The draft minutes from the November 18 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before December 2 (*tentatively*,
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
18 Nov 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0680.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Robin, Marcos, Steven
Regrets
Josh_Soref
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 spec
5. [9]Digital Signature spec
6. [10]Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec
7. [11]URI Scheme spec
8. [12]view-mode Media Feature spec
9. [13]Updates spec
10. [14]AOB
* [15]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Review and tweak agenda
AB: yesterday I sent out a draft agenda (
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/06
80.html ). Any change requests? We will drop Issue-151 because
Marcos already closed it.
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0680.html
Announcements
AB: any short announcements?
... Robin is now a member of the group as an Invited Expert
Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: re interop data for the P&C spec (
[17]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ ), the report
shows we still need a substantial amount of data to pass CR.
[17] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/
MC: OBIGO gave me some data
<darobin> arg sorry screwed up my reminder :(
MC: they did a good job
... I've been working with them
... we've helped each other
... I am also retesting with Opera 11
... so we have data for a shipping product
AB: several of the impls are around 50%
... is that because they haven't tested the I18N stuff?
MC: yes, that's right
AB: do you expect any additional data?
MC: the I18N tests are difficult to test
... some of the tests are very low level that are difficult to test
... the I18N tests are manual and as such take a lot of time to test
... If the widget object is implemented, some of the test are easier
to run
... some of the I18N test use JS now but the tests haven't changed
... Once we get agreement on the TWI spec, the P&C test suite can be
completed
AB: should we publish a new CR while waiting for data?:
MC: I'm OK with that
... we have handled the LC comments
AB: so we round-tripped with all the commenters?
MC: yes, I believe so
AB: that's my understanding as well
Widget Interface spec
AB: the ED is [18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
... the comment loop for the LCWD is still open re I18N WG's comment
(
[19]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-a
pis-20100907/ )
... where do we stand on this?
[18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
[19]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20100907/
<Marcos>
[20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#the-localizablestring-in
terface
[20]
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#the-localizablestring-interface
MC: go to section 7.
[21]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/widgets-api/Overvie
w.html?rev=1.155&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#the-lo
calizablestring-interface
... I created a new LocalizedString interface
... and it returns the language
[21]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/widgets-api/Overview.html?rev=1.155&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#the-localizablestring-interface
<Marcos> var lang = widget.name.lang
MC: I made up a use case in the ED
... and we can confirm that from the I18N WG
AB: so that takes care of the "what is the locale?" issue, right?
MC: yes
... navigator.language
... the 2nd problem is what is the string
... and the 3rd problem is what is the direction
<Marcos>
[22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#getting-localizable-stri
ngs
[22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#getting-localizable-strings
MC: go to section 7.2
... what I discovered is that inserting unicode markers into HTML,
browsers don't respect the markers
<Marcos>
[23]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#example-2-base-direction
-is-left-to-righ
[23]
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#example-2-base-direction-is-left-to-righ
MC: example in 7.2.2
<Marcos> The widget's name is 'olleH'.
<Marcos> Should be The widget's name is 'Hello'.
MC: look at the "Would render as" box
... all browsers display the widget's name incorrectly
AB: so if I understand this correctly, we have a technical solution
that is good but it has not been deployed/implemented by any
browser. Is that correct?
MC: yes, that's correct
AB: think we need to get some feedback from the I18N WG
MC: the API does what it is supposed to do it's the browsers that
don't support it properly
... think we are going to have a coding mismatch regardless
SP: at one level, it's not our problem if browsers don't support it
... it is our problem though, indirectly
MC: think we need to seek some guidance here
... I think we've captured the problem
... #1 issue: browsers don't respect Unicode Markers
... #2 issue: what do we do if the page is not in Unicode
RB: Unicode markers can be inserted using Entity Refs
MC: but what if the doc has multiple encodings?
RB: can't have multipe encodings
... in a single doc
...< more details by RB on character sets, encodings and Entity
Refs ...>
AB: so I think the next step then is to ask the I18N WG to review
the new ED ASAP
<darobin> [24]http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html
[24] http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html
<scribe> ACTION: barstow Ask the I18N WG to review the new Section 7
of the TWI spec [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-612 - Ask the I18N WG to review the new
Section 7 of the TWI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-11-25].
AB: other than review, what else do we ask them?
MC: I think it is mainly the two issues above
... think we need to have advice of implementors and developers
AB: would like to come back to P&C and promoting to CR or wait until
we resolve the TWI issue?
