12:59:44 RRSAgent has joined #wam 12:59:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-irc 12:59:51 RRSAgent, make log public 12:59:54 +[IPcaller] 12:59:57 -Art_Barstow 12:59:59 +Art_Barstow 13:00:05 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 13:00:09 ScribeNick: ArtB 13:00:11 Scribe: Art 13:00:14 Chair: Art 13:00:17 Zakim, IPcaller is me 13:00:17 +darobin; got it 13:00:22 Date: 23 April 2009 13:00:30 fjh has joined #wam 13:00:30 +??P16 13:00:50 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0258.html 13:01:07 zakim, ??P16 is David 13:01:07 +David; got it 13:01:16 +[IPcaller] 13:01:25 zakim, [IPcaller] is fjh 13:01:25 +fjh; got it 13:01:29 zakim, who is here? 13:01:29 On the phone I see Art_Barstow, darobin, David, fjh 13:01:30 On IRC I see fjh, RRSAgent, drogersuk, Zakim, darobin, ArtB, ArtB_, MikeSmith, heycam, anne, timeless, shepazu, trackbot 13:01:34 Marcos has joined #wam 13:01:45 Zakim, who's making noise? 13:01:48 mpriestl has joined #wam 13:01:52 abraun has joined #wam 13:01:55 darobin, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 4 (4%), fjh (27%) 13:02:04 i just muted 13:02:11 +Arve/Marcos 13:02:14 + +1.919.536.aaaa 13:02:16 Present: Art, Frederick, David, Robin, Marcos, Mark, Arve 13:02:20 s/i just muted// 13:02:23 arve_ has joined #wam 13:02:24 Present+ Andy 13:02:32 zakim, who is here? 13:02:36 On the phone I see Art_Barstow, darobin, David, fjh, Arve/Marcos, +1.919.536.aaaa 13:02:44 On IRC I see arve_, abraun, mpriestl, Marcos, fjh, RRSAgent, drogersuk, Zakim, darobin, ArtB, ArtB_, MikeSmith, heycam, anne, timeless, shepazu, trackbot 13:02:55 + +44.771.751.aabb 13:03:05 + +49.208.40.aacc 13:03:10 Present+ Marcin 13:03:22 +[IPcaller] 13:03:28 Present+ Andrew 13:03:38 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 13:03:48 AB: we will drop 3a. and 3c. since consensus for both of these was achieved via email after I posted the agenda. Will add a new agenda item about ECDSA. Are there any other change requests? 13:04:29 [ None ] 13:04:35 Topic: Announcements 13:04:44 AB: Please remember to register for the London F2F meeting June 9-11 (http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42538/WidgetsLondonJune2009/). 13:05:04 AB: the first voice conference of the Widgets Updates PAG is tentative scheduled for 13:00 Boston time on April 28 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-widgets-pag/2009Apr/0002.html) but Rigo Wenning hasn't yet confirmed that call. 13:05:25 AB: any other annoucements? 13:05:30 [ None ] 13:05:51 Topic: DigSig: comments by Mark 13:06:15 q+ 13:06:16 AB: on April 7 Mark submitted a relatively long list of comments (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0070.html). Frederick and Marcos responded. If addressing any of these comments could benefit from some discussion today, we can allocate some time. Frederick, what's the status? 13:06:44 q- 13:06:58 FH: I think we've reached consensus on most comments 13:07:07 ... one issue is sig file 13:07:18 ... I use "widget sig" rather than file 13:07:38 ... I think both usages makes the most sense depending on context 13:07:53 MP: I agree most comments have been addressed 13:08:14 ... but I still need to do some review 13:08:35 asledd has joined #wam 13:09:06 AB: let's drop this topic for today and take any followups on the mail list 13:09:12 Topic: DigSig: ECDSA and v1 13:09:24 AB: the ECDSA issue (captured reasonably well as Issue #81 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/81) is still open. The latest ED does two related things: 1) it includes a note that requests feedback on ECDSA; 2) it also does NOT mandate ECDSA as one of the Signature Algorithms (and thus is a departure from latest WD of XML Signature 1.1). Today there was more discussion on this (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0279.html). One q 13:11:04 FH: I think we need some