IRC log of wam on 2009-02-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:13:06 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
08:13:06 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:13:15 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
08:13:17 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
08:13:21 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
08:13:29 [ArtB]
Meeting Widgets F2F Meeting
08:13:38 [ArtB]
Date: 26 Feb 2009
08:13:50 [ArtB]
08:13:59 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
08:14:34 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
08:14:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
08:15:02 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets F2F Meeting
08:15:53 [ArtB]
Present: Art, Claudio, Ivan, Mohammed, Rainer, David, Arve, Marcos, Benoit
08:18:33 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike
08:18:33 [Zakim]
sorry, MikeSmith, I don't know what conference this is
08:18:49 [ArtB]
zakim, this will be widgets
08:18:49 [Zakim]
ok, ArtB; I see IA_WebApps(Widgets F2F)3:30AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
08:19:44 [Zakim]
IA_WebApps(Widgets F2F)3:30AM has now started
08:19:52 [Zakim]
+ +68028aaaa
08:20:22 [Zakim]
+ +45.29.aabb
08:24:23 [arve]
arve has joined #wam
08:24:26 [ArtB]
zakim, who?
08:24:26 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, ArtB.
08:24:37 [ArtB]
zakim, who
08:24:37 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who', ArtB
08:24:40 [arve]
zakim, who is here
08:24:40 [Zakim]
arve, you need to end that query with '?'
08:24:43 [arve]
zakim, who is here?
08:24:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +68028aaaa, +45.29.aabb
08:24:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see arve, RRSAgent, Marcos, Zakim, ArtB, MikeSmith, heycam, chaals, shepazu, trackbot, timeless, timelyx
08:24:46 [ArtB]
zaki, who is here?
08:24:56 [ArtB]
zakim, who is here?
08:24:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +68028aaaa, +45.29.aabb
08:24:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see arve, RRSAgent, Marcos, Zakim, ArtB, MikeSmith, heycam, chaals, shepazu, trackbot, timeless, timelyx
08:25:02 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike
08:25:02 [Zakim]
ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
08:25:03 [Zakim]
08:25:20 [ArtB]
Present +Mike
08:25:28 [ArtB]
Topic: Agenda Review
08:25:34 [ArtB]
AB: last day
08:25:38 [Mohammed]
Mohammed has joined #wam
08:26:00 [ArtB]
... and 13:30 Scott Wilson some other Widget implementors will join us for for an hour or two
08:26:13 [ArtB]
... Topics remaining:
08:26:16 [Zakim]
08:26:19 [ArtB]
... 1. A&E spec
08:26:38 [ArtB]
Present+ Doug
08:26:43 [timelE61i]
timelE61i has joined #wam
08:26:54 [ArtB]
Present +Josh
08:27:11 [ArtB]
... 2. AOB
08:27:34 [Zakim]
08:27:34 [ArtB]
AB: from my perspective, we are done with P&C for this meeting
08:27:44 [ArtB]
... is that consistent with everyone else?
08:28:24 [ArtB]
[ No additional P&C topics suggested ]
08:28:45 [ArtB]
AB: I presume no more DigSig discussions, right?
08:28:58 [claudio]
claudio has joined #wam
08:28:59 [drogersuk]
drogersuk has joined #wam
08:29:03 [ArtB]
MC: no, done with DigSig
08:29:13 [ivandm]
ivandm has joined #wam
08:31:06 [ArtB]
[ Short discussion about when people need to leave today to catch their planes ... ]
08:31:08 [drogers]
drogers has joined #wam
08:31:37 [claudio]
claudio has joined #wam
08:31:41 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #wam
08:32:06 [ArtB]
AB: we will plan to complete WG discussions by 13:30
08:33:23 [drogersuk]
drogersuk has joined #wam
08:34:12 [ArtB]
Topic: Widget API Set/GetPreferences vs. HTML5 Key/Value Pairs Storage
08:34:39 [ArtB]
AB: head of the thread:
08:35:04 [ArtB]
AB: where do we stand on this Marcos?
08:35:13 [Zakim]
- +68028aaaa
08:36:04 [ArtB]
Arve: I do not support removing preferences interface
08:36:06 [Zakim]
+ +68028aacc
08:36:13 [ArtB]
MC: want to keep preferences API
08:36:34 [ArtB]
... but say storage is guaranteed
08:36:47 [ArtB]
... I don't want to explicitly say HTML5 storage is mandatory
08:37:05 [ArtB]
... Also don't want to replicate HTML5's storage API
08:37:19 [ArtB]
... It still may change
08:37:48 [ArtB]
... We also now have a <preference> element that can be used
08:38:11 [ArtB]
CV: please elaborate on the concern about read-only prefs
08:38:18 [ArtB]
MC: we want read-only prefs
08:38:37 [ArtB]
CV: what is the rationale for read-only?
