See also: IRC log
AB: agenda posted on March 10:
... any change requests?
... what about Marcos' "Screenshots and case sensitive file names" thread
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
... I will announce this meeting
... any other short annoucements?
[ None ]
AB: two items related to DigSig
... ED is <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/>
... first, any comments on "Identifier and Created Signature property" proposal by FH?
FH: this is a response to Thomas'
... 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
... 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
... can we accept my proposal with a SHOULD?
MC: I'm OK with that
FH: OK; I'll put the changes
... 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
... 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: 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.
... 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
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
... 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
... I'm talking about triple damages
<Marcos> fjh: fixed... but not checked in
Bryan: what is the problem with talking about some details?
<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> (plus others)
<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.
[ 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
... any other questions?
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
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
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?
<mpriestl> Vodafone is still assessing the proposal
JK: this is a good thing to
... similar to l10n issues in that it uses a fallback
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
... for example is tag: still in consideration?
MC: I think we need to mint our
... 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
... need input from Mike or Doug
MS: yes, IETF is the prefered
... 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