Web Applications Working Group Teleconference -- 09 Oct 2008

<MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 09 October 2008

<MikeSmith> WAPP?

<trackbot> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

<trackbot> Date: 09 October 2008

<tlr> wtf

<tlr> gah,IA_WebApps(Widgets)

<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

<tlr> ugh

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<marcos> zakin, ??P5 is I

<arve> [I'll never get Zakim's syntax right]

Agenda Tweaking

AB: any change requests for the agenda?

[None]

Annoucements

AB: any annoucements?

[None]

API and Events spec

AB: Arve, what's the status?

Arve: I think we are ready to publish
... I haven't done much since last week except to remove prefs API
... I need some help getting it "pub ready"

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow talk to Mike about helping Arve getting the API and Events spec "pub ready" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-254 - Talk to Mike about helping Arve getting the API and Events spec \"pub ready\" [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-16].

<MikeSmith> hai

<MikeSmith> I can deal with that of course

Arve: HTML5 defines a similar API
... but the semantics and UCs are a bit diff
... e.g. showNotification

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow submit FPWD request for API and Events spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-255 - Submit FPWD request for API and Events spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-16].

DigSig spec

AB: what's the status Mark and Marcos?

MC: we haven't done any work in the last week

AB: where is this in your priorities Mark and Marcos?

MC: my priority is the P&C spec
... but I can help Mark

MP: from the VF and BONDI point of view, we want to use the DigSig spec
... it is important to progress it
... I hope to do some work on it next week
... it is a priority for us

MC: the P&C spec is being update to include multiple signatures
... If Mark could start a dialog with XMLSec WG that could help

AB: it would be good to get more specific on the agenda for our joint meeting

MC: I have some questions for them re our model

<tlr> +1 to having specific issues. However, note that I won't have much bandwidth available between now and TPAC.

AB: I would like MC and MP to be prepared to drive the discussion with XML Sec WG
... we want specific questions, in advance if possible
... what is the status of the latest ED http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ - says May 27
... do you have a copy that reflects discussions in Turin

MC: we have done some brainstorming but haven't put those ideas into CVS

AB: will there be an update before the f2f meeting?

MC: yes; at a min we will add some UC data
... I will need Mark's help

I18N issue

AB: have you Marcos and Felix converged on a solution?

MC: Felix provided some good feedback re ITS
... I added optional support for ITS to the ED
... Felix says my latest changes are OK
... he recommended some minor changes in the Relax NG schema and I've added those

AB: can we now close this issue i.e. ISSUE #46?
... http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/46

MC: no I don't think we can close this yet
... want to make sure I18N WG is OK with our solution

widget URI scheme aka Issue #16

AB: we will meet with some TAG members on Monday Oct 20 14:00-15:00 to discuss this issue

MC: I have been responding to Mark Baker's comments

<marcos> widget-uri = "http://" widget-engine [":" instance-id] "/"package-name path-absolute ["#" fragment]

Arve: this seems like a breakage with HTTP
... I think using this is a locator issue
... I think file: has lots of problems
... e.g. not interoperable in current browsers
... as well as no formal definition
... it is also overloaded in Windows (e.g. file share)

<marcos> MC: your arguments are reflected here http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hoffman-file-uri-03.txt

TR: http URI as posted by Marcos is broken
... uses a domain-based authority
... but it isn't domain-based

<arve> marcos: yes

TR: if the HTTP URI scheme could be used would facilitate Widgets and Gadgets
... think we need to consider this more

MC: want to know if my example is broken or not

Arve: there are lots of servers that respond to localhost

MC: the arch question - is what is the origin

TR: does a widget have a canonical location
... are the pieces addressable on the web
... Could be useful to compare the various design options
... is the widget addressable through http or not

Arve: some widgets may never be served over http
... e.g. are installed on a device

TR: but that wouldn't preclude use of http uri
... could still mint something
... the configuration file could address the issue
... It isn't so much about whether the widget is download-able from the Web
... but more about identification via URIs

<tlr> I don't think I have an answer, and I suspect it will be useful for Arve, MArcos and myself to sit down with a piece of paper or a whiteboard

<tlr> +1 to Art

AB: want to get a plan for using the time with the TAG wisely
... seems like we need to start with a high level discussion of our UC and our Reqs
... and then talk about different ways to address those reqs
... do we have a clear UC and Reqs?

MC: I think the reqs doc provides sufficient information

<marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r6.-addressing

<tlr> cid:

<tlr> http:

<tlr> file:

MC: I can present the various solutions
... and explain why they don't work for us

AB: OK, that's the plan then

Widget Testing

AB: we have at least Carmelo and others from MWTS WG to join us

MC: do we need to create some reqs?

AB: what do people think?
... I don't think that is a high priority
... but that may be one of Carmelo's first questions to us

MC: thinking about things like automated harness, etc.
... what methodology do we want to use?
... CSS has a model we could use
... Naming conventions, ...
... I think we need some guidance

<marcos> MC: will it be a web based thing? or just a bunch of files that can be downloaded?

Requirement doc - Req #21 - New req "Feature Access Declarations"

AB: Marcos proposed this new req: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0053.html

<marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r21.-

MC: the basic idea is to rationalize the <feature> element we've added to the P&C spec

TR: please present this in the December secuity WS

AB: are you planning a PP for that WS Marcos?

<tlr> marcos++

<tlr> ;-)

MC: yes

MP: last call there was discussion about access element and feature element
... we have had discussion about that in BONDI and VF and can share that during the upcoming f2f meeting

AB: send comments to the mail list; Marcos has already added this to the ED

Requirements LC #2

AB: deadline for comments is October 13
... what is the rate of comments?

MC: only Krzy has responded
... we could ping David Orchard
... TR said it looks OK

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow ask David Orchard (again) to review Requirement LC #2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-wam-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-256 - Ask David Orchard (again) to review Requirement LC #2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-10-16].

AB: what changes have you made?

MC: not too many
... the only new req is #21

AOB

<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to ask that Marcos present this at the December workshop

AB: any : any topics?

TR: please drum up support from the WS
... not just from you and your company but otherss outside of W3C are welcome

AB: what is the deadlien for PP?

TR: October 30
... the level of interest has been rising
... now have MS and Google on the Program Committee

AB: meeting adjourned

RRSAgent: make log public

rrsagent: make minutes

- DRAFT -

Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

09 Oct 2008

Attendees

Contents