Widgets Voice Conference -- 19 Mar 2009

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<Marcos> [IPcaller] jjjis

<Marcos> argh

<Marcos> zaki, [IPcaller] is me

<Marcos> bha

<Marcos> bah

Date: 19 March 2009

Review and tweak agenda

AB: draft agenda published on March 18: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0815.html
... Since then, Frederick proposed some agenda changes via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0831.html ; we will accept those that intersect the original agenda; add e.; skip the editorial points (f., g., h.)
... There is also a proposal by Marcos to add a new <option> element (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0816.html) that will be added to the agenda.
... Are there any other change requests?

[None]

Benoit: what about RSS?

AB: not today

David: what about the PAG?

AB: I have no new info about the PAG

MS: it is being set up; I am responsible for setting it up; I have a draft charter
... will go to W3M soon if hasn't been done already
... hope to get the annoucement out RSN
... some logistics still be worked out

David: PP says AC reps need to get involved; would appreciate an update

MS: I don't have much more to add; nothing surprising; can look at the REX PAG for an example

David: we weren't members then

TLR: we will give plenty of advance notice

Announcements

AB: any short announcements? I don't have any.

David: BONDI review period ends March 23

DigSig: no longer require the first signature to be processed

<drogersuk> http://bondi.omtp.org is the link for BONDI

<tlr> welcome back to a former co-chair of one of the previous incarnations of this wG

AB: Frederick mentioned his change on March 18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0830.html
... and added to the latest ED http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we approve it as is?

<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures

MC: I approve

AB: FH's proposal approved

DigSig: Remove DSAwithSHA1 requirement? Status of requirement R47 (Section 2)?

AB: these issues are still open. Briefly, what is the plan to address them?

FH: want to add an Note that XML Sec WG has not reached consensus on the algorithms for XML Sig 1.1
... I don't want to do anything rash here
... We need to get more feedback

AB: support your proposal for the note

<fjh> suggest to add editorial note along these lines:

David: we are discussing this in OMTP
... different companies have different opinions
... Want to know if an IP check has been made?

<fjh> The XML Security WG has not yet achieved consensus on required algorithms in XML SIgnature 1.1, in particular whether to mandate ECDSAwighSHA256

FH: WGs don't do patent checks
... but we have talked about it
... We have conflicting info
... The risk may not be too bad but I am Not a Lawyer
... We are certainly seeking feedback
... I also noted T-Mobile's comments on this

David: the concern is some members have interest along the ell. curves
... but please be advised this could be a complicated area
... re IPR issues

<fjh> continued editors note text - The XML Security WG is requesting feedback on their FPWD of XML SIgnature 1.1 and feedback for algorithms related to Widget Signature is also requested.

TLR: we know their are Claims of IPR issues
... I am not aware of any disclosures within the XML Sec WG
... We do not have knowledge of patents
... Some WG members want ell curves and some do not
... This is complicated area; we are trying to navigate the space with some incomplete data

David: the concern is some NON-members have interest

<fjh> thomas notes ability to do interop may impact whether elliptic curve becomes mandatory or not

David: just because W3C members have not declared interest doesn't mean non-members don't have concerns

<fjh> in other words, if sufficient participation in interop happens

AB: David, Thomas pelase enter your comments directly into the IRC

David: can't pretend there is no problem there

AB: what do you think we should do?

David: need to think what to do if there are patents

FH: don't think we can make progress on this on today's call

David: want a firm action

AB: proposal?

David: want XML Sec WG to pursue this

TLR: then you should join the XML Sec WG

David: how do I do that?

TLR: send your comment to the XML Sec WG's mail list

FH: need an email with specific comments

David: OMTP operators will submit their own comments
... these minutes serve as a record

FH: these minutes won't help that much
... an e-mail to XML Sec WG wold be best

TLR: if OMTP members send the comments to public-webapps that might be good enough

<drogersuk> OK, no problem - as minuted the OMTP members have been asked to individually respond

FH: emails are much easier for me to communicate with my WG than minutes

<tlr> drogersuk, I don't think you're disagreeing with what's actually going on

<drogersuk> exactly :-)

FH: I propose the text I suggested earlier

David: I agree

AB: any objections to FH's earlier proposed text?

[ None ]

DigSig: Suggest removing the restatement of algorithm requirements in section 7.1, specifically remove #5a and #5b.

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0827.html

AB: Frederick posted a proposal on March 18 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0827.html)
... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we approve it as is?

FH: this is pretty straight forward
... I've done some rewording

AB: any comments, concerns?

[ None]

AB: we can consider this proposal approved

DigSig: reference widgets packaging zip relative path

AB: Frederick made a proposal re checking the validity of relative paths in a signature http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0824.html

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0787.html

AB: Thomas then responded with a question about the "interaction" between FH's proposal and TLR's "and a manifest approach for URI dereferencing".
... let's start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns? let's start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns?

<tlr> (postponing that question is what I was about to suggest)

FH: I added an additional constraint
... I think the intent before was implied but this is now explicit
... Marcos helped me with this

AB: any objections to approving FH's proposal?

[ None ]

AB: consider this approved
... TLR, what about the interaction issue?

