13:01:27 RRSAgent has joined #wam 13:01:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-wam-irc 13:01:31 fjh: none is here yet, call has not started 13:01:33 I'm getting "is unavailable, please try your call later"! 13:01:37 Zakim, this will be widgets 13:01:37 ok, Marcos_; I see IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM scheduled to start now 13:01:51 abraun has joined #wam 13:02:20 ScribeNick: ArtB 13:02:23 Scribe: Art 13:02:28 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has now started 13:02:35 +Art_Barstow 13:02:41 Chair: Art 13:02:48 + +33.1.77.11.aaaa 13:02:49 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0405.html 13:02:50 I'll be late 13:02:51 + +49.163.829.aabb 13:02:54 other call running over 13:02:59 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 13:03:04 Date: 30 April 2009 13:03:11 Zakim, call Mike-Mobile 13:03:11 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 13:03:11 Regrets: AndySledd, Mark, David 13:03:13 +Mike 13:03:25 + +1.919.536.aacc 13:03:40 Zakim, Mike is MikeSmith 13:03:40 +MikeSmith; got it 13:03:49 Present: Art, Mike, Robin, Marcin, AndyB 13:03:56 RRSAgent, make log Public 13:04:02 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:04:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-wam-minutes.html ArtB 13:04:26 +??P28 13:04:34 Present+ Frederick 13:04:35 zakim, ??P28 is fjh 13:04:35 +fjh; got it 13:04:49 +[IPcaller] 13:05:02 Present+ Marcos 13:05:04 Zakim, IPcaller is me 13:05:04 +Marcos_; got it 13:05:13 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 13:05:18 + +1.425.214.aadd 13:05:22 Present+ Arve 13:05:30 Present+ Bryan 13:05:41 AB: draft agenda submitted 29 April (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0405.html). Since then Robin requested some additions (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0438.html) and we will add those agenda items. Any other change requests? 13:05:54 Bryan has joined #wam 13:05:58 [ None ] 13:06:00 Topics: Announcements 13:06:07 AB: June 9-11 f2f meeting is just 5 weeks away; please remember to register (http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42538/WidgetsLondonJune2009/). Any other short annoucements? 13:06:26 [ None ] 13:06:38 Topic: P&C spec: element comments from David 13:06:53 AB: on April 23 David submitted some comments regarding the element (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0291.html). I haven't seen a reply. I think the gist of the comments is that the spec is a bit under-specified regarding what the UA will do with the information. Comments? 13:07:11 AB: David isn't present 13:07:47 RB: most comments are fine; I need to coordinate the text with MC and that should be it 13:08:27 AB: I agree they seemed to make sense; think a NOT is missing in the 4th bullet 13:09:09 + +47.23.69.aaee 13:09:13 RB: I think the idea is the security policy takes precedence over the contents of the access element 13:09:23 -Marcos_ 13:09:30 q+ 13:10:12 AB: so RB and MC will add text to the ED, right? 13:10:14 RB: yes 13:10:32 Zakim, ack 13:10:32 I don't understand 'ack', darobin 13:10:42 BS: I have some questions about the access element 13:11:07 ... the way it is described; uses IRIs 13:11:18 ... is this limited to HTTP only? 13:11:29 ... what about other schemes such as FTP or UDP 13:11:51 RB: any scheme that uses URIs 13:11:53 arve has joined #wam 13:12:26 BS: this element affects netwwork access by any method 13:12:41 ... regardless of the scheme 13:12:49 RB: yes, good point 13:13:42 zakim, call thomas-781 13:13:42 ok, tlr; the call is being made 13:13:43 AB: do you understands BS' issues well enough to relfect them in the spec? 13:13:43 +Thomas 13:13:45 RB: yes 13:13:46 zakim, drop thomas 13:13:46 Thomas is being disconnected 13:13:47 -Thomas 13:13:48 zakim, call thomas-skype 13:13:48 ok, tlr; the call is being made 13:13:50 +Thomas 13:13:54 AB: anything else on this topic? 13:14:15 BS: I will send an email about this element to the list 13:14:28 AB: can you take an action to do that by May 4 at the latest? 