08:38:48 [ArtB]
MC: they can be read-only or modifiable
08:39:13 [ArtB]
... that is, it will be possible to explicitly identify a specific pref to be read-only (non-mutable)
08:39:48 [ArtB]
... We expect some prefs e.g. a key to not be modifiable
08:40:14 [ArtB]
Ivan: we have getPrefs + setPrefs but you also want the prefs array
08:40:21 [ArtB]
... is that too much flexibility?
08:40:36 [ArtB]
MC: no, I think this flexibility is good
08:40:45 [ArtB]
... want an object that can be iterated over
08:41:02 [ArtB]
... but can also explicitly set and get via methods
08:41:23 [ArtB]
Arve: but if it looks like an array and talks like an array ...
08:41:42 [ArtB]
MC: it's like a hash map
08:42:11 [ArtB]
Arve: don't understand why I can't set/get the collection
08:42:21 [ArtB]
... e.g. to bulk add keys
08:43:32 [ArtB]
MC: let me try to clarify my proposal
08:44:26 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
08:44:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
08:45:17 [ArtB]
AB: preferences definition:
08:45:55 [ArtB]
[ Marcos sketches the API for preferences; this will be pasted into IRC ... ]
08:48:16 [Marcos]
interface preferences{
08:48:16 [Marcos]
void setPreference();
08:48:16 [Marcos]
string getPreference ();
08:48:17 [Marcos]
array keys;
08:48:17 [Marcos]
void clear();
08:48:17 [Marcos]
void size;
08:48:18 [Marcos]
08:48:41 [ArtB]
Ivan: how is delete done?
08:48:46 [ArtB]
MC: set it to null
08:49:04 [timeless]
void size doesn't make sense
08:49:06 [ArtB]
Ivan: this could create a collision problem
08:49:17 [arve]
in contrast, HTML5 storage:
08:49:18 [arve]
interface Storage {
08:49:18 [arve]
readonly attribute unsigned long length;
08:49:18 [arve]
[IndexGetter] DOMString key(in unsigned long index);
08:49:18 [arve]
[NameGetter] DOMString getItem(in DOMString key);
08:49:18 [arve]
[NameSetter] void setItem(in DOMString key, in DOMString data);
08:49:20 [arve]
[NameDeleter] void removeItem(in DOMString key);
08:49:22 [arve]
void clear();
08:49:24 [arve]
08:51:07 [ArtB]
zakim, who is here?
08:51:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +45.29.aabb, Mike, Doug_Schepers, Josh_Soref, +68028aacc
08:51:09 [Zakim]
On IRC I see drogersuk, Marcos, claudio, ivandm, timelE61i, arve, RRSAgent, Zakim, ArtB, MikeSmith, heycam, chaals, shepazu, trackbot, timeless, timelyx
08:51:22 [arve]
if (!localStorage.pageLoadCount)
08:51:22 [arve]
localStorage.pageLoadCount = 0;
08:51:22 [arve]
localStorage.pageLoadCount = parseInt(localStorage.pageLoadCount, 10) + 1;
08:51:22 [arve]
document.getElementById('count').textContent = localStorage.pageLoadCount;
08:51:43 [arve]
preferences["catnip"] = "delicious for cats";
08:52:11 [ArtB]
MC: oh, I see ...
08:53:14 [ArtB]
AB: so what does this mean MC?
08:53:44 [ArtB]
MC: well, my strawman isn't right; I'll need to look at what Arve posted
08:54:04 [ArtB]
Arve: this is from the Storage interface
08:57:17 [ArtB]
[ Marcos creates proposal #2; he will paste this into IRC momentarily ... ]
08:58:15 [ArtB]
AB: so are we then building a dependency on HTML5?
08:58:23 [Marcos]
interface Preferences {
08:58:24 [Marcos]
readonly attribute unsigned long length;
08:58:24 [Marcos]
[IndexGetter] DOMString key(in unsigned long index);
08:58:24 [Marcos]
[NameGetter] DOMString getItem(in DOMString key);
08:58:24 [Marcos]
[NameSetter] void setItem(in DOMString key, in DOMString data);
08:58:25 [Marcos]
[NameDeleter] void removeItem(in DOMString key);
08:58:26 [arve]
preferences["cats"] = "dogs"
08:58:27 [Marcos]
void clear();
08:58:28 [Marcos]
08:58:33 [ArtB]
MC: no, not really because we are changing the name of the interface
08:58:48 [ArtB]
AB: any comments on this proposal?