text about it 13:11:09 ... we cannot ignore it 13:11:19 ... but we don't know what XML Sig 1.1 will decide 13:11:28 ... using SHOULD may be a good way forward 13:11:48 ... their risks with other algorightms so having an alternative to consider 13:11:51 I agree with FJH 13:11:56 ... I do agree MUST is too strong 13:12:00 DR: I agree with FH 13:12:19 +q 13:12:20 ... failure to indicate a roadmap is not a good path to take 13:12:32 MC: I understand the concerns here 13:13:01 ... if company X implements all of the algs except ECDSA and then they get a widget with ECDSA, there is a prob 13:13:18 q? 13:13:21 q+ 13:13:21 ... if SHOULD is used it will effectively make it required for the implementors 13:13:33 ... it is expensive to implement to implement all of these algs 13:13:52 ... perhaps for v1.1. we could add support for new algs 13:14:10 ... would like some real proof there is real market demand for EC 13:14:24 ... but without that evidence I don't support including it 13:14:37 ... think it should either be MUST or not in the spec at all 13:14:48 DR: I understand your concerns Marcos 13:15:12 ... need to try to forsee future issues with a limited set 13:15:26 ... VF have made it clear they see it on their roadmap 13:16:51 FH: I understand the issues with switching suites 13:17:05 q+ 13:17:05 ... we are following this in XML Sec WG 13:17:15 ... we see a demand from US gov't at least 13:17:20 MC: OK, that's good information 13:17:29 ... and in that case, perhaps it should be a MUST 13:17:47 FH: in XML Sec WG we are leaning toward a MUST but IPR is an issue 13:17:58 ... think SHOULD would be a good indicator 13:18:53 AB: agree SHOULD would be a reasonable compromise 13:19:33 ... we need to make it clear we want feedback from Implementors as well as Developers 13:19:48 MP: as I said on the list list, we think SHOULD is the best thing for now 13:19:50 s/but IPR is an issue/but are considering various concerns / 13:19:59 ... we can't use MUST at this point in time 13:20:46 MC: so let's go with SHOULD 13:21:17 AB: any additional comments? 13:21:20 [ None ] 13:21:24 ECDSAwithSHA256 13:21:58 q- 13:22:07 q- 13:22:27 AB: propose a resolution: we will add ECDSA support as a SHOULD in the Widgets DigSig spec 13:22:27 proposed resolution - add ECDSAwithSHA256 as should in widgets digsig 13:22:34 fine 13:22:38 s/fine// 13:22:45 AB: any objections to my proposal? 13:22:47 [ None ] 13:23:06 RESOLUTION: we will add ECDSAwithSHA256 as a SHOULD in the Widgets DigSig spec 13:23:42 Topic: DigSig: getting ready for Last Call 13:23:55 q+ 13:23:55 AB: the basic question is what, specifically, needs to be done before this spec is "feature-complete" and hence for Last Call WD publication? Frederick responded to this yesterday (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0261.html). 13:24:45 FH: one question is how to work this with Sig Properties spec 13:24:57 ... not sure how to work this out as a Chair 13:25:06 ... maybe we take this offline 13:25:33 AB: my gut feel is your WG should publish Sig Properties 13:25:44 FH: we probably want a single annoucement 13:26:12 ACTION: Barstow work with Frederick re synching Signature Properties spec with Widgets DigSig spec 13:26:12 Created ACTION-335 - Work with Frederick re synching Signature Properties spec with Widgets DigSig spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-30]. 13:26:24 agree, xml security should publish signature properties. need to coordinate however. 13:26:38 AB: are we Feature Complete? 13:26:56 FH: I don't think the reqs are in synch with the Reqs doc 13:27:21 MC: the problem is the links point to the ED rather then what is /TR/ 13:27:33 ... we fix this when we publish these two docs in /TR/ 13:28:27 AB: my recommendation is that when we publish the LCWD of DigSig we also at the same time publish a new Reqs doc 13:28:55 AB: are we done with functionality? 