13:14:30 BS: yes 13:15:05 ACTION: bryan submit an email to public-webapps re the element 13:15:18 Topic: P&C spec: L10N model 13:15:20 ACTION: Robin to edit access to take into account OMTP feedback and Bryan's 13:15:39 AB: last week Marcos provided a short introduction to L10N model he proposed (http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets/i18n.htm), including his preferences for various proposals. Although some of us asked for Use Cases and Requirements to substantiate and clarify the proposals, they have not been provided. So far, preferences for the proposals have been submitted by at least Robin (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0409.html), AndyS (h 13:16:40 So far, preferences for the proposals have been submitted by at least Robin (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0409.html), AndyS (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0436.html), Francois (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0350.html) and myself (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0269.html). 13:17:36 AB: A1 vs A2; most people prefer A2 13:17:45 ... any objections to A2? 13:17:48 [ None ] 13:18:03 AB: B proposals; 3 for B1 and 2 for B2 13:18:33 ... what are the benefits of B1, Marcos, briefly? 13:19:06 MC: support the use case where people speak more than one language 13:19:14 ... or more than one dialect of a language 13:19:31 RB: it also models HTTP's lang support 13:19:44 AB: any objections to B1? 13:19:49 [ None ] 13:20:24 RESOLUTION: L10N proposal A2 is agreed 13:20:33 RESOLUTION: L10N proposal B1 is agreed 13:21:06 AB: C proposals; there were 2 votes for C1 and Francois preferred C3 but qualified that 13:21:22 ... MC, what is you take on this? 13:21:31 Zakim, mute Mike 13:21:31 MikeSmith should now be muted 13:21:42 MC: my new pref is for C3, no longer C1 13:22:02 ... Francois' response convinced me 13:22:09 ... or perhaps a modfied version of C3 13:22:34 AB: any other comments? 13:22:39 RB: I'm fine with C3 13:22:57 AB: any objection to agreeing on C3? 13:23:00 [ None ] 13:23:39 RESOLUTION: L10 proposal C3 is agreed with a few minor mods 13:23:58 AB: next is the D set of proposals 13:24:17 ... we have 3 votes for D2 and no other preferences were submitted 13:24:42 AB: any comments about the D set of proposals? 13:24:57 ... hearing none. Any objections to agreeing on D2? 13:25:01 [ None ] 13:25:12 RESOLUTION: L10N proposal D2 is agreed 13:25:24 AB: the E proposals 13:26:11 ... MC prefers E1; Robin doesn't like either; Francois says E2 but not sure he understands the proposals real well 13:26:19 ... any comments? 13:26:28 zakim, I am thomas 13:26:28 ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas 13:26:30 zkim, mute me 13:26:32 zakim, mute me 13:26:32 Thomas should now be muted 13:26:35 RB: I think E, F and G can be addressed with the same approach 13:26:42 Zakim, call Mike-Mobile 13:26:42 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 13:26:44 +Mike 13:27:12 Zakim, Mike is MikeSmith 13:27:12 +MikeSmith; got it 13:27:17 Zakim, mute me 13:27:17 MikeSmith was already muted, MikeSmith 13:27:46 RB: basically if we define a URI mapping for the widget: URI scheme such that it resolves to representations (files) in the widget archive, and that makes locales invisible — which addresses all issues at once 13:27:47 q+ 13:28:19 ack t 13:28:28 ack Bryan 13:28:49 TR: whatever we do to map URIs to files need consistency b/w sig and l10n piece 13:29:23 ... I'm not opppsed to this but must think about impact of signature model 13:29:46 ... need to think about the addressing issue when considering these proposal 13:30:21 RB: shoudn't the sig be at the file layer and nothing to do at the resolution layer 13:30:39 TR: that may be the right soln; but must make sure it really works 13:30:57 ... must be very careful; not sure we've done all the work 13:31:06 ... if the two can be separated that would be good 13:31:42 the main point is that signatures expect URI references there. 13:31:53 MC: I don't yet understand either TR's proposal nor RB's proposal 13:31:53 Relative URI references in there might lead to funny errors. 13:31:57 so, careful 13:32:03 that's one of the reasons for a widget URI scheme. 13:32:27 I think that for all intents and 13:32:27 purposes, the user agent should behave as if content from the most 13:32:27 specific locale had been copied into less specific locales recursively 13:32:27 until they are copied to the root, and the locales directory is 13:32:28 discarded. 