IRC log of wam on 2008-08-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

10:57:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
10:57:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
10:57:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
10:57:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #wam
10:57:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAPP
10:57:39 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
10:57:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
10:57:40 [trackbot]
Date: 14 August 2008
10:57:41 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike
10:57:41 [Zakim]
sorry, MikeSmith, I don't know what conference this is
10:57:55 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, this is WAPP
10:57:55 [Zakim]
sorry, MikeSmith, I do not see a conference named 'WAPP' in progress or scheduled at this time
10:59:10 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, this is WAF1
10:59:10 [Zakim]
ok, MikeSmith; that matches IA_WebApps(Widgets)7:00AM
10:59:21 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike
10:59:21 [Zakim]
ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
10:59:23 [Zakim]
11:00:22 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
11:00:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +44.771.414.aaaa, Mike
11:00:47 [marcos]
marcos has joined #wam
11:00:48 [Zakim]
11:01:07 [marcos]
marcos has left #wam
11:01:18 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, +44 is nallott
11:01:18 [Zakim]
+nallott; got it
11:01:30 [marcos]
marcos has joined #wam
11:01:38 [Zakim]
11:01:58 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
11:02:04 [Zakim]
11:02:08 [ArtB]
Date: 14 August 2008
11:02:14 [arve]
arve has changed the topic to: Widgets Conference Call Aug 14 07:00 Boston time
11:02:15 [marcos]
zakim, ??p6 is I
11:02:15 [Zakim]
+marcos; got it
11:02:28 [ArtB]
11:02:45 [ArtB]
Present: Art, Arve, Marcos, Mike, Nick
11:03:07 [ArtB]
Regrets: Thomas, Claudio, Luca, Benoit, DavidR, Mark
11:03:16 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
11:03:19 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
11:03:26 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
11:03:43 [ArtB]
Topic: Agenda Review
11:03:51 [ArtB]
AB: any change requests?
11:03:53 [ArtB]
11:04:01 [ArtB]
Topic: OMTP Input
11:04:35 [ArtB]
AB: we need to get clarity on the contributors for OMTP's inputs before we can act on them
11:04:44 [ArtB]
AB: any questions or concerns?
11:05:11 [ArtB]
Nick: by contributors do you mean companies?
11:05:20 [ArtB]
AB: yes I mean companies
11:05:31 [ArtB]
Topic: Turin f2f Agenda
11:05:42 [ArtB]
AB: posted an update of the Turin f2f agenda
11:05:52 [ArtB]
11:05:58 [ArtB]
AB: any comments?
11:06:34 [ArtB]
11:06:55 [ArtB]
Topic: Comments from MWBP WG on Requirements LC doc
11:07:13 [ArtB]
AB: comments
11:07:30 [ArtB]
AB: 5 new reqs proposed
11:07:39 [ArtB]
... and changes for R16 and R36
11:07:59 [ArtB]
AB: unfortunately Bryan isn't here
11:08:25 [ArtB]
AB: there are three thread now Marcos?
11:08:28 [ArtB]
MC: yes
11:09:24 [ArtB]
Topic: "General Comments"
11:09:34 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute me
11:09:34 [Zakim]
sorry, MikeSmith, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
11:09:45 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, Mike has MikeSmith
11:09:45 [Zakim]
+MikeSmith; got it
11:09:47 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute me
11:09:47 [Zakim]
sorry, MikeSmith, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
11:09:56 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
11:09:56 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
11:10:14 [ArtB]
MC: we've talked about the ontologies before in the context of device capabilities
11:10:38 [ArtB]
... our general consensus in the past is this type of tech is too complicated and not baked enough for v1.0
11:11:01 [ArtB]
Arve: yes I agree with Marcos
11:11:01 [MikeSmith]
q+ to saymight be good to hear Nick's opinion on this
11:11:06 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, unmute Mike
11:11:06 [Zakim]
Mike should no longer be muted
11:11:14 [arve]
11:11:16 [ArtB]
AB: Mike and Nick?
