Re: [widgets] Minutes from 5 March 2009 Voice Conference
2009/3/5 Frederick Hirsch frederick.hir...@nokia.com: yes that has been the case ever since I've started working on this. Perhaps there is a W3C standard stylesheet we should be using. I'm not sure why the spec defines its own styles No reason, please removed them if they are causing problems. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
[widgets] Minutes from 5 March 2009 Voice Conference
The minutes from the March 5 Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before 12 March 2009 (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 05 Mar 2009 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2009JanMar/0622.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-irc Attendees Present Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Marcos, Arve, David, Benoit Regrets Claudio, Bryan Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Review and tweak agenda 2. [6]Announcements 3. [7]DigSig + PC synchronization 4. [8]Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use cases and requirements; 5. [9]Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets 6. [10]Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML access and Widget access element. 7. [11]Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital signature. 8. [12]Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail from Thomas: 9. [13]Open Actions 10. [14]June f2f meeting 11. [15]TPAC meeting in November 12. [16]Window Modes 13. [17]Editorial Tasks 14. [18]Anything Else * [19]Summary of Action Items _ scribe ScribeNick: ArtB scribe Scribe: Art Date: 5 March 2009 fjh widgets signature editors draft update fjh [20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures [20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- signatures fjh [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- signatures Review and tweak agenda AB: agenda posted March 4 - is [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/06 22.html ... the main agenda items are Open Issues. I only want to spend a few minutes on each of them to get a sense of where we are e.g. still Open, pending inputs, can be Closed. Any detailed technical discussions should occur on public-webapps mail list. ... Are there any change requests? [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2009JanMar/0622.html [ None ] Announcements AB: I don't have any urgent announcements ... what about others? FH: please submit comments on XML Sig 1.1 drafts DR: I will respond to Art's BONDI 1.0 email so please look at that fjh please review XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties FPWD fjh [23]http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25 [23] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25 MC: I uploaded the Window Modes spec; would like to get that on the agenda DigSig + PC synchronization AB: earlier this week Frederick asked me if the DigSig + PC specs are now in synch, based on last week's discussions? fjh [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- signatures AB: I believe the answer is yes. ... where are we on this? MC: FH and I talked about this ... I think this is mostly now addressed ... PC has no real depedency on DigSig fjh marcos notes merged steps 4 +5, moved locating to dig sig, removed signature variable from p + c MC: I haven't completed the PC changes yet ... e.g. renumber some steps fjh fjh notes revised text on locating to fit it within digsig but essence is same FH: I had to revise the location text a bit but the logic is the same ... Josh asked about the sorting ... I need to think about that a bit more JS: need to clarify diff between 9 and 009 ... we can take this discussion to the list FH: I agree we need more rigor here MC: I agree too ... need to address case sensitivity too AB: can we point to some existing work? FH: I don't think this is a big issue and agree we can discuss on the list AB: what needs to be done then? FH: I need to make a few changes to DigSig and MC needs to do a bit more on PC JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding readability MC: I can help with that FH: I'll take a pass at that DR: re the ell curve issue, I have asked OMTP to provide comments by March 9 so I should have data for the WG by Mar 12 Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use cases and requirements;
Re: [widgets] Minutes from 5 March 2009 Voice Conference
I updated the style for code items in the Digital Signature specification to brown. Does this work better? It does not conflict with other color uses as far as I can tell. Please look at http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ (refresh) regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: The minutes from the March 5 Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before 12 March 2009 (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 05 Mar 2009 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2009JanMar/0622.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-irc Attendees Present Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Marcos, Arve, David, Benoit Regrets Claudio, Bryan Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Review and tweak agenda 2. [6]Announcements 3. [7]DigSig + PC synchronization 4. [8]Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use cases and requirements; 5. [9]Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets 6. [10]Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML access and Widget access element. 7. [11]Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital signature. 