I18N tests
<abarsto> ... I still have an action to notify the I18N WG
<abarsto> ... It's a bit hard to find the right tests
<abarsto> ... So I have some work to do to indentify the tests we
want them to review
<abarsto> ... Can find them if look real hard
<Marcos>
[18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/#unknown-assertion
s
[18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/#unknown-assertions
<abarsto> MC: the tests are done
<abarsto> ... but I still have some work to do re linking those I18N
tests into the framework
<abarsto> AB: what's the target date?
<abarsto> MC: I'm aiming for Sep 9
<abarsto> AB: thanks for this update!
<abarsto> MC: I will soon be ready to ask I18N WG for review
<Marcos>
[19]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/
[19] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/
<abarsto> MC: can find R2L and L2R if look
<abarsto> ... but not easy to find the descriptions
<abarsto> ... we can't expect them to check all 100+ test cases
<abarsto> ... but if they can review some, that would be useful
<abarsto> AB: I think it makes sense to link those tests to the
framework before we ask them for review
<abarsto> MC: OK, that's what we'll do
<abarsto> AB: as a consequence of new tests, the P&C Implementation
Report shows no implementation passes 100% of the tests. Is there
any new data since we last discussed the IR (
[20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ )?
[20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/
<abarsto> MC: no, we don't have any other feedback for I18N besides
Opera
<abarsto> ... we definitely need one more implementor
<abarsto> ACTION: barstow ask WG members and the Public for
implementation data re P&C spec's I18N tests [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-573 - Ask WG members and the Public for
implementation data re P&C spec's I18N tests [on Arthur Barstow -
due 2010-09-09].
<abarsto> MC: I can also ask people
<abarsto> ... even if the impl is not public, that's OK, right?
<abarsto> AB: yes, I believe that is true
Digital Signature spec
<abarsto> AB: Marcos and others at Opera have also been working on
the DigSig test suite (
[22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/test-suite/ ). What's
the status?
[22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/test-suite/
<abarsto> MC: yes, I have created 42 test cases
<Marcos> Signer (8 assertions, 10 tests, 88% coverage)
<Marcos> Validator (13 assertions, 19 tests, 85% coverage)
<Marcos> Implementation (16 assertions, 17 tests, 75% coverage)
<abarsto> MC: this is a very hard test suite to create
<abarsto> AB: is there any new data regarding implementations (
[23]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/ )?
[23] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/
<abarsto> AB: I am not aware of any impl data related to DigSig
Widget Interface spec
<abarsto> AB: last week we agreed to remove openURL method from the
Widget object. Consequently, the spec will next be published as a
Last Call WD.
<abarsto> AB: After the LC comment period ends, assuming no major
new issues are raised, we may be able to skip another CR and
directly publish a PR. Normally, when a LC is published a Call for
Exclusion period is started. In this case, if no new normative
statements were added to the spec, it may be possible to skip the
CfE. If the CfE isn't skipped, a PR cannot be published while there
is an open CfE period.
<abarsto> AB: CfE period is 8 weeks
<abarsto> AB: the difference, roughly, is a PR being published in
early October versus early December.
<abarsto> AB: Marcos, have any NEW Normative statements been added
to the spec since the CR was published in December 2009?
<abarsto> MC: I don't think so
<abarsto> ... I think we are just removing functionality
<abarsto> ... I can do a compare
<abarsto> AB: when it comes to IP issues, I think we need to be
conservative
<abarsto> MC: I already removed openURL
<abarsto> ... and removed some dependencies
<abarsto> ... but some dependencies we cannot break
<abarsto> MC: I can determine the assertion lists from the latest ED
and the Dec 2009 CR
<abarsto> AB: I would like that analysis to be public e.g.
public-webapps or www-archive
<abarsto> ... can you do that Marcos?
<abarsto> MC: yes, I can do that
<abarsto> AB: none of this analysis blocks publishing a new LC
<abarsto> AB: what do people think about publishing a new LCWD?
<abarsto> AB: I propose we publish a new LCWD as soon as possible
which means September 7. Any objections?
<abarsto> MC: OK; I do want to make a couple of Editorial changes
<abarsto> SP: no comment; that's fine
<abarsto> AB: I support it
<abarsto> RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a new LCWD of the
Widget Interface spec
<abarsto> ACTION: marcos notify ArtB when the ED of the Widget
Interface spec is ready to be published as a LCWD [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-574 - Notify ArtB when the ED of the
Widget Interface spec is ready to be published as a LCWD [on Marcos
Caceres - due 2010-09-09].
<abarsto> AB: re length of comment period
<abarsto> ... we can go with the minimum of 3 weeks
<abarsto> MC: ok
<abarsto> AB: OK, so a pub date of Sept 7 means LC ends Sep 28
<abarsto> SP: who will ask for review?
<abarsto> AB: good question; I'll check the Chairs archive
<abarsto> ... last time it was BONDI but they have morphed to WAC
<abarsto> ... so we can notify WAC via David Rogers
<abarsto> ACTION: barstow notify WAC / David Rogers re new LC of
Widget Interface spec [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-575 - Notify WAC / David Rogers re new LC
of Widget Interface spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-09-09].
WebIDL
<abarsto> SP: what is the status
<abarsto> MC: Cameron is coming back as Lead Editor
<abarsto> SP: it is needed in RDFa
<abarsto> AB: Cameron is going to work for Mozilla and will start
editing Web IDL again in October
WARP PAG
<abarsto> SP: I recently contacted Rigo Wenning about the WARP PAG
status
<abarsto> ... and Rigo reported the telcos should resume soon
AOB
<abarsto> MC: I fixed the view-mode test suite
<abarsto> AB: yes, I saw that e-mail
<abarsto> ... thanks for the updates!
<abarsto> MC: we need to get some review of those tests
<abarsto> ... probably should ask the CSS WG
<Marcos>
[26]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/test-suite/#product-ua
[26] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/test-suite/#product-ua
<abarsto> ACTION: barstow work with Marcos to ask the CSS WG to
review the view-mode test cases [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-576 - Work with Marcos to ask the CSS WG
to review the view-mode test cases [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-09-09].
<abarsto> MC: make sure you mention the test cases are for wiget
implementations
<abarsto> AB: next call in 2 weeks IFF there is sufficient reason
<abarsto> ... that is Sept 16
<abarsto> AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow ask WG members and the Public for
implementation data re P&C spec's I18N tests [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow notify WAC / David Rogers re new LC of Widget
Interface spec [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Marcos to ask the CSS WG to review
the view-mode test cases [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos notify ArtB when the ED of the Widget Interface
spec is ready to be published as a LCWD [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
