IRC log of wam on 2008-10-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:02:45 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wam

11:02:45 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-wam-irc

11:02:46 [Zakim]

+ +44.771.751.aaaa

11:02:59 [arve]

arve has joined #wam

11:03:05 [arve]

sorry, will call in in 15 seconds

11:03:07 [ArtB]

zakim, aaaa is Mark

11:03:07 [Zakim]

+Mark; got it

11:03:20 [timeless]

s the meeting number

11:03:20 [ArtB]

Regrets: Thomas, Nick

11:03:37 [ArtB]

Present: Art, Marcos, Mark, David

11:03:40 [Zakim]

+ +1.314.683.aabb

11:03:47 [Zakim]

+??P6

11:03:55 [ArtB]

zakim, aabb is Adam

11:03:55 [Zakim]

+Adam; got it

11:04:06 [arve]

Zakim, PP6 is me

11:04:06 [Zakim]

sorry, arve, I do not recognize a party named 'PP6'

11:04:08 [ArtB]

Present+ Adam

11:04:16 [arve]

Zakim, P6 is me

11:04:16 [Zakim]

sorry, arve, I do not recognize a party named 'P6'

11:04:18 [Zakim]

+??P4

11:04:22 [arve]

Zakim, ??P6 is me

11:04:22 [Zakim]

+arve; got it

11:04:26 [ArtB]

Present+ Arve

11:04:35 [ArtB]

Present+ Claudio

11:05:03 [claudio]

claudio has joined #wam

11:05:03 [ArtB]

Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

11:05:06 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

11:05:15 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

11:05:26 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0001.html

11:05:28 [Benoit]

Benoit has joined #wam

11:05:37 [ArtB]

Date: 2 October 2008

11:05:48 [ArtB]

Present+ Benoit

11:06:00 [ArtB]

Topic: Agenda tweaks

11:06:13 [ArtB]

AB: any change requests?

11:06:18 [ArtB]

[None]

11:06:23 [ArtB]

Topic: Annoucements

11:06:43 [ArtB]

AB: registration deadline for Mandelieu is now Oct 12

11:07:04 [Zakim]

+??P7

11:07:16 [ArtB]

Present+ Josh

11:09:11 [ArtB]

AB: Mandelieu agenda is still a WIP

11:09:17 [ArtB]

AB: Security WS in December

11:09:29 [ArtB]

MC: I intend to submit a Position Paper

11:09:40 [Zakim]

+Benoit

11:09:45 [ArtB]

AB: pub moratorium is Oct 13

11:10:04 [ArtB]

Topic: Widgets Core API and Event spec

11:10:15 [ArtB]

AB: what's the status Arve?

11:10:25 [ArtB]

Arve: I just committed a new version to CVS

11:10:41 [ArtB]

... http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

11:12:12 [ArtB]

... we need to talk about using HTML5 APIs instead of get/set prefs

11:12:25 [ArtB]

... does the refs section need to be complete?

11:12:33 [ArtB]

MC: I think you can leave it open

11:12:54 [arve]

http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/Overview.src.html

11:12:55 [ArtB]

AB: anything else blocking pub?

11:14:02 [ArtB]

AB: may want to provide a bit more context for the red blocks

11:14:08 [ArtB]

BS: I agree

11:14:15 [ArtB]

Arve: yes, I can do that

11:14:54 [ArtB]

BS: a list of issues would be helpful; gives the reader a sense of what's going to be done

11:15:54 [ArtB]

Topic: Preferences API

11:16:19 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos made a propsal on the list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/ 0736.html

11:16:37 [marcos]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0736.html

11:16:39 [ArtB]

JS: I like the idea of dropping the APIs and using HTML5

11:16:58 [arve]

+1

11:17:29 [ArtB]

MC: the basic problem is we are defining an API that is already defined in HTML5

11:17:36 [ArtB]

... this will cause probs for developers

11:17:48 [ArtB]

... we don't want to have two different APIs

11:17:56 [ArtB]

... I recommend we use HTML5

11:18:08 [ArtB]

... It has already been implemented in some browsers

11:18:17 [ArtB]

Arve: I quite agree with Marcos

11:18:25 [ArtB]

... but we need to mention some stuff

11:18:34 [ArtB]

... if we are going to do that

11:18:59 [MikeSmith]

MikeSmith has joined #wam

11:19:08 [ArtB]

... For example, need to make it clear each widget instance has its own cache

11:19:24 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, call Mike-Mobile

11:19:25 [Zakim]

ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made

11:19:26 [Zakim]

+Mike

11:19:27 [ArtB]

MC: agree we may need to do some tweaks

11:19:57 [ArtB]

... need to understand the overlaps of our reqs with HTML5

11:20:37 [ArtB]

Arve: need to add some explicit requirements for the UA

11:20:47 [ArtB]

... we may need to define a UA context

11:21:00 [ArtB]

... that says something about caching, redirects, etc.