11:11:37 [ArtB]
Mike: I would like to hear from Nick about use cases and market realities
11:12:12 [ArtB]
Nick: we do have device cap type stuff in progress in BONDI
11:12:22 [ArtB]
... it is an important topic
11:12:39 [marcos]
11:12:47 [MikeSmith]
ack MikeSmith
11:12:47 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to saymight be good to hear Nick's opinion on this
11:12:52 [ArtB]
... we are split on DCCI and simpler API based solutions
11:13:08 [ArtB]
AB: I agree with Marcos' statements
11:14:03 [MikeSmith]
11:15:08 [ArtB]
Arve: device capability is too complicated for v1.0; also think this issue will be less important as platforms more powerful
11:15:22 [ArtB]
... Widgets are NOT just for mobile
11:16:02 [ArtB]
... For example, we ship Widgets for the desktop
11:16:12 [marcos]
11:16:27 [ArtB]
... Thus I don't think DCCI, MWBP, etc. are relevant for a Core Widgets spec
11:16:55 [ArtB]
... If any mobile specific work needs to be done, it should be in a separate spec
11:17:05 [ArtB]
... or as extensions
11:17:07 [marcos]
MC: I agree with Arve
11:17:13 [arve]
11:17:23 [ArtB]
AB: I agree with Arve's comments, pretty much 100%
11:17:42 [ArtB]
Topic: R16 Vistual Rendering Dimensions
11:17:53 [ArtB]
AB: what are your thoughts on this Marcos?
11:18:20 [ArtB]
MC: I don't think they understand what the req says
11:18:33 [ArtB]
... We don't expect "straight up" pixels
11:19:05 [ArtB]
Topic: MWBP References
11:19:39 [ArtB]
AB: the comments suggest two refs from the MWBP WG should be added
11:19:59 [ArtB]
MC: I added the references in the Informative Ref section
11:20:03 [ArtB]
AB: OK to me
11:20:26 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
11:20:26 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
11:20:35 [ArtB]
AB: any other comments?
11:20:37 [ArtB]
11:21:03 [ArtB]
Topic: Proposed requirement for "Resource Declarations"
11:21:40 [ArtB]
MC: I submitted some comments
11:22:19 [ArtB]
... I would reject this requirement
11:22:39 [ArtB]
Arve: I pretty much agree with Marcos
11:23:06 [ArtB]
... in that it is not possible to know if a widget will be a good or bad match for things like CPU or memory
11:23:23 [marcos]
MC: the widget engine might not be good... but the widget might be ok
11:23:59 [ArtB]
... for example can't say apriori anything about battery life
11:25:00 [ArtB]
... This requirement could be satisified via a security model
11:25:37 [ArtB]
AB: has Bryan responded to your feedback Marcos?
11:25:45 [ArtB]
MC: not yet and it's been almost one week
11:26:39 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, unmute Mike
11:26:39 [Zakim]
Mike should no longer be muted
11:26:48 [ArtB]
ACTION: Barstow make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses
11:26:49 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-23 - Make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-08-21].
11:27:19 [ArtB]
Mike: when responding formally to a comment it is always a good idea to include a deadline for responses
11:27:26 [ArtB]
AB: that's an excellent point!
11:27:49 [ArtB]
Mike: regarding the timeline, a week is typically the best; 2 weeks if really needed
11:28:10 [ArtB]
... want to eliminate chasing-up commentors if possible
11:28:20 [ArtB]
... this will save time for everyone
11:28:35 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
11:28:35 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
11:29:14 [ArtB]
AB: so in the abscence of pushback from Bryan and/or BP WG, that proposed Resource Declaration req will not be added
11:29:35 [ArtB]
Topic: R36 Open Default System Web Browser
11:30:52 [ArtB]
MC: I proposed some alternate text
11:31:03 [ArtB]
AB: any feedback on Marcos' proposed text?
11:31:09 [ArtB]
AB: it's OK with me
11:31:16 [ArtB]
AB: any other feedback?
11:31:18 [ArtB]
11:31:38 [ArtB]
Topic: New Req: User-Agent Header
11:32:52 [ArtB]
MC: I'm OK with including this
11:33:08 [ArtB]
AB: how would this req be manifested in a spec?
11:33:19 [ArtB]
MC: good question; I think it would just be a recommendation
11:33:27 [ArtB]
... that is a recommendation for the UA
11:33:50 [ArtB]
Arve: setting this depends on the request itself
11:34:00 [ArtB]
... what about loading external resources
11:34:22 [ArtB]
MC: what happens now or what is proposed in HTML5?
11:34:41 [ArtB]
Arve: HTML5 may not say anything about the UA header
11:35:48 [ArtB]
Arve: I also don't quite understand how this req would be specified
11:35:59 [MikeSmith]
q+ to say that including spec language to address this type of UA behavior might be a slippery slope
11:36:07 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, unmute Mike
11:36:07 [Zakim]
Mike should no longer be muted
11:36:38 [ArtB]
Mike: seems like this falls into recommendations for UA behavior
11:36:47 [ArtB]
... not sure we want to set a precedence for this
11:36:58 [ArtB]
... it's a slippery slope for other UA behavior
11:37:17 [ArtB]
... may want to say we don't want to define UA behavior at all
11:37:25 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
11:37:25 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
11:37:28 [ArtB]
AB: I agree with Mike concerns
11:37:42 [ArtB]
... OTOH, I think that type of doc is useful
11:38:13 [arve]
11:38:17 [ArtB]
... Is this something that would be more appropriate for the MWBP's Web Apps recommendation?