13:32:56 MC: yes, that is one of the proposals I made 13:33:15 RB: it is sorta' like one of your proposals but not exactly 13:33:38 MC: ok, so maybe they are the same 13:33:42 also: 13:33:43 The justification behind this approach is that: a) locales should be 13:33:44 transparent, and b) there is no requirement to have the widget URI map 13:33:44 *directly* unto the widget's structure. In fact, it is probably best 13:33:44 if it's not possible inside locales/en/index.html to go "Frog version". 13:34:41 q+ 13:34:47 RB: the idea is to change the base URI 13:35:27 MC: the reason we proposed rewriting the URI is to get predictability 13:36:00 ... but effectively, it should work as Robin is proposing 13:36:36 ... want developer to easily know where files come from 13:36:50 MC: I'm OK with this proposal 13:37:09 ... we do have some concerns it will cause confusion 13:37:26 ... but if there is consensus to go that route I am willing to update my proposal 13:37:33 RB: it effect F and G as well 13:37:40 MC: yes agree 13:37:52 q- 13:37:56 I think I'm resigned to this. 13:38:14 RB: you wouldn't have missing localized content in my model 13:38:25 MC: yes, true; and we wouldn't need XML Base 13:38:29 RB: yes, correct 13:39:06 AB: what about the G proposal MC if you went with RB's proposal? 13:39:39 MC: if we go with RB's propsal, we eliminate E, F and G and they become a single proposal 13:40:02 AB: that certainly sounds like a win to me 13:40:07 ... any other comments? 13:41:17 +1 to robin 13:41:22 that's the context in which it needs to be discussed 13:41:25 proposal 1: pretend to copy everything to the root of the widget. 2: Pretend everything has been copied in the locale folder. 13:41:28 [ Pause while MC' enter's proposal into IRC ] 13:41:43 RB: this part of the proposal could go in the widget URI spec 13:41:44 RB: I think that this could go into the wURI document 13:41:46 zakim, call thomas-781 13:41:46 ok, tlr; the call is being made 13:41:48 +Thomas 13:42:01 -Thomas 13:42:02 MC: I prefer Option #1 13:42:16 RB: I prefer that option too 13:42:23 AB: any other comments? 13:42:23 zakim, I am thomas 13:42:23 ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas 13:43:18 RB: proposals A thru D would go in P+C spec 13:43:28 ... and the E+F+G would go in the URI spec 13:43:45 MC: I agree with RB's plan above 13:43:53 - +1.919.536.aacc 13:44:02 AB: any comments about this plan? 13:44:08 ... I support it 13:44:26 ... what about time frames RB and MC? 13:44:35 RB: I can do it by May 5 13:44:43 MC: I can it by May 7 13:45:22 AB: propose E+F+G proposal from Robin be merged into a single proposal and added to the Widget URI spec 13:45:27 ... any objections? 13:45:44 RESOLUTION: E+F+G proposal from Robin will be merged into the Widget URI spec 13:46:08 AB: thanks to Marcos for working on this doc! 13:46:21 Topic: Security related issues with "core" Widgets specs (from Thomas): 13:46:40 AB: on 28 April Thomas identified (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0370.html) two high priority security concerns regarding what I called "core" widget specs: 1) How are relative URI references absolutized? and 2) How do widgets interact with the HTML5 security policy? Thomas, would you please start with a short introduction to the first issue? 13:47:12 This translates into "the widget URI spec" 13:47:37 TR: the most important thing is what goes in the Widget URI spec 13:47:49 ... the second question is the more critical question 13:48:00 ... e.g. HTML5 frame communication 13:48:06 ... that will be used by widgets 13:48:15 ... need to get agreement on the origin property 13:48:31 ... the current approach is trying to solve both of these problems at once 13:48:46 ... we need to get the URI spec right! 13:49:05 ... we can defer this discussion to the URI spec agenda topic 13:49:27 ... must get origin and addressing right 13:49:44 ACTION: thomas to review element by Tuesday 13:49:47 RB: would you please review the element by May 4 / 5? 