The draft minutes from the September 23 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before October 7 (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
23 Sep 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0986.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Steven_Pemberton, Marcos_Caceres
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]URI Scheme spec
7. [11]view-mode Media Feature spec:
8. [12]Updates spec
9. [13]AOB
* [14]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Review and tweak agenda
AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday (
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/09
86.html ). Any change requests?
... if Robin doesn't join us we will probably drop the URI scheme
agenda item
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0986.html
Announcements
AB: the only announcement I have is a reminder September 28 is the
deadline for comments re the Widget Interface LCWD.
... any other announcements?
Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: the P&C Implementation Report suggests we still need lots of
data ( [16]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ ). Does
anyone have anything new to report?
... Opera's impl is quite good
... but the next best impl is only about 50%
... do we think we can get data from BONDI/WAC?
[16] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/
MC: I'm not sure
AB: I can follow-up with WAC's AC rep
<scribe> ACTION: barstow contact WAC's AC rep about them supplying
implementation data for the widget specs [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-580 - Contact WAC's AC rep about them
supplying implementation data for the widget specs [on Arthur
Barstow - due 2010-09-30].
AB: the test suite is complete, right Marcos?
MC: yes, I believe so
... but I haven't received any feedback from the I18N WG
AB: did you give the I18N WG a deadline?
MC: I'll check and follow-up with them
AB: so 5 impls are roughly 50% and Opera's impl is 99%
<scribe> ACTION: barstow contact Aplix's WebApps reps about
providing data for widget spec implementation [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-581 - Contact Aplix's WebApps reps about
providing data for widget spec implementation [on Arthur Barstow -
due 2010-09-30].
MC: Aplix's data has some bugs
... they need to re-run their tests
... need to talk to Paddy Byers
<Marcos> i18n email:
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/07
49.html
[19]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0749.html
AB: can Wookie, in theory, implement 100% of the P&C test cases?
MC: yes and I think Scott plans to run them
AB: any news from GPAC guys?
MC: no, not recently
<scribe> ACTION: barstow contact GPAC implementation people re
implemenation data for widget specs [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-582 - Contact GPAC implementation people
re implemenation data for widget specs [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-09-30].
AB: have you heard anything from RIM?
MC: no; would be good to follow-up
<scribe> ACTION: barstow contact RIM's AC rep to see if they intend
to join WebApps and/or provide implemenation data re widget specs
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-583 - Contact RIM's AC rep to see if they
intend to join WebApps and/or provide implemenation data re widget
specs [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-09-30].
AB: Marcos, will Opera be able to increase from 99% to 100%?
MC: yes; it's probably just a bug that needs to be fixed and the
test case re-run
AB: anything else on P&C for today?
MC: I think we need to republish this spec again?
... we have made several changes
... need to publish a new LC I think
AB: yes, I agree we have made many changes
<scribe> ACTION: barstow start a CfC to publish a new LCWD of the
Packaing and Configuration spec [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-584 - Start a CfC to publish a new LCWD of
the Packaing and Configuration spec [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-09-30].
MC: what about timeframes?
AB: the CfC period is 1 week
... and the LC comment period can be 3 weeks
... if I start a CfC today, it will end on Sept 30 and if agreed, we
can publish a new LC on Oct 5 that would end on Oct 26
SP: the week after that would be TPAC
... and we could add it the agenda for TPAC meeting
AB: we previously said we won't have a widgets meeting durig TPAC
Digital Signature spec
AB: the DigSig Implementation Report suggests we have no
implementation at all (
[23]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/ )
[23] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/
MC: that's right we don't have any impl data yet
... we may need to regen the test cases because of an issue with one
of the certs
AB: until the test suite is updated and complete, I won't track
people down re implemenation data
... anything else?
MC: we will fix the test suite as soon as possible
... we need to get more review
AB: I'll chase people after the test suite is updated
Widget Interface spec
AB: earlier today I created a comment tracking document for the
September 7 LCWD (
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-a
pis-20100907/ )
... to date, I think the only comment we received is from Addison (
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/07
28.html ). My recollection we discussed providing support for the
locale and that is something that is platform-dependent and as such,
is not directly controllable by a strict TWI user agent.