08:59:10 [ArtB]
Arve: this is a starting point
08:59:24 [ArtB]
... prolly don't want to continue to design this API during this meeting
08:59:48 [ArtB]
... what about read-only
08:59:56 [ArtB]
... needs the stuff from the manifest
09:00:34 [ArtB]
MC: could have a revert method
09:00:41 [ArtB]
Arve: or restore
09:01:30 [ArtB]
MC: we aren't putting a depedency on HTML5
09:01:50 [ArtB]
... but we are leaching its Storage interface, renaming it and adding some new methods
09:02:13 [ArtB]
... We may also want to change the name of the getters and setters
09:02:17 [timeless]
getItem and setItem are generally magically in dom impls
09:02:22 [timeless]
so changing their names is painful
09:02:24 [ArtB]
Arve: not sure we want to change get/set names
09:03:04 [timeless]
so, idl won't let us take an existing interface and say 'for this method, additional exceptions will happen: ...'?
09:03:50 [ArtB]
Arve: I will create a new proposal for this
09:03:53 [timeless]
if you were only going to change the name of the bound thing, i'd have hoped you didn't need to give it a new name, and simply say: interface Widget { ... HTML5::Storage preferences; ... }
09:04:30 [ArtB]
... by that I mean I will update the spec to match what we agree
09:04:36 [arve]
timeless: I don't want that dependency
09:04:48 [Marcos]
timeless: same here
09:05:00 [Marcos]
We are assuming and SVG only widget engine
09:05:05 [Marcos]
for instance
09:05:07 [arve]
and the objects stored within are not, like html5, domstrings, but Preference objects
09:06:08 [ArtB]
AB: any other feedback for MC or Arve on this?
09:07:26 [annevk]
annevk has joined #wam
09:07:57 [ArtB]
Ivan: this looks like the right direction; I'm not so concerned about the specifics
09:08:55 [ArtB]
ACTION: Marcos work with Arve to update the preferences API to reflect discussions on 26-Feb-2009
09:08:55 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-313 - Work with Arve to update the preferences API to reflect discussions on 26-Feb-2009 [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-03-05].
09:09:34 [ArtB]
Ivan: David, what is BONDI defining for storage?
09:09:43 [ArtB]
DR: I'm not sure
09:10:01 [Zakim]
09:10:01 [ArtB]
RH: using key/value storage and File I/O
09:10:21 [Zakim]
09:10:55 [ArtB]
AB: agenda for A&E
09:14:00 [MikeSmith]
09:14:05 [MikeSmith]
still here, but muted
09:14:28 [Marcos]
MikeSmith: is annevk staying with you?
09:14:45 [MikeSmith]
Marcos, yeah
09:15:15 [ArtB]
Topic: A&E Red Block Issues
09:15:28 [ArtB]
AB: do we still have a HTML5 depedency issue?
09:15:31 [ArtB]
MC: no
09:17:04 [ArtB]
Topic: BONDI and Widget Specs
09:17:12 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: claudio
09:17:19 [MikeSmith]
I'm here
09:18:16 [claudio]
DR: has sent information to the list about BONDI candidate release 1.0.2
09:18:20 [claudio]
09:18:58 [claudio]
DR: OMTP intention is bringing APIs into W3C
09:19:29 [claudio]
DR: just want to understand whether to target existing W3C groups or new ones
09:20:34 [claudio]
AB: good overview, referencing W3C specs actually means targeting working drafts
09:21:10 [tlr]
tlr has joined #wam
09:21:24 [MikeSmith]
tlr, can you call in for a bit please?
09:21:49 [tlr]
errm, I don't even know what's on the agenda right now?
09:21:53 [claudio]
AB: BONDI may begin to implements w3c specs which are in working draft status
09:22:38 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
09:22:38 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
09:22:40 [Zakim]
09:22:43 [claudio]
Doug:It is not really a novelty
09:22:49 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
09:22:49 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
09:22:51 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
09:22:51 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
09:23:05 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'who is on the phone'
09:23:05 [ArtB]
Present+ Thomas
09:23:11 [claudio]
Doug: it is more about what constraints they are going to bring to those
09:23:50 [claudio]
DR: we say we reference W3C there's any intention to diverge or fork
09:24:01 [timeless]
zakim, who is here?