13:50:19 Topic: A&E spec: Per-instance Storage discussion 13:50:30 AB: last week there was a discussion about the Storage interface (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0301.html) and whether or not 13:51:33 zakim, mute me 13:51:33 Thomas should now be muted 13:51:36 arve has joined #wam 13:51:43 ... the spec should say something about widget instances and Storage interface 13:52:11 Arve: Storage interface should be instantiated per widget 13:52:21 ... that has always been clear to me 13:52:30 -fjh 13:52:46 q+ 13:52:54 ... an issue is the origin 13:53:06 RB: we have been talking about this in the context of the URI scheme 13:53:06 +[IPcaller] 13:53:22 zakim, [IPcaller] is fjh 13:53:22 +fjh; got it 13:53:23 MC: when we hit URIs we hit origin; they can't be separated 13:53:36 ... there is a dependency of Storage and origin 13:53:42 ... it is based on identity 13:53:53 ... must make sure the storage area is not shared 13:54:02 ... we want widgets to have their own storage 13:54:16 ... instance must not share storage, cookies, etc. 13:54:30 RB: you mean instances of the same widget? 13:54:32 MC: yes 13:54:45 zakim, unmute me 13:54:45 Thomas should no longer be muted 13:55:08 RB: if the origin is constant after it is installed, if it is run, stopped, run again should have same origin 13:55:59 TR: must separate addressing and origin 13:56:12 RB: we have been having some related discussion with Anne 13:56:37 TR: could have some shared storage 13:57:05 ... I hear Arve state a requirement that can be easily solved 13:57:16 q+ 13:57:16 ... but I think Guido has a req for shared storage 13:57:43 zakim, mute me 13:57:43 Thomas should now be muted 13:57:50 Arve: I don't get the req for shared storage 13:58:00 ... I can understand shared data 13:58:01 zakim, unmute me 13:58:01 Thomas should no longer be muted 13:58:06 ... but not shared Storage 13:58:10 http://www.w3.org/mid/644AF4A6-9D1F-4D99-ACEB-E3A68398AA6E@berjon.com 13:58:31 ACTION: 13:58:51 ACTION: Guido submit shared storage requirement to public-webapps 13:59:39 ack t 14:00:14 TR: I agree with Arve; the conversation I had with Guido was about a different requirement 14:00:32 ... if everyone is OK with per-instance storage, that is OK with me 14:00:43 ... just wanted to let you know a shared Storage req may come up 14:02:03 Arve: we need a good definition of instance 14:02:16 trackbot has joined #wam 14:02:16 Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel 14:02:16 If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group) 14:02:25 trackbot, this is WebApps 14:02:25 Sorry, ArtB, I don't understand 'trackbot, this is WebApps'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 14:02:56 trackot, associate this channel with #webapps 14:03:04 tracbot, this is webapps 14:03:09 trackbot, associate this channel with #webapps 14:03:09 Associating this channel with #webapps... 14:03:58 Topic: A&E spec: Comments from Rainer: 14:04:07 AB: on 24 April Rainer submitted some comments against the A&E spec (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0335.html). There has been response. Marcos, Arve - what is your position on these comments? 14:05:22 Arve: these comments are just bug reports; all proposed changes are fine with me 14:05:51 MC: I haven't looked at those comment yet 14:06:11 AB: I'm trying to get a sense of whether any of these comments are considered substantial 14:06:19 Arve: no, I don't think so 14:06:50 - +1.425.214.aadd 14:07:01 BS: I sent the access element comments to the list so please close that action 14:07:06 Topic: A&E spec: What needs to be done before publishing a LCWD? 14:07:15 AB: let's take this to the mail list. Arve, Marcos - would one of you please agree to an action to send a list of open issues and actions that must be addressed before we can publish a LCWD of the A&E spec? Would be best if you would include proposals on how to address the issues and action. 14:07:59 MC: Ok 14:08:06 Topic: Widget URI Scheme 14:08:13 AB: earlier today Robin requested some additions (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0438.html) to the agenda. Robin, what do you want to discuss first? 