Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

14 Aug 2008


See also: IRC log


Art, Arve, Marcos, Mike, Nick
Thomas, Claudio, Luca, Benoit, DavidR, Mark




<trackbot> Date: 14 August 2008

<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

Date: 14 August 2008

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

Agenda Review

AB: any change requests?


OMTP Input

AB: we need to get clarity on the contributors for OMTP's inputs before we can act on them
... any questions or concerns?

Nick: by contributors do you mean companies?

AB: yes I mean companies

Turin f2f Agenda

AB: posted an update of the Turin f2f agenda
... http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/TurinF2F
... any comments?


Comments from MWBP WG on Requirements LC doc

AB: comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/att-0298/MWBP_comments_to_Widget_Requirements_Last_Call_WD.htm
... 5 new reqs proposed
... and changes for R16 and R36
... unfortunately Bryan isn't here
... there are three thread now Marcos?

MC: yes

"General Comments"

MC: we've talked about the ontologies before in the context of device capabilities
... our general consensus in the past is this type of tech is too complicated and not baked enough for v1.0

Arve: yes I agree with Marcos

AB: Mike and Nick?

Mike: I would like to hear from Nick about use cases and market realities

Nick: we do have device cap type stuff in progress in BONDI
... it is an important topic

<marcos> +q

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to saymight be good to hear Nick's opinion on this

Nick: we are split on DCCI and simpler API based solutions

AB: I agree with Marcos' statements

Arve: device capability is too complicated for v1.0; also think this issue will be less important as platforms more powerful
... Widgets are NOT just for mobile
... For example, we ship Widgets for the desktop
... Thus I don't think DCCI, MWBP, etc. are relevant for a Core Widgets spec
... If any mobile specific work needs to be done, it should be in a separate spec
... or as extensions

<marcos> MC: I agree with Arve

AB: I agree with Arve's comments, pretty much 100%

R16 Vistual Rendering Dimensions

AB: what are your thoughts on this Marcos?

MC: I don't think they understand what the req says
... We don't expect "straight up" pixels

MWBP References

AB: the comments suggest two refs from the MWBP WG should be added

MC: I added the references in the Informative Ref section

AB: OK to me
... any other comments?


Proposed requirement for "Resource Declarations"

MC: I submitted some comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0340.html
... I would reject this requirement

Arve: I pretty much agree with Marcos
... in that it is not possible to know if a widget will be a good or bad match for things like CPU or memory

<marcos> MC: the widget engine might not be good... but the widget might be ok

Arve: for example can't say apriori anything about battery life
... This requirement could be satisified via a security model

AB: has Bryan responded to your feedback Marcos?

MC: not yet and it's been almost one week

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<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].

Mike: when responding formally to a comment it is always a good idea to include a deadline for responses

AB: that's an excellent point!

Mike: regarding the timeline, a week is typically the best; 2 weeks if really needed
... want to eliminate chasing-up commentors if possible
... this will save time for everyone

AB: so in the abscence of pushback from Bryan and/or BP WG, that proposed Resource Declaration req will not be added

R36 Open Default System Web Browser

MC: I proposed some alternate text

AB: any feedback on Marcos' proposed text?
... it's OK with me
... any other feedback?


New Req: User-Agent Header

MC: I'm OK with including this

AB: how would this req be manifested in a spec?

MC: good question; I think it would just be a recommendation
... that is a recommendation for the UA

Arve: setting this depends on the request itself
... what about loading external resources

MC: what happens now or what is proposed in HTML5?

Arve: HTML5 may not say anything about the UA header
... I also don't quite understand how this req would be specified

Mike: seems like this falls into recommendations for UA behavior
... not sure we want to set a precedence for this
... it's a slippery slope for other UA behavior
... may want to say we don't want to define UA behavior at all

AB: I agree with Mike concerns
... OTOH, I think that type of doc is useful
... Is this something that would be more appropriate for the MWBP's Web Apps recommendation?