13:28:58 FH: I think yes 13:29:03 +1 13:29:06 MC: yes 13:29:09 MP: yes 13:29:23 +1 on top of mpriestl 13:29:30 RB: yes 13:30:05 MP: yes, just need to update ECDSA 13:30:23 need to add ECDSA, possibly other minor editorial tweaks 13:30:51 AB: propose Resolution: the Widgets Digital Signature spec is Feature Complete; we will not add any new functionality 13:31:09 AB: any comments on that proposal? 13:31:13 AB: any objections? 13:31:16 [ None ] 13:31:43 DR: how would this affect schedule? 13:31:53 MC: I think this would put us ahead of scheudle 13:32:12 Zakim, call Mike 13:32:13 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 13:32:14 +Mike 13:32:23 Present+ Mike 13:32:24 please indicate the dates so that I can work with XML Security WG to publish Signature Properties 13:32:38 AB: we never agreed on specific dates but talked about LCWD in April and CR in June 13:33:02 RESOLUTION: the Widgets Digital Signature spec is Feature Complete; we will not add any new functionality 13:33:05 so I will ask XML Security WG to agre to publish Signature Properties next week in XML Security WG call 13:33:19 we'll dial in anew 13:33:39 -Arve/Marcos 13:33:41 AB: I will start a new discussion on when to publish the LC of DigSig 13:34:13 -fjh 13:34:21 we can't seem to dial in again 13:34:21 AB: that's it for DigSig for today. Thanks again FH for your great work here! 13:34:38 + 1 on the thanks to fjh 13:34:44 thanks, thanks Mark, Marcos 13:34:46 as well 13:35:50 Topic: P&C: Dropping screenshot 13:35:58 AB: Marcos proposed (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0197.html) dropping screenshot for v1 and has already added it to the V2 feature list (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets2_UC%26R). My recollection is all comments on this proposal were positive. Does anyone object to this proposal? 13:36:00 -Mike 13:36:10 ArtB: try again now 13:36:38 AB: any objections to dropping screenshot? 13:36:40 RB: no 13:36:54 RESOLUTION: screenshot will not be in v1 (already added to the v2 feature list) 13:37:00 Marcos: is it a local phone problem? or a problem with Zakim? 13:37:13 arve: trying calling back in now, if you can 13:37:21 +??P11 13:37:47 Topic: P&C: element 13:37:56 AB: Robin made a short proposal several weeks ago (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0943.html). There has been a little follow-up on the mail list but certainly no consensus on a solution. This is one of the major open issues that is blocking the publication of a new LCWD. 13:37:57 is P11 arve and Marcos ? 13:38:03 zakim, ??P11 is me 13:38:03 +Marcos; got it 13:38:16 Zakim, call Mike 13:38:16 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 13:38:18 +Mike 13:38:27 AB: Robin, where are we on this? 13:38:45 RB: I think we do have consensus, the issue is on the wording 13:38:57 ... I will create some tighter wording 13:39:10 ... but feature wise, the comments have been positive i.e. at the right level 13:39:27 AB: has your proposal been added to the ED? 13:39:29 RB: yes 13:39:45 AB: what's the next step? 13:39:54 q+ 13:39:57 RB: there really is no next step 13:40:04 ... just need to fix the wording 13:40:13 AB: any comments? 13:40:21 MP: I support the current proposal 13:40:35 +Arve/Marcos 13:40:40 -Marcos 13:40:47 ... there were some comments from BONDI 13:40:48 * The User Agent's security policy MAY prevent network access by the Widget to an IRI that does belong to the set of target IRIs. 13:41:23 MP: my understanding of the current proposal is the above should be a MUST 13:42:13 ... rather than the MAY 13:42:45 RB: I'm not sure I understand 13:43:17 MP: I'll need to go back and re-read it 13:43:48 AS: the sec policy may be more restrictive about IRI access then the P+C's access element 13:43:58 MP: yes, I agree with that 13:44:08 ... and hence the BONDI statement is correct 13:44:52 AB: Arve, Marcos - do you have any comments about the access element? 