09:24:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +45.29.aabb, Mike, Doug_Schepers, +68028aacc, Josh_Soref, Thomas (muted)
09:24:03 [Zakim]
On IRC I see tlr, annevk, drogersuk, Marcos, claudio, ivandm, timelE61i, arve, RRSAgent, Zakim, ArtB, MikeSmith, heycam, chaals, shepazu, trackbot, timeless, timelyx
09:24:34 [claudio]
MC: risk of forking is very high
09:25:41 [claudio]
DR: We'll make all the efforts to avoid it either in referencing or when we'll be extending those
09:26:32 [timeless]
AS-0050 Support SHALL be provided for remotely-initiated Widget Resource de-installation
09:26:43 [claudio]
AB: providing initial inputs and anticipating results may not work
09:26:58 [tlr]
09:27:23 [shepazu]
09:27:56 [claudio]
DR: we want to of course to influence but don't whant to create inconsistecies or break any process
09:27:59 [ArtB]
s/AB: providing/Arve: providing/
09:28:37 [claudio]
AB: can you adjust the process to address this concerns?
09:28:37 [timeless]
AS-0160 The system SHALL by default inhibit automated update of widget resources over PLMN when in roaming mode
09:29:17 [claudio]
DR: we want to prevent fragmentations not create new ones anyhow
09:29:54 [tlr]
zakim, unmute me
09:29:54 [Zakim]
Thomas should no longer be muted
09:29:58 [timeless]
ack tlr
09:30:13 [timeless]
ack thomas
09:30:26 [claudio]
AB: reducing fragmentation is good but the current situation would lead to increase rather then reduce it
09:31:21 [claudio]
TR: so you would track changes created in BONDI to W3C?
09:31:58 [claudio]
DR: DR we are referencing p&c not cut and pasting pieces of that
09:33:14 [claudio]
Doug: what if a working draft changes critical apsects of already implemented previous working draft?
09:34:05 [Marcos]
+q to about test suite
09:34:31 [claudio]
DR: we don't want to break any spec with our extensions
09:35:39 [claudio]
DR:it is more a natural evolution addressing market needs
09:36:27 [MikeSmith]
ack shepazu
09:36:47 [claudio]
Doug: Will OMTP take responsibility of maintain consistency?
09:36:57 [claudio]
DR: yes
09:37:05 [Zakim]
- +68028aacc
09:37:30 [claudio]
Doug: We don't want to create frustration in the market
09:37:43 [tlr]
09:37:57 [claudio]
MC: the risk is that vendors won't claim conformance
09:38:07 [Benoit]
Benoit has joined #wam
09:38:47 [claudio]
MC: different implementation and frustrations lead to fragmentation
09:39:00 [ivandm]
I did! :)
09:39:17 [claudio]
MC: developers would find incompatible interfaces and so on
09:39:21 [claudio]
09:39:58 [claudio]
MC: Opera has business requirements too here
09:40:17 [shepazu]
09:40:30 [claudio]
MC: you might consider the way around come to W3C and help us speed up things from inside
09:41:16 [claudio]
DR: many of us are members of OMTP and have already deployed widgets
09:41:38 [claudio]
DR: isn't it fragmentation?
09:42:30 [tlr]
art, can I speak, pleasE?
09:42:53 [claudio]
AB: OMTP is committing resource in a spec to which non OMTP members don't have any visibility
09:44:31 [claudio]
TR: the mainstream discussion should be inside this WG
09:45:18 [claudio]
TR: we should start thinking a serious strategies against fragmentation
09:45:48 [Marcos]
tlr: the packaging spec defines all conformance checker behavior
09:46:06 [ArtB]
s/AB: OMTP is/Arve: OMTP is/
09:46:06 [claudio]
TR: put additional effort in test suites, validators
09:46:06 [Marcos]
09:47:03 [claudio]
DR: it seems to me that there is too much suspicion in the air
09:47:27 [claudio]
DR: we do leave things open to public feedback
09:47:32 [abraun]
abraun has joined #wam
09:48:02 [claudio]
DR: we are already putting resources here and we'd put more on validators if needed
09:48:17 [tlr]
q+ to ask for clarification
09:48:22 [Marcos]
09:49:12 [claudio]
Doug: validator should help transforming docs to more conformant ones
09:50:08 [claudio]
Doug: if there is a clear strategy I'm not concerned implementations are always valuable
09:50:41 [mdadas]
mdadas has joined #wam
09:51:07 [claudio]
AB: spec extension have to be supported although inconsistent to original specs
09:51:59 [Marcos]
+q to the ultimate solution
09:52:25 [Zakim]
09:52:25 [claudio]
Claudio: what about w3c and OASIS liason it seems to work well
09:52:32 [ArtB]
CV: can we leverage any experiences from W3C + OASIS liaison that could be applicable in this case?