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that including spec language to address this type of UA behavior might be a slippery slope

MC: I read the Web Apps doc from the MWBP WG and it is for developers not implemtors

AB: I don't see a match between these 3 reqs and the set of specs we are working on
... I'm not opposed to adding these to an informative set of recommendations
... for UA implementors

Arve: I'd like to see some Use Cases for these headers

MC: to me setting the UA header is typically self-evident

Arve: the problem with the UA header is that it isn't authoritative
... in that anyone can set it to anything thus I question its usefulneess

MC: so is it in or out

AB: I think it is more in scope for a WG focusing on mobile specific requirements
... Nick, Mike?

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say the MBWG is not chartered to produce specs that give normative conformance criteria for UAs

Nick: no input now

Mike: I think we're better off not including it
... the MWBP is not chartered for creating Normative specs for UAs
... Perhaps it could be a recommendation in BP v2.0 or something like that
... Agree it shouldn't be addressed in the Widgets spec

AB: Propose we not add a requirement for User-Agent header
... any objections?

Arve: no

Marcos: no

Mike: no

Nick: no

RESOLUTION: User Agent header will not be added to the Requirements document

New Requirement for User-Agent-Profile Header

AB: where is this header specified, Normatively?

MC: the CC/PP spec

<marcos> http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPPexchange

AB: the NOTE reference is Informative
... The W3C has produced a Recommendation for CC/PP and if we use anything, we should use it

<arve> http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPP/

<arve> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab2-20070430/

<marcos> http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/

AB: yes, that's it Marcos
... does this S&V spec define this header?

Arve: no, I don't think so
... My main concern is that it adds bloat for each request without providing much value
... I don't think this is in widespread use

<MikeSmith> amen to what arve just said

MC: I agree

Arve: some of the properties simply are not useful

AB: Mike, Nick, any comments on this?

Mike: I agree with Arve

Nick: nothing to add

AB: I tend to agree with Arve as wll
... Propose we do not add the U-A-Profile header to the Requirements document
... any objections?

Marcos: no

Arve: no

Mike: no

Nick: no

RESOLUTION: We will not add the User-Agent-Profile header requirement

New Requirement Accept Header

MC: when a UA makes a request, it should use the Accept header
... Again, I think it should be a recommendation (like the UA header)

Arve: UAs already do this
... Every widget engine will build on a browser engine and support for this header will just be done
... Don't think we need to explicitly add it

AB: what would we add to our specs to satisfy this req?

Marcos: we wouldn't do anything

Arve: agree
... leave this to HTML5 for example

AB: Mike, Nick, any comments?

Mike: I agree with Arve and Marcos; this should be left to HTML5
... IF it needs to be addressed at all

Nick: agree with Mike

AB: propose we not add the Accept header as an explicit requirement
... Any objections?


RESOLUTION: we will not add the Accept header as an explicit requirement

New Requirement: Default Use of Runtime Environemnet Configured Proxy

MC: we already have a proxy support requirement
... Bryan read an older version that was updated based on feedback from Josh

Arve: what is the impact on our specs?

Marcos: I think it could be related to our security model but I'm not sure
... I did add the rationale

Arve: not sure where we actually address this requirement

AB: which requirement is related?

MC: #39 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r39.-

AB: Arve, do you have problems with #39 as currently specified in the LC doc?

<marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r41.-

<marcos> sorry

Arve: in practice all implementations must support this req
... Proxy support will be required
... But it's not going to affect interop
... It doesn't affect how the widget will be written

Marcos: I agree; this is an implemenation detail
... would like to hear about the security aspects

Nick: I agree need to separate security concerns

Mike: I agree with Marcos re this is an implemenation detail that we don't need to specifiy

AB: propse we not add this requirement
... Any objections?


RESOLUTION: the new requirement for proxies will not be added

AB: Meeting Ended

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Barstow make sure all newbies in the WG understand our working mode regarding comments and responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/08/14 12:18:24 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/req is relate/requirement is related/
Found Scribe: Art
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Default Present: +44.771.414.aaaa, arve, nallott, Art_Barstow, marcos, MikeSmith
Present: Art Arve Marcos Mike Nick
Regrets: Thomas Claudio Luca Benoit DavidR Mark
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0399.html
Found Date: 14 Aug 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]