11:21:12 [ArtB]

... Stuff that is beyond the scope of HTML5

11:21:36 [ArtB]

... The interface is defined in HTML5 but not the implications in our context

11:22:48 [ArtB]

JS: regarding reqs, need to also think about the need for storage to grow

11:23:50 [arve]

We need to define: Widget instance caching context, widget instance security context, widget instance storage context

11:24:31 [ArtB]

AB: where would this stuff be documented?

11:24:36 [ArtB]

Arve: in the P&C spec

11:24:49 [ArtB]

MC: I'm fine with that

11:25:46 [ArtB]

AB: agree this contextual info would be good to document

11:25:55 [ArtB]

... but who is going to create that documentation?

11:26:19 [ArtB]

AB: does Opera have some documentation we could review?

11:26:46 [Zakim]

-??P7

11:27:11 [ArtB]

Arve: another option is to go back to Opera's security input and move it forward

11:27:42 [arve]

what we're saying currently is:

11:27:44 [arve]

Separate widget instances share no information at all. Specifically:

11:27:51 [ArtB]

MC: yes, maybe this information should not in P&C but rather in a separarte doc such as Widgets Sec Model

11:27:54 [arve]

A cookie set by a widget instance, or by a URL loaded by a widget (eg through XmlHttpRequest) is visible only to that widget instance, never to any other instances or to documents loaded into the browser in any other way.

11:27:55 [Zakim]

+Josh_Soref

11:28:06 [arve]

If a URL loaded by a widget requires HTTP authentication then authentication must be performed on behalf of that widget instance; the authentication is not shared with other widget instances or with URLs loaded into the browser in any other way.

11:28:14 [arve]

A set of settings for a widget instance is shared with no other widget instances.

11:28:21 [arve]

Other persistent storage mechanisms, such as those defined in HTML must not share data with other widget instances, or with the storage context in the web browser.

11:28:38 [arve]

Cache files or cache indexes are not shared with the web browser, or with any other widget instance

11:30:34 [ArtB]

BS: I think this type of info is good to have

11:30:53 [ArtB]

AB: I tend to agree with Marcos this information should not be put in the P&C spec

11:31:14 [ArtB]

BS: in the advertising context, cookies are a concern; don't want any breaches

11:32:33 [ArtB]

AB: propose we drop our own storage APIs in the API spec and use HTML5's storage APIs

11:32:45 [ArtB]

AB: any objections?

11:32:54 [ArtB]

[None]

11:33:22 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: we will drop the storage APIs in the API and Events spec and use the HTML5 storage APIs

11:34:08 [ArtB]

CV: advertising in Widgets may require more discussion on storage APIs

11:36:16 [ArtB]

Topic: P&C feature element and access element

11:36:24 [Zakim]

-Josh_Soref

11:36:55 [ArtB]

MC: currently we have <access> to state pref for network access, plugins, etc.

11:37:08 [ArtB]

... that functionality is replicated by <feature>

11:37:22 [marcos]

in <access> we had: <access network="true" etc....>, Dom proposed we change it to <widget access="network plugins etc..">, then Arve wanted to replace all that with <feature id="http://www.w3.org/widgets/network">

11:37:27 [ArtB]

... I discussed this with Arve

11:37:55 [ArtB]

MC: Dominque recommended access just be an attribute on <widget>

11:38:15 [ArtB]

MC: we can also use URIs on <feature>

11:38:25 [Zakim]

+Josh_Soref

11:38:27 [ArtB]

... this give much more fine-grained control

11:39:47 [ArtB]

... Yahoo provides more control but not using URIs

11:40:01 [ArtB]

Arve: Opera provides fine control too

11:40:09 [ArtB]

... if we have URIs we can extend easily

11:40:23 [ArtB]

AB: any other feedback?

11:40:36 [ArtB]

MC: also could be used to define device capabilities

11:40:46 [ArtB]

... e.g. using fragment ids or query strings

11:41:31 [ArtB]

CV: we're not sure network access and feature are at the same level

11:41:41 [ArtB]

... we think access should be kept

11:42:27 [ArtB]

... something like network access is important, especially for mobile operators

11:42:29 [Zakim]

-Josh_Soref

11:43:09 [ArtB]

Arve: I think our proposal can be used to provide the exact same info that can be specified in <access network=@@@">

11:45:25 [ArtB]

AB: since this is the first time we've seen this proposal, I don't think we should make a decision today

11:45:42 [ArtB]

... Would like MC and/or Arve to submit their proposal to the list for feedback

11:45:56 [Zakim]

+Josh_Soref

11:45:59 [ArtB]

Arve: agree; this is a strawman proposal now; we need feedback

11:46:25 [ArtB]

CV: I agree we need to have some discussion on this

11:46:42 [ArtB]

... need to make sure it covers all of our use cases

11:46:54 [ArtB]

MC: I agree with Claudio

11:47:11 [ArtB]

... think <access> can be useful as well as <feature>

11:48:29 [ArtB]

AB: what are your thoughts on this Marcos?