09:52:45 [Zakim]
09:52:55 [claudio]
TR: there's an overhead in admin in this kind of liason
09:53:33 [claudio]
TR: here is different, we don't want work that modify the widget spec defined in this group
09:54:05 [drogersuk]
09:54:49 [claudio]
AB: want to mention that within two weeks BONDI is going to implement specs
09:55:09 [claudio]
AB: they will take W3C spec as they are
09:55:20 [tlr]
that is extremely useful information
09:56:04 [claudio]
TR: patent policy doesn't cover things which are not reccomendation
09:56:35 [claudio]
TR: patent policy and process are not separable
09:57:37 [claudio]
TR: if it is very valuable for everybody you can make it but
09:58:50 [claudio]
Doug: this might lead to to patent related issues we should consider
09:59:10 [claudio]
TR: going out of the process is dangerous
09:59:27 [drogersuk]
Members make an RF commitment on joining the group however
09:59:39 [claudio]
TR: it might not help the ecosystem at all at the end
10:00:43 [claudio]
DR: OMTP will continue to reference spec as they evolve to final release to reduce fragmentation
10:00:49 [tlr]
drogers: OMTP will reference specifications as they evolve, all the way to REC
10:01:06 [claudio]
DR: will continue to commit resources here to ensure it
10:01:36 [tlr]
drogersuk, if the discussions that are within the scope of this group are happening here, then there was a misperception earlier.
10:02:27 [claudio]
DR: we'll keep our indipendent status
10:03:17 [claudio]
MC: two or three OMTP editors should come and help going on with the spec
10:03:18 [timeless]
10:03:37 [tlr]
10:04:22 [claudio]
TR: when do we get editor names?
10:04:43 [ArtB]
ACTION: Rogers create a proposal for OMTP members to supply Editor(s) for the Widgets specs
10:04:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-314 - Create a proposal for OMTP members to supply Editor(s) for the Widgets specs [on David Rogers - due 2009-03-05].
10:05:04 [claudio]
DR: I will strongly reccommend it to OMTP and come back to you with an answer soon
10:05:26 [claudio]
DR: to clarify that we don't want to diverge
10:06:19 [claudio]
MC: Mark Priestlu was great but we need somebody else
10:06:44 [Marcos]
10:07:19 [claudio]
DR: OMTP will continue providing resources to this meeting and do its best for prevent forking
10:07:57 [claudio]
DR: forking is going off and never come back
10:08:16 [claudio]
AB: but you create a divergence point anyhow
10:08:47 [annevk]
(Opera's widgets implementation uses a different media type)
10:08:54 [annevk]
(so it's vastly different)
10:09:03 [claudio]
Doug: looking forward to hear about evolution strategies and resources form OMTP
10:09:29 [Zakim]
10:15:11 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, drop Mike
10:15:11 [Zakim]
Mike is being disconnected
10:15:13 [Zakim]
10:31:40 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
10:31:50 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
10:31:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
10:36:16 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #wam
10:36:30 [ArtB]
Topic: Widget URI Scheme
10:36:42 [ArtB]
AB: what did BONDI do about this issue?
10:37:10 [ArtB]
DR: we are going to take WebApps' lead
10:37:19 [ArtB]
AB: what will you tell your implementors next week?
10:37:29 [ArtB]
MC: I couldn't find anything in the BONDI specs
10:37:38 [ArtB]
... file: has holes
10:38:16 [ArtB]
... don't see how you can resolve DOM nodes without something like the widget: scheme
10:38:39 [ArtB]
Arve: think we need to take a few steps back
10:39:10 [ArtB]
... need a URI resolution mechanism
10:39:30 [ArtB]
DR: the TAG didn't respond to MC's last email right?
10:39:52 [ArtB]
MC: tag URI scheme has some pros and cons
10:40:26 [ArtB]
... see
10:40:59 [ArtB]
... doesn't meet all of our reqs
10:41:19 [ArtB]
MC: to create a new URI scheme is objectionable by the TAG
10:42:20 [tlr]
10:42:25 [tlr]
10:42:34 [drogersuk]
10:42:45 [ArtB]
Arve: for: every scheme we have investigated has had at least one prob
10:43:40 [ArtB]
... i.e. no existing scheme meets all of our reqs
10:45:45 [ArtB]
MC: I've asked the package API mail list "what do we need to do to make the tag: URI scheme compatible with IRIs?"
