Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

12 Mar 2009


See also: IRC log


Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Mike, Mark, Bryan, Arve, Marcos, Doug
Thomas, tlr


Review and tweak agenda

AB: agenda posted on March 10: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0695.html
... any change requests?
... what about Marcos' "Screenshots and case sensitive file names" thread
... http://www.w3.org/mid/b21a10670903110711g321e8b7asfdff4f9bd46b1c09@mail.gmail.com

FH: want to talk about a few other things re DigSig



AB: the only one I have is the next Widgets f2f meeting is June 9-11 in London; host is Vodafone
... I will announce this meeting
... any other short annoucements?

[ None ]

DigSig spec

AB: two items related to DigSig spec
... ED is <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/>
... first, any comments on "Identifier and Created Signature property" proposal by FH?
... <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0693.html>

FH: this is a response to Thomas' suggestion
... it was a good suggestion
... the time is wall clock; don't want to get too fine-grained
... but works at a rough level
... the identifier is per signer
... if people have suggestions, please let me know
... want to know if this OK to put in the ED or not

MP: generally I think it is good
... some concernn about Created property
... I raised my concerns earlier
... I will respond to the list
... it's OK to have the timestamp there
... but validation should not be based on the timestamp
... because on mobile devices the date may not be correct e.g. if the user did not set the date and clock

FH: so timestamp can't be used in verifcation?

MP: yes, that's right
... think MUST is too strong for this property and prefer SHOULD
... the rest of the text looks good

Bryan: on devices today I don't think the time is problem because can get network time

MP: we see this as an issue at VF

Bryan: are these legacy devices?

Arve: inaccurate time is still a problem on some devices especiall in java environment
... date on devices isn't relevant to lots of people

Bryan: we haven't seen this be a problem for several issues

MP: don't want to confuse Created property with sig expiring

FH: I'm OK with changing this to SHOULD
... can we accept my proposal with a SHOULD?

MC: I'm OK with that

FH: OK; I'll put the changes in
... I have added some processing from P&C
... need the file casing to match P&
... I will need to add casing support
... need clarification on ID use

AB: I think it makes sense to send it to the list first

FH: OK; will do

AB: have we then discused <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0684.html> ?

FH: yes we have
... Josh and MC are OK with that

MP: can't have just signature.xml i.e. no number

FH: yes, that's OK

MP: then must update the example

FH: ok; will do

AB: plan moving fwd is what FH?

FH: I'll make the changes we agreedd and share the new draft before next meeting

<mpriestl> I have some editorial comments that I'll send to list before the end of the week

FH: are you comment substantial Mark?

MP: they are nearly all Editorial and consistency
... there may be some susbstanative comments

FH: depending on the nature of MP's comments, we may not be ready by Mar 19 to make a decision to publish

AB: understood

Patent Disclosure for the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec

AB: as you know, Apple disclosed a patent patent for the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
... The information I received indicates Apple is not willing to license that patent on a Royalty-Free basis.
... <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0654.html>
... This raises some process-related issues for the WG; I think this is the first time WebApps has had to deal with a disclosure issue.
... I would like Doug or Mike to provide a short status and then want to provide an opportunity for people to ask questions.
... Mike, Doug, status please ...

<fjh> next steps for Widgets Signature - integrate properties proposal into draft, changing MUST to SHOULD. Change file naming to be case sensitive. Fix example for naming, other editorial fixes.

<fjh> Put proposal on list re ID and reference URIs, then upon comment, integrate into document.

AB: reminder that these minutes are Public

<MikeSmith> shepazu: ping

MS: I will not talk about anything that is not Public

AB: we are not going to discuss the details of Apple's patent

MS: W3C has a clear process to follow when disclosures like this are made
... Patent Policy w3c patent policy
... we will start a Patent Advisory Group
... we will meet weekly
... with a new mail list
... we will try to resolve the issue ASAP
... but there is some overhead to start the PAG
... and that process is started

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-formation

DS: we hope to avoid distracting from other work
... we also hope to avoid delaying the Widgets 1.0 Updates spec
... the outcome of the PAG may effect the Updates spec
... It is certainly theoretically possible for Apple to change its position and offer RF licensing terms for this patent
... there could also be some prior art that affects the outcome
... Historically, some PAG outcomes have been effected by prior art

<fjh> uhh, marcos, p + l says "All reserved file names must be treated as case insensitive" in 6.3?

DS: One thing that is problematic is the reluctance of PAG members to actually read the patent

<Marcos> fjh: will fix

DS: We will try for the best outcome possible

AB: I don't have anything else to add re the process
... any questions?