11:38:20 [MikeSmith]
ack MikeSmith
11:38:20 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to say that including spec language to address this type of UA behavior might be a slippery slope
11:38:32 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, unmute Mike
11:38:32 [Zakim]
Mike should no longer be muted
11:39:07 [ArtB]
MC: I read the Web Apps doc from the MWBP WG and it is for developers not implemtors
11:39:15 [MikeSmith]
q+ to say the MBWG is not chartered to produce specs that give normative conformance criteria for UAs
11:39:48 [ArtB]
AB: I don't see a match between these 3 reqs and the set of specs we are working on
11:40:15 [ArtB]
... I'm not opposed to adding these to an informative set of recommendations
11:40:23 [ArtB]
... for UA implementors
11:40:49 [ArtB]
Arve: I'd like to see some Use Cases for these headers
11:41:42 [ArtB]
MC: to me setting the UA header is typically self-evident
11:41:56 [ArtB]
Arve: the problem with the UA header is that it isn't authoritative
11:42:12 [arve]
11:42:15 [ArtB]
... in that anyone can set it to anything thus I question its usefulneess
11:42:21 [ArtB]
MC: so is it in or out
11:43:24 [ArtB]
AB: I think it is more in scope for a WG focusing on mobile specific requirements
11:43:38 [ArtB]
AB: Nick, Mike?
11:43:42 [MikeSmith]
ack MikeSmith
11:43:42 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to say the MBWG is not chartered to produce specs that give normative conformance criteria for UAs
11:43:50 [ArtB]
Nick: no input now
11:44:02 [ArtB]
Mike: I think we're better off not including it
11:44:20 [ArtB]
... the MWBP is not chartered for creating Normative specs for UAs
11:45:06 [ArtB]
... Perhaps it could be a recommendation in BP v2.0 or something like that
11:45:18 [ArtB]
... Agree it shouldn't be addressed in the Widgets spec
11:45:51 [ArtB]
AB: Propose we not add a requirement for User-Agent header
11:45:56 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
11:46:01 [ArtB]
Arve: no
11:46:05 [ArtB]
Marcos: no
11:46:10 [ArtB]
Mike: no
11:46:12 [ArtB]
Nick: no
11:46:28 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: User Agent header will not be added to the Requirements document
11:46:51 [ArtB]
Topic: New Requirement for User-Agent-Profile Header
11:47:14 [ArtB]
AB: where is this header specified, Normatively?
11:47:21 [ArtB]
MC: the CC/PP spec
11:47:43 [marcos]
11:47:50 [arve]
11:48:18 [ArtB]
AB: the NOTE reference is Informative
11:48:37 [ArtB]
... The W3C has produced a Recommendation for CC/PP and if we use anything, we should use it
11:48:44 [arve]
11:49:09 [arve]
11:49:42 [marcos]
11:50:00 [ArtB]
AB: yes, that's it Marcos
11:50:35 [ArtB]
AB: does this S&V spec define this header?
11:50:43 [ArtB]
Arve: no, I don't think so
11:51:10 [ArtB]
... My main concern is that it adds bloat for each request without providing much value
11:51:18 [ArtB]
... I don't think this is in widespread use
11:51:24 [MikeSmith]
amen to what arve just said
11:51:28 [ArtB]
MC: I agree
11:51:32 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
11:51:32 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
11:52:41 [ArtB]
Arve: some of the properties simply are not useful
11:52:56 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, unmute Mike
11:52:56 [Zakim]
Mike should no longer be muted
11:53:04 [ArtB]
AB: Mike, Nick, any comments on this?