10:46:06 [ArtB]
Arve: what do we need to do here?
10:46:23 [tlr]
10:47:02 [ArtB]
... why should we shoe-horn our requirements into some existing scheme?
10:47:26 [ArtB]
... that effectivley results in us creating a new spec that is subset of an existing spec (RFC)
10:47:29 [Marcos]
10:47:42 [ArtB]
... We have defined our design goals
10:47:59 [Marcos]
^^ me asking what we need to do
10:48:24 [ArtB]
TR: what happened with the manifest discussion yesterday?
10:48:41 [ArtB]
MC: we agreed to create a new spec for it but it may not be part of the Widgets spec suite
10:49:37 [ArtB]
... minutes:
10:49:46 [ArtB]
TR: what is the status and roadmap?
10:49:52 [ArtB]
MC: see the minutes
10:50:31 [ArtB]
TR: what about http URI scheme?
10:50:53 [ArtB]
MC: we have several problems with that e.g. Origin may not make sense
10:51:18 [ArtB]
TR: having a manifest may add a layer of indirection that could help
10:51:34 [ArtB]
MC: doesn't solve the DOM node resolution prob
10:51:35 [Marcos]
<manifest xmlns="">
10:51:35 [Marcos]
<media path="" type=""/>
10:51:35 [Marcos]
<media ext="space delimited list" type=""/>
10:51:35 [Marcos]
10:53:34 [ArtB]
TR: I suggest looking at the manifest as a level of indirection that may help
10:54:30 [ArtB]
Josh: MHTML has a sec vulnerability that is not solvable
10:54:40 [ArtB]
... serviing from http: is not OK
10:55:41 [ArtB]
10:55:56 [Marcos]
Josh: certs for SSL are not the same as code signing certs for widgets
10:56:29 [ArtB]
TR: is your concern Josh about cross-origin or in orgin pollution?
10:56:43 [ArtB]
Josh: I'm concerned about both
10:57:27 [ArtB]
... are there any signed widgets in the wild today?
10:57:35 [ArtB]
... how long will a cert last?
10:57:52 [ArtB]
MC: Konfab signs certs but I don't know how long they last
10:58:42 [arve]
10:58:54 [tlr]
10:58:57 [tlr]
10:59:32 [tlr]
arve is right here
10:59:33 [Marcos]
arve: as mc said, lets not talk about sigs right now
10:59:44 [tlr]
the question is whether the indirection approach *can* work
10:59:56 [Marcos]
arve: we will return to that, lets just deal with URI resolution in the packaging spec
11:00:05 [tlr]
11:00:12 [Marcos]
scribenick: marcos
11:00:28 [Marcos]
scribenick: Marcos
11:00:33 [ArtB]
ArtB has joined #wam
11:00:59 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
11:00:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
11:02:06 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
11:02:24 [ArtB]
MC: what design do you recommend Thomas?
11:02:55 [ArtB]
TR: may have deviate from classical definition of Origin
11:03:14 [ArtB]
... realize this doesn't make the problem easier
11:03:17 [ArtB]
MC: yes, agree
11:03:35 [ArtB]
... it's the tiny issues that are creating problems with us
11:03:57 [ArtB]
TR: problem seems to be same origin policy
11:04:18 [ArtB]
... may be able to use synthetic origins for files taken out of the package
11:04:33 [ArtB]
... I can send a strawman to the list
11:04:47 [ArtB]
... I suspect you will have the same probs no matter what scheme you use
11:05:01 [ArtB]
Arve: I don't think origin is relevant here
11:05:07 [ArtB]
MC: agree
11:05:26 [ArtB]
Arve: don't want to bind the resources in the package to something on disc
11:06:06 [ArtB]
TR: I understand you do not want an http server in the WUA
11:06:45 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #wam
11:06:48 [ArtB]
MC: we want something like file: but not broken and evil
11:07:08 [ArtB]
TR: must distinguish between identity and retrieval
11:07:55 [ArtB]
... you may not a new URI scheme but a way to determine base URI for starting resource
11:08:16 [ArtB]
... and a definition of what happens to base uri if you deref something from the package
11:09:08 [ArtB]
TR: if you assume base uri is a randon uri created for the running widget and the path begins with /
11:09:38 [ArtB]
[ missed TR's further statement ... ]
11:10:04 [ArtB]
ACTION: Thomas submit your proposed model re URI scheme to the mail list
11:10:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-315 - Submit your proposed model re URI scheme to the mail list [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-03-05].