13:45:00 MC: no, we still need to review it 13:45:16 ... it appears to be a bit thin; may not cover all of the UCs we have in mind 13:46:01 AB: please, everyone, send all comments re ASAP! 13:46:09 AB: anything else on this topic? 13:46:34 RB: what's the status of Thomas on this proposal? 13:46:43 s/RB: what/AB: what/ 13:47:02 RB: he may have some issues; not clear yet 13:47:19 Topic: P&C: Localization proposal from Marcos 13:47:34 AB: Marcos submitted a comprehensive localization proposal (http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets/i18n.html) several weeks ago. The amount of feedback has been very low yet this is a major open issue that is blocking the publication of a new LCWD. Currently, only me, Jere and Marcos have expressed their opinions on the various proposals thus I'd like to hear from other people. 13:48:37 AB: what do people think about this proposal from Marcos? 13:48:44 [ Silence ] 13:48:58 (sorry I have to leave the call) 13:49:01 - +44.771.751.aabb 13:49:02 AB: one interpretation of silence is agreement with Marcos 13:49:08 AS: I haven't reviewed it yet 13:49:25 AB: we need feedback ASAP 13:49:41 AS: yes, I understand the priority 13:50:06 MC: what's the next step? 13:50:18 s/MC: what/AB: what/ 13:50:39 MC: I think we need more feedback 13:51:28 ACTION: barstow seek comments from WG members on Marcos' L10N proposal 13:51:28 Created ACTION-336 - Seek comments from WG members on Marcos' L10N proposal [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-30]. 13:52:00 AB: we can spend a lot of time on this today 13:52:02 MC: that would be good 13:53:00 AB: Marcos, lead us thru A1 and A2 13:54:06 MC: A1 has no support for sub-lang tags i.e. it does not support BCP47 and its lookup mechanism 13:54:19 ... A2 supports BCP47 lookup 13:55:02 ... A2 will reduce the amount of content that must be localized, particulary if there are multiple levels of sublants 13:55:11 s/sublants/sublangs/ 13:55:27 AB: so there is an efficiency tradeoff here, right? 13:55:30 MC: yes 13:55:54 MC: Jere and Josh both proposed A2 model 13:56:05 ... note that A2 is already in the P+C spec 13:56:20 AB: any comments on A1 versus A2? 13:56:25 MC: I prefer A2 13:57:50 AB: I think we should give people one more week i.e. until April 30 to provide input 13:58:00 ... During the Apr 30 call we will decide on each proposal 13:58:14 MC: what if there is disagreement on the 30th 13:58:27 AB: a decision will be made on all of these by the 30th, if not earlier 13:58:49 MC: David, can we get any feedback from BONDI on the L10N model? 13:59:13 DR: there hasn't been any discussion to this yet 13:59:25 ... when do you need feedback? 13:59:31 AB: April 30 is the deadline 14:00:14 AB: Marcos, can you provide a short description of B1 and B2? 14:00:39 MC: B1 proposes the UA's locale can be a list of locales 14:00:55 ... B2 proposes the UA just have a single locale 14:01:28 ... HTTP supports multiple languages 14:01:50 ... The basic question is: does the UA support one lang or a list of languages? 14:02:21 AB: any comments on B1 vs B2? 14:03:10 AS: so one use case is about knowing which langs a UA supports? 14:03:12 MC: yes 14:04:01 AS: I would expect the UA to have a single language but a widget could be localized in many diff languages 14:04:16 s/a single language/a single locale/ 14:04:23 ... could then use prefs to manage this 14:05:21 ... I can understand a UA support multiple locales but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it 14:07:54 AB: yesterday I suggested we need some more reqs work and some more UC's to understand why need this stuff http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0269.html 14:08:04 ... will you reply to my comments? 