14:08:51 "who volunteers to handle the the URL path to Zip relative path mapping (and back)" 14:08:58 RB: I'll paste in something MC noted 14:09:22 q+ 14:09:23 ... we need to assign an Action so someone can take this 14:09:44 ... MC, can you take it? 14:09:57 MC: yes I can take it but we'll need to work on it together 14:10:08 ... must make sure what we do is in accordance with IRI 14:10:27 TR: please do not define a way to decode an IRI 14:10:42 Zakim, call Mike-Mobile 14:10:42 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 14:10:44 +Mike 14:10:49 MC: we must define how to do the mapping though 14:10:52 "do we need UUIDs in widget URIs" 14:11:04 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/#origin 14:11:06 zakim, drop mike 14:11:06 Mike is being disconnected 14:11:08 -Mike 14:11:14 RB: I think we can do without them 14:11:17 -fjh 14:11:28 ... use HTML5 mechanism 14:11:51 ... if we drop UUID we can use that 14:12:03 q+ 14:12:07 Zakim, call Mike-Mobile 14:12:07 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 14:12:07 the uri scheme looks like widget://path 14:12:08 ... based on discussions with Anne and MC, I think we can do this 14:12:08 +Mike 14:12:39 q- 14:12:56 TR: it is probably useful to say what the origin looks like e.g. large random num 14:13:05 HTML5 says "globally unique identifier" 14:13:07 ... if we need to have instance to instance comm 14:13:30 ... we will need a widget specific uri scheme 14:14:08 [ Scribe is not getting TR's comments .... ] 14:14:16 me neither 14:16:17 TR: two probs: how to identify something in the package 14:16:28 tlr's comments are largely at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pkg-uri-scheme/2009Mar/0000.html 14:16:43 ... also need to ref things within the pack from outside the package 14:18:18 RB: need to separate two things 14:18:27 ... inter widget comm is dropped for v1 14:18:54 RESOLUTION: inter widget communication is dropped for v1 14:20:47 +q 14:20:50 q+ + 14:20:55 q- + 14:20:57 q+ 14:21:01 -q 14:21:34 q- 14:22:17 q+ 14:22:18 Arve: why do you want to use a widget to directly access another widget's package? 14:22:40 ... do you want to access the resources in a widget ? 14:23:32 TR: want to understand the relationship between html5 offline apps and widgets 14:24:09 ... want same app code from a web app to work with a widget 14:24:26 ... the addressing part is critical 14:26:04 TR: don't want an artifical boundary between web apps and widgets 14:26:26 ... if we use a diff addressing scheme there will be problems 14:26:52 MC: but some web apps have a sec model that just won't work with widgets 14:27:19 TR: want to avoid the artificial boundary 14:28:02 anne has left #wam 14:28:56 ... can we make the widget model and web app model converge-able? I think we can if we get the addressing right. 14:29:51 14:29:54 MC: we don't allow resources to address a web page e.g. via the element 14:31:34 ... we need to keep things relatively constrained for v1 14:31:52 q+ 14:33:25 RB: I think there is transition path from the model we're thinking and the one TR wants 14:33:54 q- 14:34:00 q- 14:34:02 ... think the bridge could be there and v2 can move to the new model 14:34:20 TR: most v2's are mythical 14:36:31 AB: what's the next step? 14:36:39 ... do we want to get a FPWD in May? 14:36:41 RB: yes 14:36:52 TR: I am willing to work on the redirection layer 14:37:13 ... if RB has a migration path in mind, I'd like to understand it more 14:38:30 TR: for sig and l10n we do indeed need something like the URI scheme 14:38:48 AB: Meeting Ajourned 14:38:55 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:38:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:38:59 - +33.1.77.11.aaaa 14:39:00 -Thomas 14:39:00 -Art_Barstow 14:39:06 - +47.23.69.aaee 14:39:25 - +49.163.829.aabb 14:40:21 -Mike 14:40:30 I wasn't kidding when I said I was publishing the pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvebersvendsen/3488989846/ 14:41:14 Present+ Thomas 14:41:21 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:41:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:47:41 rrsagent, bye 14:47:41 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-wam-actions.rdf : 14:47:41 ACTION: bryan submit an email to public-webapps re the element [1] 14:47:41 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-wam-irc#T13-15-05 14:47:41 ACTION: Robin to edit access to take into account OMTP feedback and Bryan's [2] 14:47:41 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-wam-irc#T13-15-20 14:47:41 ACTION: thomas to review element by Tuesday [3] 14:47:41 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-wam-irc#T13-49-44 14:47:41 ACTION: [4] 14:47:41 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/30-wam-irc#T13-58-31 14:47:41