11:10:34 [ArtB]
TR: think about how to synthesize base URIs and how to resolve them
11:10:56 [ArtB]
MC: tag uri does indeed address the synthesis issue
11:11:17 [ArtB]
... and our widget scheme defines the resolution part
11:11:58 [ArtB]
TR: is it a req that an existing web app can be put in a package and it just works?
11:12:17 [ArtB]
Arve: we think there is a different security model for widgets
11:12:33 [ArtB]
... in some cases the security model must be stronger
11:14:08 [Zakim]
11:14:11 [ArtB]
TR: I will write up my thoughts now and submit them to the list
11:14:45 [ArtB]
MC: I think this is a massive problem and was surprised BONDI has not done anything to address it
11:15:18 [ArtB]
... we've spent two years on this
11:15:31 [ArtB]
DR: we should escalate this issue then
11:15:56 [ArtB]
Arve: BONDI File I/O api must address this
11:16:20 [ArtB]
DR: so what do we need to do to resolve this in a timely manner?
11:16:32 [ArtB]
MC: Josh would be the most ideal person to take this
11:16:49 [ArtB]
... Josh - can you take this problem and make a proposal?
11:16:56 [ArtB]
... I don't have the time to take this
11:17:14 [ArtB]
... I think you Josh has the proper background to tackle this issue
11:18:12 [ArtB]
Josh: I don't think I can make a time commitment right now
11:18:22 [ArtB]
... Do you want a requirements list?
11:18:26 [ArtB]
MC: yes
11:19:10 [ArtB]
ACTION: Barstow send Josh the relevant pointers to facilitate his creating requirements for URI scheme
11:19:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-316 - Send Josh the relevant pointers to facilitate his creating requirements for URI scheme [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-03-05].
11:19:23 [ArtB]
AB: who from BONDI can help?
11:19:39 [ArtB]
DR: I'll take this back to OMTP
11:20:35 [ArtB]
ACTION: Rogers determine a contact in BONDI that can help the WG work on a solution to the widget scheme
11:20:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-317 - Determine a contact in BONDI that can help the WG work on a solution to the widget scheme [on David Rogers - due 2009-03-05].
11:21:21 [ArtB]
MC: the TAG has responded to all of our emails and created a new mail list for related discussions
11:21:33 [tlr]
marcos, what's that mailing list?
11:21:49 [ArtB]
... However, I'm not sure we have clearly documented our related requirements well enough to make our case to the TAG
11:22:33 [ArtB]
AB: package list is:
11:23:40 [Marcos]
11:23:46 [Marcos]
Timeless see ^^
11:24:00 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
11:24:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
11:24:15 [Zakim]
11:24:26 [tlr]
11:24:37 [tlr]
R37 specifies a solution, not a requirement
11:29:46 [arve]
arve has joined #wam
11:56:31 [timelE61i]
timelE61i has joined #wam
12:08:55 [Zakim]
12:15:30 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
12:15:30 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
12:15:31 [Zakim]
12:20:05 [Zakim]
- +45.29.aabb
12:28:55 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #wam
12:29:21 [ArtB]
ArtB has joined #wam
12:29:30 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
12:29:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
12:29:30 [ivandm]
ivandm has joined #wam
12:29:53 [ArtB]
Topic: Schedules
12:29:59 [ArtB]
AB: P&C spec ...
12:30:08 [ArtB]
MC: I will try to get a new WD by March 9
12:30:27 [ArtB]
AB: will that be a new LC doc?
12:30:33 [ArtB]
MC: yes
12:30:55 [ArtB]
Arve: what is the expecation re open issue?
12:31:06 [ArtB]
MC: I expect all open issues to be addressed
12:31:38 [claudio]
claudio has joined #wam
12:32:23 [ArtB]
BS: so what is the theoretical earliest Candidate?
12:32:52 [ArtB]
AB: after we repond and resolve all comments from LC #2, we can then set a CR date
12:33:10 [ArtB]
AB: any other comments about P&C?
12:33:13 [ArtB]
[ None ]
12:33:20 [ArtB]
AB: A&E spec ...
12:33:54 [ArtB]
Arve: trying to get a new WD published when we publish LC #2 of the P&C
12:34:06 [ArtB]
AB: any comments on Arve's proposal?
12:34:15 [ArtB]
AB: that's a very good target
12:34:33 [ArtB]
... but what would that mean for the widget scheme
12:34:48 [ArtB]
AB: is the widget URI scheme a separate spec?