14:09:04 MC: I think you have some good comments 14:09:18 ... we need to get this done as soon as possible 14:09:32 AB: yes, agree. But I also heard Andrew asking for some UCs too 14:09:57 AS: yes; some UCs and Reqs would be helpful in understanding the problems we are trying to solve 14:10:27 MC: some of the proposals do go beyond what current engines do today 14:11:44 AB: I get concerned about the complexity here for v1 14:12:19 ... we seem to be moving from codifying the existing cow paths to building a new super highway 14:13:04 AB: Marcos, would you please give us a summary of the C* proposals? 14:13:27 MC: these about resolving te widget's locale 14:13:39 s/resolving/deriving/ 14:14:41 ... diff between C1 and C2 is the order of searching for the widget's locale 14:15:32 AB: I hope that is clear to everyone; any questions? 14:15:54 AB: what about the D* proposals? 14:17:34 MC: these three proposals are about how to represent the widget's locale 14:17:52 ... my preference is D2 14:18:06 AB: any comments or questions on these 3 D proposals? 14:20:23 [ Discussion between Andrew and Marcos about D2 and various scenarios ... ] 14:20:58 AB: can we get a short intro to E, F and G proposals? 14:21:33 MC: E proposals are about XML Base and whether we use XML Base itself or our own emulation of it 14:22:00 AB: I agree E1 seems reasonable to me 14:22:15 AS: does that apply to all URIs? 14:22:15 MC: yes 14:22:20 AS: OK; that's good 14:23:25 MC: F proposal addresses the "missing content" problem 14:24:05 ... F1 uses root directory in search; F2 does not use root 14:24:15 -Mike 14:24:52 ... My preference is F1 14:25:01 AB: yes, F1 seems reasonable to me 14:25:19 ... I think it works with the principle of least surprise 14:25:48 AB: please introduce G1 and G2 Marcos 14:26:15 billyjackass has joined #wam 14:27:03 MC: this is similar to F proposals but if the lookup is using URIs 14:27:32 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:27:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:29:10 Topic: Window Modes spec: status and plans 14:29:21 zakim, mute me 14:29:21 sorry, Marcos, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 14:30:14 zakim, who is making noise? 14:30:16 AB: Robin, what is your level of interest here? 14:30:26 Marcos, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: darobin (15%), +1.919.536.aaaa (11%) 14:30:33 RB: unless someone wants to lead this, I will start working on it next week 14:31:11 MC: we are interested and willing to collaborate on anyone that wants to lead it 14:31:39 AB: I think the plan is for Robin to start working on this spec next week and for MC to help 14:31:44 ... is that right? 14:31:49 MC: yes 14:31:54 RB: yes 14:32:14 Zakim, who is making noise? 14:32:25 arve, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (28%), Art_Barstow (40%) 14:32:33 AB: meeting adjourned 14:32:46 -darobin 14:32:51 -Art_Barstow 14:32:52 -Arve/Marcos 14:32:52 -David 14:32:55 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:32:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:32:56 - +49.208.40.aacc 14:33:06 it's like Zakim has a double call notification or something 14:33:16 -[IPcaller] 14:36:44 zakim, bye 14:36:44 leaving. As of this point the attendees were Art_Barstow, darobin, David, fjh, Arve/Marcos, +1.919.536.aaaa, +44.771.751.aabb, +49.208.40.aacc, [IPcaller], Mike, Marcos 14:36:44 Zakim has left #wam 14:38:24 Marcos has joined #wam 14:50:24 MoZ has joined #wam 15:25:37 anne has joined #wam 15:27:07 billyjackass has joined #wam 15:44:57 annevk has joined #wam 15:57:22 RRSAgent, bye 15:57:22 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-actions.rdf : 15:57:22 ACTION: Barstow work with Frederick re synching Signature Properties spec with Widgets DigSig spec [1] 15:57:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-irc#T13-26-12 15:57:22 ACTION: barstow seek comments from WG members on Marcos' L10N proposal [2] 15:57:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/23-wam-irc#T13-51-28