Widgets Voice Conf

04 Jun 2009


See also: IRC log


Art, Robin, Thomas, Arve, Marcos, Josh, Jere, David, Frederick, Mark




<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 4 June 2009

<arve> Zakim: P2 is me

Review and tweak agenda

AB: I posted the agenda on June 3 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0728.html). The only change I propose is to change the order of 3.b and 3.c. Any change requests?

TR: move f2f preps to end of meeting

AB: OK; we will do that
... add Mark's latest email re DigSig to the agenda
... Robin, will you represent Mark on this call?

<darobin> mpriestl: can you get on the call?

RB: no, not really


AB: I have one short announcement: for those of you following the Draft DAP WG Charter () discussions, Frederick has been designated as a Chair (along with Robin)

DR: what is the Chair selection process?

TR: it is mostly opaque
... and Team driven

DR: if you would direct me to the Proc Doc; I'm not clear on it

TR: sure, I can do that
... I think the only relevant text is "the Director will appoint the Chair"

AB: any other announcements?

[ None ]

DigSig LCWD comments by Vodafone

AB: Mark submitted comments this morning which is 3 days too late
... my recommendation is to postpone the handling of those comments until after the CR is published
... comments on my proposal?

MP: that is fine for VF
... I am sorry those comments were late
... I don't think any of the comments will affect Candidate
... one may be a bit problematic

AB: want to emphasize we will always accept comments
... we do have to be careful though about moving the target date
... proposed Resolution: we will handle VF's LCWD comments of June 4 during CR
... any objections?

[ None ]

RESOLUTION: we will handle VF's LCWD comments of June 4 during CR

Widgets Dig Sig spec: agree on candidate exit criteria:

AB: a few days ago I proposed some text for the WidDigSig's Candidate "exit criteria" (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0700.html). Any comments about that proposal?

<Marcos_> +a

AB: any objections to the proposed Exit Criteria?

[ None ]

Widgets Dig Sig spec: Dependency on XML Sig 1.1

AB: one issue we need to discuss before resolving to publish a DigSig CR is "how far can this spec go in the Recommendation track with a normative dependency on a WD of XML Digital Signatures 1.1?". My understanding is PR but no further. Thomas or Mike, would you please clarify?

TR: I believe your understanding is correct
... but I'll check
... I think the doc is well hidden

AB: XBL2 has a precedence of this

TR: let's proceed as if this won't be an issue and we can deal with it later if we need to

MS: +1 to TR

AB: we then proceed as planned

Widgets Digital Signature spec: Proposal to publish Candidate Recommendation

AB: the WidDigSig spec is ready to be published as a Candidate Recommendation. Any objections to that?

MC: I have concerns about the cannoicalization aspects
... have they been resolved?

TR: are these general issues or ones that can be dealt with during CR

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that we have not hard-and-fast rule

MC: I hear cannoicalization doesn't work

TR: the only concern I know of is complexity

<arve> gotta call back in in a minute

TR: the way the spec is used tho, there is no breakage

FH: we profiled it down

MC: so OK, it sholdn't be too bad
... I heard it is difficult to implement in .NET

TR: which cannonicalization?

MC: the one in the spec

TR: if .NET it could be a 1.0 vs. 1.1 concern

<timeless_mbp> what does that mean?

DR: yes, I think that is true

TR: doesn't matter whether we use 1.0 or 1.1

<fjh> what i said about profiling is this, since the case is narrow enough

<tlr> ... or exclusive

<fjh> sounds like a comment that needs to be on the list

AB: my recommendation is that if this is an issue, it be raised during CR

MC: yes, I think that is OK

TR: this will affect interop
... it may be worthwhile to shift to Exclusive right now

FH: I think that would be reasonable
... I don't think we need the features of 1.1
... let me check the spec ...
... 6.3 requires Canon 1.1

<timeless_mbp> fjh: if i want to give feedback, should i to: you and cc: wg?

FH: we can change to Exclusive and that would address the concern
... TR, is that OK with you?

TR: Exclusive isn't strictly mandatory
... think Exclusive is the one to take

MP: is there a ref that could be put in IRC?
... are we confident we'd end up with the same result?