MC: would prefer to wait until TWI is sorted out
AB: that's what we'll do
Digital Signature spec
AB: the Implementation Report for widgets digsig show no (
[26]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/ )
implementation data.
... anything new re implementation data?
[26] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/
MC: no, I don't have any additional data for widgets-digsig
Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec
AB: what's the latest on the WARP spec re implementations (
[27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/imp-report/ )?
... we still have an open PAG
... for WARP spec
[27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/imp-report/
RB: the PAG should probably move fwd
SP: who are we waiting for?
RB: think Rigo
... we need to know what the PAG needs to do in specific terms
<scribe> ACTION: barstow followup with the Team on the status and
plan for the WARP PAG [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-613 - Followup with the Team on the status
and plan for the WARP PAG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-11-25].
AB: no surprise there is no data on the implementation of WARP given
the PAG is still open
URI Scheme spec
AB: the URI scheme spec is still in LC (
[29]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-u
ri-20091008/ ). What is the status and plan?
... anything new on this spec?
[29]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/
RB: nothing new to report
MC: we have implemented it in some products
... that with WARP is very useful
<Steven> The PAG Charter has expired
RB: any implementation feedback?
MC: it works well
... WARP + widget uri as origin is working
... we don't display the widget origin
... but it underlies things
<Marcos> MC: we have also implemented navigation of package
content... so you can browse resources inside a package
SP: re the WARP PAG, the Charter has expired
... the Director can extend it though, so I don't think that is a
problem
... perhaps it would be helpful to have Rigo join a call
... e.g. to get some momentum behind it
AB: that's fine with me
RB: is we set something up, we should tell the PAG
AB: good point; we should probably re-use the PAG conference time +
day of week
... coming back to URI spec ...
... what needs to be done?
RB: need a URI expert to take a look
<Steven> (Spec link?)
RB: perhaps someone from Opera can help?
AB: URI ED is: [30]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
[30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
RB: I'm having trouble understanding some of the comments
... last comment was from Julian
<darobin> Just define the widget *URI* syntax in terms of RFC 3986
(URI), not RFC 3987 (IRI).
<darobin> Then, state how to map strings that contain non-URI
characters to URI syntax (such as UTF-8-encode-then-percent-escape).
<darobin> (This is something that might change when IRIbis is done,
but as far as I understand, this is how it works right now).
<darobin> [31]http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]
[31] http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]
<darobin> that's the sort of stuff that confuses me :)
<darobin> (especially the last bit)
[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526
[32] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526
AB: so then from a resource perspective, to move the URI scheme spec
fwd, it appears we need some additional help
RB: yes, it would be good to get some help
AB: can Opera help here Marcos/
MC: yes, I can help
AB: that would be great
SP: re Julian's email ...
... IRIs over the wire get converted to URIs
... there is an encoding from IRI to URI
RB: for our case, the URI doesn't go over the wire
... these widget: URIs do not get typed into a browser, for example
SP: so how is it used?
RB: in an ideal world it isn't used
... but it does need to be in the DOM
... and only valid within a widget package
... thinks like network encoding just don't apply to our use case
... the IETF requirements are strict
... and don't necessarily apply in our scenario
AB: the A&I database includes Actions for the URI spec
view-mode Media Feature spec
AB: any implementation data for VMMF (
[33]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/imp-report/ )?
[33] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/imp-report/
MC: I don't think anyone implements it yet
... we still implement the old stuff i.e. we don't use the new names
AB: any commitments from other implementers?
MC: no
Updates spec
AB: Richard has recently updated the Updates spec (
[34]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ). How close is this
spec to being feature complete and hence ready for LC?
[34] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/
MC: I think it is pretty close to being feature complete
... I think we need to get some review
<Marcos> "On receiving an HTTP 410 Gone response, the user agent
must terminate the widget update and remove the installed widget."
MC:
[35]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/#acquiring-an-update-
description-document
... think there is some work that needs to be done
[35]
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/#acquiring-an-update-description-document
AB: do you expect a CfC for LC this year?
MC: not clear yet
AOB
AB: re next call: TBD base on agenda topics (definitely no meeting
on Nov 25).
RB: makes sense re TBD for Dec 2
MC: agree
AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow Ask the I18N WG to review the new Section 7 of
the TWI spec [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow followup with the Team on the status and plan
for the WARP PAG [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