TLR: agree we should defer to mail list
... need to decide the URI issue separately
... but wanted to make it clear we need to make a decision

FH: we may need to do some tweaking with the References
... e.g. flesh out the constraints

TLR: agree; but must first decide on derefencing URI model

DigSig: Are we ready to approve the publication of a new WD?

<fjh> but this would be very localized within widget signature spec

AB: the last time we published the DigSig spec was April 2008. Since then, we have made significant changes and improvements. It may not be perfect yet but I propose a new WD be published next week. Comments?

FH: I think I have addressed all of the comments on the list
... If I missed anything, please speak up
... I am ready for a new WD

MC: after FH makes his changes I have a few minor Editorial changes to make

FH: can you do the publrules?

MC: yes

AB: any objections to a new WD?

FH: what needs to be done?

AB: you and MC make your changes; telll me and I'll submit the pub req

RESOLUTION: after FH incorporates the latest agreements, we will publish a new WD of the Widgets DigSig spec

P&C spec: should the config file be mandatory?

AB: On March 9, Marcos proposed via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0679.html that the config file be mandatory. We had a short discussion about this during our March 12 VC but came to no resolution (http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#item07). Let's take a few minutes and try to get a resolution on this question.
... Marcos, where do we stand on this?

MC: I'd like to hear others

RB: my only objection was lack of use cases
... but Mark indicates it would help with localization

MC: do you support the localization model proposed by Mark?

RB: yes; may need some tweaking

MC: but that would be significant changes
... that new model changes a lot of stuff in the P&C spec

RB: there were some other issues with the loc model

MC: think this is over engineering

RB: since Mark just sent this email may want some more review time

MC: Mark's proposal says must identify which elements and attrs can be localized
... the model for the UA becomes more complicated

AB: can we separate these two issues?

MC: agree it should be mandatory

RB: it should mandatory if there is a good reasons

TLR: should be mandatory if good reasons and l10n and uri deref are good reasons

BS: should it be mandatory?

RB: I can live with it

AB: are there any objections to the config file being mandatory?

[ None]

RESOLUTION: the config file will be Mandatory

BS: need to work on the l10n model
... appears Mark's proposal will address the issue

AB: let's followup on the mail list re Mark's proposal and drop the discussion today

BS: where is the complexity Marcos?

MC: implementing and authoring

BS: think it helps with implementing

P&C: <option>s on <feature>s

AB: on March 18 Marcos proposed a new <option> element http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0816.html This resulted in some interesting discussion including the issue "Are We Done Yet?" i.e. should we take on new features when the spec is already in Last Call. Since Marcos and I had a related discussion in IRC yesterday, it isn't surprising that others were asking the same question.
... let's start with the proposal. Marcos, briefly what are you proposing and does Opera consider it a show stopper for v1?

MC: we need a way to parameterize features
... can use a URI scheme
... another way is more author friendly using name/value attribute pairs
... Arve gave a better example

RB: I think this is a good feature but not sure it is essential

AB: so is this a show stopper for v1?

MC: yes, I think we need it
... but I don't think it is super complicated

AB: so it is important but not criticial enough to block P&C?

MC: yes, that basically true

P&C spec: status of P&C LC comment handling; next steps

AB: during the Paris f2f meeting we agreed to publish a new LC WD in March (http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html#item06). Another issue is that the comment tracking document for LC #1 is empty: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-20081222/
... let's start with "what must be done before LC #2 can be published?"

MC: #1 - the l10n model
... need to factor in Jere's model; we've had some discussions
... currently this is a show stopper
... #2 - need to specify <options> if we are going to specify that
... #3 <access> - hard and significant
... #4 - <update> element is in flux because of the related patent

RB: what about URI dereferecing?

MC: that does not affect the P&C spec

MC; #5 - step 3 - the new l10n model affects this

scribe: #6 - step 5 - affected by l10n changes and other things
... #7 - step 7 - need to add <preference> element and the <screenshot> element

MC: if we add Mark's proposal, just about every part of step #7 would need to change
... I removed the nested feature element for v1
... #8 - update the RelaxNG schema
... also need to address one last LC #1 comment

AB: who can volunteer to help with these?

RB: what specific items do you seek help Marcos?

MC: I'll take help on any of these

RB: I'll take feature and screenshot

AB: thanks Robin

RB: the schema work can be done in CR

<Bryan> dropping off now

<darobin> ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - RB

<darobin> ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Robin

<darobin> ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - darobin

<darobin> RESOLUTION: we are feature complete

<drogersuk> Let me take this back to OMTP first

<darobin> AB: anyone obejct to not taking in any new features?

<darobin> DR: want to check with OMTP that feature-freeze is okay

<darobin> AB: okay

<darobin> AB: Marcos, what's the time frame?

<darobin> AB: end of the month

<darobin> AB: thanks a lot

<darobin> AB: will look into extending this to 90min

<darobin> ADJOURNED

<darobin> TR: what's the time for this call? we're in DST confusion week

<DKA> Thanks!

<darobin> AB: the frame of reference is 0900 W3C Time (formerly known as Boston time)

<darobin> a pleasure ArtB :)

- DRAFT -

Widgets Voice Conference

19 Mar 2009

Attendees

Contents