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/

TR: the two disagree with the handling of namespaces
... and some subset [missed details ...]
... we don't use qnames and content
... only 1 case there could be some diffs and it is if gratuitous namespaces are used but not needed

<fjh> proposal - change required algorithm in 6.3 from Canonical XML 1.1 omits comments to

<fjh> Exclusive XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments)

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#

AB: can we agree to make this change and also agree to move directly to CR?

TR: the question is if this would "invalidate" a review?

<fjh> also add reference for Exclusive Canonicalization

TR: does anyone think it would?

RB: no

FH: I think this is the right thing to do
... I don't think we'll have any problems

<fjh> proposal - 1. change required alg in 6.3, 2. add reference to exclusive c14n

AB: are there any objections to FH's proposal?

[ None ]

<fjh> Exclusive XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments)

AB: since we agreed to make this change, are there any objections to going to CR directly?

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#

[ No ]

AB: propose: RESOLUTION: the group agrees Widgets Digital Signature spec is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation

<fjh> with additional changes agreed today

AB: any objections?

[ None ]

RESOLUTION: the group agrees Widgets Digital Signature spec is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation

<scribe> ACTION: hirsch notify Art when the excl c14n change has been made and the SoTD is updated for CR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-minutes.html#action01]

WAR spec: UCs and requirements

AB: we've had a Call for UCs and Reqs (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0581.html) and two related ACTION: Action 347 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/347) and Action 348 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/348).
... besides not having agreement on UCs and Reqs, we also do not have consensus on the definitions of Origin nor Domain of Trust (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/#security-model).
... additionally, there now seems to be an attempt to add UA behavior for the <feature> element regarding security policy e.g. Robin's proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0732.html).
... lastly, I agree with concerns raised by some members of this WG about us specifying something that is going to "tie the hands" of the DAP WG's security policy work.
... any status of UCs and Reqs?

[ None ]

<darobin> http://www.w3.org/mid/E3625432-E1AF-42F6-9E5E-73B29EE8DB10@berjon.com

RB: I sent a related email

<timeless_mbp> arve: does http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ show "Copyright © 2009 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply." in Opera (10beta)?

AB: I wasn't sure how the proposal would be reflected in the spec?

RB: has anyone read it?

[ No responses ]

RB: it supports one of the options we have discussed
... network access requires <access>

<timeless_mbp> does the widget have access to the iframe?

RB: but <access> does not provide access to "sensitive APIs"
... Arve, any comments?

<timeless_mbp> we can't hear you

<timeless_mbp> tlr: were you OK or Not OK w/ the original?

Arve: I agree with a model where a doc outside of the widget does not get any additional access rights

<arve> artb's summary is right

RB: is there consensus here?

TR: I only had a superficial review
... I am OK with this being added to the FPWD

FH: I have not reviewed it

TR: if no one has read it, we can resolve to publish it as FPWD if no objections by some date

RB: I haven't reflected my email into the spec

AB: I would prefer to get RB to reflect his input into the ED, then notify the group and then we can make a decision about FPWD

RB: I can do that tomorrow

TR: OK with me

<timeless_mbp> so basically this spec says that a widget has as much access as the browser?

AB: next Tues we can make a decision about FPWD
... any last comments about WAR spec for today?

[ None ]

Prepare for June 9-11 f2f meeting Draft agenda: comments, priorities, etc.:

AB: yesterday I tweaked next week's agenda (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsLondonJune2009#Agenda_Items) and will probably make additional small changes over the next few days. Any comments?
... the only firm time for a subject is Tues June 9 13:00-14:30 and it will be Security Policy. Priority will be P&C, and the issues related to advancing W/V Modes, A&E, WAR, and URI specs.
... any comments on agenda?

TR: I must stop at 15:00 on Tues
... <access> element is the highest priority

AB: any other comments?

<tlr> (and the widget uri scheme, ugh. Forgot about that one)

[ None ]

<fjh> I also have firm stop at 15:00 on Tuesday

Open Actions

AB: please address Open actions before the f2f meeting: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8

<timeless_mbp> ArtB: i might be able to make it if i can get some wiggle room w/ managers, i'll pick up transportation and someone will host a room, so i'd just need a manager not to complain about my lack of physical presence


AB: any topics?
... I don't have any
... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: hirsch notify Art when the excl c14n change has been made and the SoTD is updated for CR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/06/04 13:49:50 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Present: Art Robin Thomas Arve Marcos Josh Jere David Frederick Mark
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0728.html
Found Date: 04 Jun 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: hirsch

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]