11:53:04 [arve]
11:53:13 [ArtB]
Mike: I agree with Arve
11:53:18 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
11:53:18 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
11:53:21 [ArtB]
Nick: nothing to add
11:53:35 [ArtB]
AB: I tend to agree with Arve as wll
11:53:55 [ArtB]
AB: Propose we do not add the U-A-Profile header to the Requirements document
11:54:03 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
11:54:08 [ArtB]
Marcos: no
11:54:12 [ArtB]
Arve: no
11:54:14 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, unmute Mike
11:54:14 [Zakim]
Mike should no longer be muted
11:54:16 [ArtB]
Mike: no
11:54:19 [ArtB]
Nick: no
11:54:40 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: We will not add the User-Agent-Profile header requirement
11:54:54 [ArtB]
Topic: New Requirement Accept Header
11:55:45 [ArtB]
MC: when a UA makes a request, it should use the Accept header
11:56:14 [ArtB]
... Again, I think it should be a recommendation (like the UA header)
11:56:24 [ArtB]
Arve: UAs already do this
11:56:57 [ArtB]
... Every widget engine will build on a browser engine and support for this header will just be done
11:57:08 [ArtB]
... Don't think we need to explicitly add it
11:57:36 [ArtB]
AB: what would we add to our specs to satisfy this req?
11:57:45 [ArtB]
Marcos: we wouldn't do anything
11:57:55 [ArtB]
Arve: agree
11:58:29 [ArtB]
... leave this to HTML5 for example
11:58:43 [ArtB]
AB: Mike, Nick, any comments?
11:58:46 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, unmute Mike
11:58:46 [Zakim]
Mike was not muted, MikeSmith
11:59:05 [ArtB]
Mike: I agree with Arve and Marcos; this should be left to HTML5
11:59:15 [ArtB]
... IF it needs to be addressed at all
11:59:32 [ArtB]
Nick: agree with Mike
11:59:51 [ArtB]
AB: propose we not add the Accept header as an explicit requirement
11:59:55 [ArtB]
AB: Any objections?
12:00:03 [ArtB]
12:00:17 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: we will not add the Accept header as an explicit requirement
12:00:52 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
12:00:52 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
12:01:08 [ArtB]
Topic: New Requirement: Default Use of Runtime Environemnet Configured Proxy
12:01:35 [ArtB]
MC: we already have a proxy support requirement
12:02:05 [ArtB]
... Bryan read an older version that was updated based on feedback from Josh
12:02:17 [ArtB]
Arve: what is the impact on our specs?
12:02:34 [ArtB]
Marcos: I think it could be related to our security model but I'm not sure
12:02:47 [ArtB]
... I did add the rationale
12:03:02 [ArtB]
Arve: not sure where we actually address this requirement
12:03:49 [ArtB]
AB: which req is relate?
12:03:53 [ArtB]
MC: #39
12:04:46 [ArtB]
AB: Arve, do you have problems with #39 as currently specified in the LC doc?
12:05:01 [marcos]
12:05:05 [marcos]
12:05:07 [ArtB]
s/req is relate/requirement is related/
12:06:12 [ArtB]
Arve: in practice all implementations must support this req
12:06:46 [ArtB]
... Proxy support will be required
12:07:04 [ArtB]
... But it's not going to affect interop
12:07:29 [ArtB]
... It doesn't affect how the widget will be written
12:07:59 [ArtB]
Marcos: I agree; this is an implemenation detail
12:08:35 [ArtB]
... would like to hear about the security aspects
12:09:01 [ArtB]
Nick: I agree need to separate security concerns
12:09:11 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, unmute Mike
12:09:11 [Zakim]
Mike should no longer be muted
12:09:34 [ArtB]
Mike: I agree with Marcos re this is an implemenation detail that we don't need to specifiy
12:09:43 [ArtB]
AB: propse we not add this requirement
12:09:49 [ArtB]
AB: Any objections?
12:09:52 [ArtB]
12:10:13 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: the new requirement for proxies will not be added
12:10:43 [ArtB]
AB: Meeting Ended
12:10:51 [Zakim]
12:10:53 [Zakim]
12:10:54 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, drop MikeSmith
12:10:55 [Zakim]
sorry, MikeSmith, I do not see a party named 'MikeSmith'
12:10:57 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, drop Mike
12:10:57 [Zakim]
Mike is being disconnected
12:10:59 [Zakim]
12:17:32 [Zakim]
12:17:33 [Zakim]
12:17:33 [Zakim]
IA_WebApps(Widgets)7:00AM has ended
12:17:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were +44.771.414.aaaa, arve, nallott, Art_Barstow, marcos, MikeSmith
12:18:04 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make logs public
12:18:18 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
12:18:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
12:18:51 [MikeSmith]
ArtB: +44.771.414.aaaa was Nick
12:19:07 [MikeSmith]
I told Zakim but it didn't seem to take
12:20:41 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, bye
12:20:41 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
12:20:41 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Barstow make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses [1]
12:20:41 [RRSAgent]
recorded in