11:48:52 [ArtB]

MC: I can create a proposal for a model to address this discussion and the requirements

11:49:36 [ArtB]

Topic: P&C <span> element

11:50:07 [ArtB]

AB: the I18N WG submitted some comments on the <span> element

11:50:12 [ArtB]

... what is the status Marcos?

11:50:17 [ArtB]

MC: we have to do something

11:50:41 [marcos]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0626.html

11:50:59 [ArtB]

... options are to add <span> or the ITS spec

11:51:32 [ArtB]

... My concern is about mandating support for ITS

11:51:51 [ArtB]

AB: I tend to share that concern about ITS support

11:52:02 [marcos]

MC: for example <description> bla bla <its:span> blo blo</its:span> </description>

11:52:23 [ArtB]

AB: do we just reuse its:span?

11:52:35 [ArtB]

MC: yes, but supporting ITS adds a lot of complexity

11:53:33 [ArtB]

AB: should we punt on this for v1?

11:53:48 [ArtB]

MC: I can do some investigation on this

11:54:06 [ArtB]

... I think it's OK to drop it for v1 and plan to add it to v2

11:54:18 [ArtB]

... we already have a number of I18N features

11:54:47 [ArtB]

AB: is anything hearing mandatory support for ITS for v1?

11:55:00 [ArtB]

JS: I'm worried about the implementation burden about this

11:55:22 [ArtB]

... if we support Unicode we should be OK for v1

11:55:40 [ArtB]

... Also could make authoring more difficult

11:56:27 [marcos]

this is what Felix said: "To keep simplicity for Widgets 1.0, you could say in your conformance

11:56:27 [marcos]

description that a Widgets processor has various options to deal with

11:56:27 [marcos]

the <its:span> element (or more in general: the ITS namespace) and its

11:56:28 [marcos]

attributes: ignore them or process them

11:56:28 [marcos]

"

11:56:36 [ArtB]

... It would be real helpful if we had a validator for a manifest

11:57:07 [MikeSmith]

RRSAgent, please make minutes

11:57:07 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-wam-minutes.html MikeSmith

11:57:35 [MikeSmith]

RRSAgent, make logs member

11:57:48 [marcos]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0626.html

11:58:11 [MikeSmith]

Present+ MikeSmith

11:58:43 [MikeSmith]

Chair: ArtB

11:58:53 [ArtB]

MC: I can codify Felix' recommendation

11:59:13 [ArtB]

AB: I can live with that for v1

11:59:56 [ArtB]

AB: I propose Marcos codify Felix' recommendation to address the span issue

12:00:02 [ArtB]

AB: any objections?

12:00:06 [ArtB]

[None]

12:00:37 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: Marcos will codify Felix's recommendation to address the span issue (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0626.html)

12:01:14 [ArtB]

Topic: Dig Sig spec

12:01:26 [ArtB]

AB: status from Mark or Marcos?

12:01:40 [ArtB]

MC: I haven't been working on it

12:01:45 [ArtB]

MP: neither have I

12:02:03 [ArtB]

... I have done some stuff on update and sent it to Marcos

12:02:30 [ArtB]

JS: should we invite XML Sig WG?

12:02:47 [ArtB]

AB: I've already done that - Tues Oct 21 11:00-12:00

12:03:27 [ArtB]

ACTION: Barstow ping the XML Sig WG re the questions we sent to them last week

12:03:27 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-253 - Ping the XML Sig WG re the questions we sent to them last week [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-09].

12:04:30 [ArtB]

MC: David, are you going to send us some info OMTP re the DigSig spec?

12:04:40 [ArtB]

DR: I'll follow-up with Nick

12:04:55 [ArtB]

AB: Meeting Closed

12:04:58 [Zakim]

-David

12:04:59 [Zakim]

-Mark

12:04:59 [Zakim]

-marcos

12:05:01 [Zakim]

-Adam

12:05:02 [Zakim]

-Benoit

12:05:03 [Zakim]

-Josh_Soref

12:05:04 [Zakim]

-??P4

12:05:07 [Zakim]

-arve

12:05:13 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, drop Mike

12:05:13 [Zakim]

Mike is being disconnected

12:05:14 [Zakim]

-Mike

12:05:18 [ArtB]

RRSagent, make log Public

12:05:35 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

12:05:35 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-wam-minutes.html ArtB

12:08:58 [timeless]

;me considers lunch

12:09:26 [timeless]

+

12:10:14 [Zakim]

disconnecting the lone participant, Art_Barstow, in IA_WebApps(Widgets)7:00AM

12:10:17 [Zakim]

IA_WebApps(Widgets)7:00AM has ended

12:10:19 [Zakim]

Attendees were Art_Barstow, David, marcos, +44.771.751.aaaa, Mark, +1.314.683.aabb, Adam, arve, Benoit, Mike, Josh_Soref

12:10:38 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, bye

12:10:38 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wam

12:19:24 [ArtB]

rrsagent, bye

12:19:24 [RRSAgent]

I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-wam-actions.rdf :

12:19:24 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Barstow ping the XML Sig WG re the questions we sent to them last week [1]

12:19:24 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-wam-irc#T12-03-27