[24]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20100907/
[25]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0728.html
MC: we have looked into this comment
... must know the context and that can be different in the JS
context
AB: would it make sense to add a non-normative comment about this?
MC: maybe
... I can ask him how this is handeled in other places e.g. HTML5
AB: is this something new version of ECMAScript is addressing?
MC: not sure
... I will follow-up with Addison
AB: re Implementation Report, it would be good to get 2 impls at
100% so we can progress to PR. Now we have Opera @ 105% and Wookie @
95%
... the issue for Wookie is test case ta-za
... Is there a bug in this test case?
MC: yes
... I will fix ta-za
... and I will remove the openURL test case
... expect an update later today
... and we will add some additional test cases too
AB: so, we need everyone to re-run the test suite?
MC: yes; we need everyone to re-run the test cases
<scribe> ACTION: marcos after TWI test suite updated, send an
annoucement to public-webapps [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-585 - After TWI test suite updated, send
an annoucement to public-webapps [on Marcos Caceres - due
2010-09-30].
AB: now there are 16 test cases in the TWI test suite
... how many will there be after the upload?
MC: about 50 test cases
... just checked, yes it is 50 test cases for TWI test suite
URI Scheme spec
AB: without Robin here, we will skip this item for today
view-mode Media Feature spec:
AB: what is the status of the view-mode Media Feature test suite (
[27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/test-suite/ )? It is
complete, right?
[27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/test-suite/
MC: yes, it is complete
AB: I still have an action to ask CSS WG to review the test cases (
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/576 ). Should we
ask them to review all 16 test cases?
[28] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/576
MC: yes, they should review all 16 test cases
... want to know if they think non-widget UA test cases are needed
AB: any other instructions for the CSS WG?
MC: I need to clean up the Intro section
<Marcos>
[29]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/test-suite/#product-ua
[29] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/test-suite/#product-ua
MC: they go the above and click on "Show all tests"
AB: what is our deadline for comments?
... by TPAC?
MC: we don't have any Ref Impls that I know of
... so, by TPAC would be fine
... we may want to add another mode in the future
... so there is a question about how to extend the spec?
... we could just create a new spec that defines the new mode
AB: yes, that would work
Updates spec
AB: what is the status and plan for next publication (
[30]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ )?
[30] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/
MC: I think we are close to being ready to publish a new WD
... I just talked to Richard and we would like to publish a new WD
as soon as possible
AB: since this has been a reocurring agenda item, I'm OK with going
forward with the publication
... any objections to publish a new WD of Updates spec on September
28?
... I support the publication
MC: me too
<Steven> +1
RESOLUTION: widgets group agrees to publish a new WD of the Updates
spec on Sept 28
AB: who is the main person for pubreq issues?
MC: both Richard and I
AOB
AB: next call will be in 2 weeks (October 7) if there are sufficient
agenda items; otherwise later
MC: has Nokia made any widget-related plans?
AB: yes, I added Nokia impl to our Impl wiki:
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetImplementation#Widget_
Packaging_and_Configuration_.28P.26C.29
[31]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetImplementation#Widget_Packaging_and_Configuration_.28P.26C.29
MC: can they provide data for our Implemenation Reports
AB: yes, I don't see why not but the announced widget platform (Qt
Web Runtime) is an "alpha" release
... thus I don't know how stable or complete the impl is
... given our call frequency is down, we will use CfC's via e-mail
if/when necessary
... anything else?
... Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow contact Aplix's WebApps reps about providing
data for widget spec implementation [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow contact GPAC implementation people re
implemenation data for widget specs [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow contact RIM's AC rep to see if they intend to
join WebApps and/or provide implemenation data re widget specs
[recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow contact WAC's AC rep about them supplying
implementation data for the widget specs [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow start a CfC to publish a new LCWD of the
Packaing and Configuration spec [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos after TWI test suite updated, send an
annoucement to public-webapps [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-wam-minutes.html#action06]
[End of minutes]