8. [12]Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail from Thomas: 9. [13]Open Actions 10. [14]June f2f meeting 11. [15]TPAC meeting in November 12. [16]Window Modes 13. [17]Editorial Tasks 14. [18]Anything Else * [19]Summary of Action Items _ scribe ScribeNick: ArtB scribe Scribe: Art Date: 5 March 2009 fjh widgets signature editors draft update fjh [20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures [20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- signatures fjh [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- signatures Review and tweak agenda AB: agenda posted March 4 - is [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/ 06 22.html ... the main agenda items are Open Issues. I only want to spend a few minutes on each of them to get a sense of where we are e.g. still Open, pending inputs, can be Closed. Any detailed technical discussions should occur on public-webapps mail list. ... Are there any change requests? [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2009JanMar/0622.html [ None ] Announcements AB: I don't have any urgent announcements ... what about others? FH: please submit comments on XML Sig 1.1 drafts DR: I will respond to Art's BONDI 1.0 email so please look at that fjh please review XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties FPWD fjh [23]http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25 [23] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25 MC: I uploaded the Window Modes spec; would like to get that on the agenda DigSig + PC synchronization AB: earlier this week Frederick asked me if the DigSig + PC specs are now in synch, based on last week's discussions? fjh [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- signatures AB: I believe the answer is yes. ... where are we on this? MC: FH and I talked about this ... I think this is mostly now addressed ... PC has no real depedency on DigSig fjh marcos notes merged steps 4 +5, moved locating to dig sig, removed signature variable from p + c MC: I haven't completed the PC changes yet ... e.g. renumber some steps fjh fjh notes revised text on locating to fit it within digsig but essence is same FH: I had to revise the location text a bit but the logic is the same ... Josh asked about the sorting ... I need to think about that a bit more JS: need to clarify diff between 9 and 009 ... we can take this discussion to the list FH: I agree we need more rigor here MC: I agree too ... need to address case sensitivity too AB: can we point to some existing work? FH: I don't think this is a big issue and agree we can discuss on the list AB: what needs to be done then? FH: I need to make a few changes to DigSig and MC needs to do a bit more on PC
Re: [widgets] Minutes from 5 March 2009 Voice Conference
Easier on the eye, but to me it's pretty close to the color of RFC 2119 keyword style (em.ct). Seems like the body text font has grown in size somewhat, compared to other specs. --Jere On 5.3.2009 18.03, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: I updated the style for code items in the Digital Signature specification to brown. Does this work better? It does not conflict with other color uses as far as I can tell. Please look at http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ (refresh) regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding readability MC: I can help with that FH: I'll take a pass at that
Re: [widgets] Minutes from 5 March 2009 Voice Conference
yes that has been the case ever since I've started working on this. Perhaps there is a W3C standard stylesheet we should be using. I'm not sure why the spec defines its own styles regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Kapyaho Jere (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere) wrote: Easier on the eye, but to me it’s pretty close to the color of RFC 2119 keyword style (em.ct). Seems like the body text font has grown in size somewhat, compared to other specs. --Jere On 5.3.2009 18.03, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: I updated the style for code items in the Digital Signature specification to brown. Does this work better? It does not conflict with other color uses as far as I can tell. Please look at http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ (refresh) regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding readability MC: I can help with that FH: I'll take a pass at that
Re: [widgets] Minutes from 5 March 2009 Voice Conference
how about simple italics for code? I'll also look into reducing body text regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: yes that has been the case ever since I've started working on this. Perhaps there is a W3C standard stylesheet we should be using. I'm not sure why the spec defines its own styles regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Kapyaho Jere (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere) wrote: Easier on the eye, but to me it’s pretty close to the color of RFC 2119 keyword style (em.ct). Seems like the body text font has grown in size somewhat, compared to other specs. --Jere On 5.3.2009 18.03, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: I updated the style for code items in the Digital Signature specification to brown. Does this work better? It does not conflict with other color uses as far as I can tell. Please look at http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ (refresh) regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding readability MC: I can help with that FH: I'll take a pass at that
