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