Bryan: what's the issue with reading the patent?

DS: there is no issue from the W3C's perspective
... anyone should feel free to read the patent
... your company may not want you to read it?

Bryan: why not?

DS: if one intentionally infringes a patent there can be even more damages assessed
... I'm talking about triple damages

<Marcos> fjh: fixed... but not checked in

Bryan: what is the problem with talking about some details?

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-composition

<MikeSmith> [[

<MikeSmith> The PAG is composed of:

<MikeSmith> Advisory Committee Representatives of each W3C Member organization participating in the Working Group (or alternate designated by the AC Rep)

<MikeSmith> ]]

<MikeSmith> (plus others)

<MikeSmith> [[

<MikeSmith> W3C Member participants in the PAG should be authorized to represent their organization's views on patent licensing issues. Any participant in the PAG may also be represented by legal counsel, though this is not required. Invited experts are not entitled to participate in the PAG, though the PAG may chose to invite any qualified experts who would be able to assist the PAG in its determinations.

<MikeSmith> ]]

[ Art discusses some of the potential outcomes as defined in the W3C Patent Policy ]

DS: Apple could identify those part of the spec covered by their claims

AB: I want to close this discussion soon
... any other questions?

A&E spec: Arve's proposed change to the A&E spec regarding preferences:

AB: Arve proposed a change to the A&E spec regarding the preferences attribute
... see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0635.html>
... Are there any comments on this proposal?
... It appears we can move directly to a resolution that Arve's proposal is accepted

<arve> ACTION-233 and ACTION-313

Arve: that would mean the two related actions can be closed 233 and 313

AB: any objections to this proposal?

[ None ]

RESOLUTION: Arve's March 5 preferences proposal is accepted

P&C spec - MaxF's comments

AB: MaxF submitted a bunch of comments on the P&C spec <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0676.html>. It appears they are all good comments and Marcos has already addressed them in the latest ED. Is that correct Marcos? Is there anything we need to discuss today re Max's comments?

MC: we're good; no need to discuss

P&C spec - Mandatory config file:

AB: Marcos made a proposal the config file be Manadatory via <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0679.html>
... There appears to be some confusion about whether this is being done solely for security reasons. What is the status of this Marcos?

MC: issue is about identifying a package if it's missing its mime type

Arve: the file extension isn't a good way to determine content types

AB: does Ranier object to the proposal?

MC: need to determine if it is mandatory or not

AB: should the config.xml file be mandatory?

<Bryan> +1

MC: yes

Bryan: yes

<mpriestl> Vodafone is still assessing the proposal

JK: this is a good thing to have
... similar to l10n issues in that it uses a fallback

<mpriestl> sure

Opportunities and ToDos; seeking volunteers:

AB: in response to Bryan's email regarding helping with Editorial tasks, I enumerated some open opportunities and "todos" via <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0694.html>
... is anyone willing to take the lead on any of these items?

Bryan: I will provide some input on the list

AB: the Opera guys are already doing so much work

JK: where are we on the URI scheme?
... for example is tag: still in consideration?

MC: I think we need to mint our own scheme
... I think we need to make a decision and make it soon
... was hoping for some input from Josh

Josh: I can't provide input today

AB: we really need someon to step up and take the lead

JK: is this about more evaluation or about writing a new spec?

AB: my take is we have done our evaluation; we don't believe any existing scheme covers all of our constraints and use case and that we need a new scheme

Bryan: does this mean a new IETF spec?

AB: good question; I think it is within IETF's domain to define new scheme

Bryan: if we agree a new scheme is needed and I think there is, does that mean someone must create an IETF draft and follow through?

AB: I don't have definite answer
... need input from Mike or Doug

MS: yes, IETF is the prefered process
... we may be able to define the scheme ourselves
... The process of registering the scheme isn't that bad

Bryan: do you have an example of that being done before in the W3C?

MS: no, I don't have an example

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow work with Mike to determine if the widget URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF proces must be used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Work with Mike to determine if the widget URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF proces must be used [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-03-19].

Bryan: I think we should be able to share some work with OMTP re widget testing
... also think security is an area where can work with OMTP

AB: are there any other high priority items that are not included in this list and not recorded elsewhere (e.g. in the Issues and Actions db)?

[ None ]

AB: Meeting Adjourned

<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Barstow work with Mike to determine if the widget URI scheme can be defined in a W3C Recommendation or if the IETF proces must be used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]