12:34:51 [ArtB]
MC: yes
12:35:10 [ArtB]
AB: who is the editor of that spec?
12:35:13 [ArtB]
MC: Josh
12:35:20 [ArtB]
AB: did he agree to that?
12:35:34 [ArtB]
MC: I think yes
12:35:36 [Marcos]
Timeless, is that right?
12:35:43 [ArtB]
AB: OK, I'll talk to him
12:36:07 [ArtB]
MC: I am willing to be the Editor IFF someone provides the input [Hint to Josh]
12:36:34 [ArtB]
Arve: I don't want the scheme spec to not be widgets-specific
12:36:59 [arve]
s/to not/to/
12:37:08 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on the A&E spec?
12:37:46 [ArtB]
AB: DigSig spec ...
12:38:43 [ArtB]
BS: I recorded LC #1 publication on 16 April
12:39:23 [Benoit]
Benoit has joined #wam
12:39:36 [ArtB]
AB: we are planning a new WD in March, right?
12:39:41 [ArtB]
MC: yes that is my expectation
12:39:55 [ArtB]
AB: I will follow-up with FJH
12:40:16 [ArtB]
BS: it would be best if it could be published by March 9
12:40:32 [ArtB]
AB: is Orange willing to help with some of the editing or test cases?
12:40:50 [ArtB]
Mohammed: I will need to get back to you on that
12:41:01 [ArtB]
AB: Updates spec ...
12:41:18 [ArtB]
AB: we didn't discus this spec during this meeting
12:41:44 [ArtB]
AB: is Orange willing to help with the Editing and push that spec forward?
12:42:13 [ArtB]
MC: after the P&C spec is published, I will start working on Updates again
12:42:27 [ArtB]
AB: are any WG members willing to help with Updates spec?
12:42:30 [ArtB]
[ None ]
12:42:42 [ArtB]
AB: Window modes specs ...
12:43:23 [ArtB]
AB: what is your understanding Marcos, regarding these two specs?
12:43:36 [ArtB]
MC: one will define the modes and their behavior
12:43:51 [ArtB]
... Arve and I will co-Edit that one
12:43:55 [Zakim]
12:44:03 [ArtB]
... provided we get appropriate management support
12:44:21 [tlr]
zakim, who is on the phone?
12:44:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Josh_Soref
12:44:27 [tlr]
folks, the meeting room isn't on the phone
12:44:37 [tlr]
otherwise you'd have heard Josh and me go through the URI scheme discussion
12:44:39 [ArtB]
MC: regarding the other spec, we need to discuss with CSS WG but I think I and/or Arve will be the Editor
12:45:22 [ArtB]
... that 2nd one is tentatively titled "widget media query extensions"
12:45:54 [ArtB]
AB: can we say anything about FPWD for these two specs?
12:46:04 [ArtB]
Arve: I think these are both 3-5 pages
12:46:13 [tlr]
12:46:17 [ArtB]
AB: any volunteers to help with these two specs?
12:46:26 [ArtB]
[ None ]
12:46:51 [ArtB]
AB: can you say anything about FPWD dates for these two specs?
12:46:54 [ArtB]
MC: no, not now
12:47:33 [ArtB]
AB: anything else?
12:47:50 [ArtB]
BS: we have no pub date for the abstract scheme spec
12:48:00 [ArtB]
AB: we have no commitment for an Editor yet
12:48:49 [ArtB]
AB: any volunteers to help with the abstract scheme spec?
12:48:54 [ArtB]
[ None ]
12:49:23 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
12:49:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
12:50:15 [ArtB]
Topic: Guest Presentation
12:50:29 [ArtB]
AB: propose we end the meeting now
12:50:34 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
12:50:37 [ArtB]
[ None ]
12:51:12 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to the discussions by Scott et al being on the public mail list?
12:51:15 [ArtB]
[ None ]
12:51:29 [ArtB]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
12:51:34 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
12:51:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
12:52:07 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, bye
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items saved in :
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Marcos work with Arve to update the preferences API to reflect discussions on 26-Feb-2009 [1]
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Rogers create a proposal for OMTP members to supply Editor(s) for the Widgets specs [2]
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Thomas submit your proposed model re URI scheme to the mail list [3]
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Barstow send Josh the relevant pointers to facilitate his creating requirements for URI scheme [4]
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Rogers determine a contact in BONDI that can help the WG work on a solution to the widget scheme [5]
12:52:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in