See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 2 July 2009
AB: draft agenda sent on July 1 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0041.html ). Any change requests? During the AOB topic we will talk about cancelations of this weekly call due to summer holidays.
[ No change requests ]
AB: anyone have any short announcements they want to make?
[ None ]
AB: the LCWD comment period ended
on June 19. We have not addressed all of the comments submitted
before the deadline. We can take some time to discuss those
comments that can benefit from interactive group
... Comment tracking doc is ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-20090528/ )
... Marcos, what is the status of the Disposition of Comments document?
MC: it is about 80% up to
... awaiting responses from about 20 emails
... I've got all of Marcin's comments
... and all of AvK's comments that I've responded to
AB: earlier today MC sent this
and it contains comments he'd like to discuss on this
... first one is from Josh http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1095.html
... what is the main isssue here Marcos?
MC: Josh thinks there is a prob
with the l10n model
... I'm not sure how serious this is
... it could create a problem in some use case
... I tend to think this is a problem for localizers and not a problem with the model
JK: I agree with you Marcos
... re the assertion the prob is at the package level
... I don't agree; don't want a new zip per locale
JK: want a package to contain as
much locale info as possible
... L10N testing should catch the error Josh identified
AB: based on this, there is the question - has Josh identified a bug in the model?
MC: I don't think so
JK: agree with Marcos
AB: I tend to agree with Marcos
and JK's interpretation
... any disagreements with MC and JK's opinion?
[ None ]
AB: given this, what will your response be Marcos?
MC: want to wait for JK to respond to Josh and then see the follow up responses
JK: I just sent the response
AB: status then is to wait and
see how Josh responds
... next up is this comment from Dom: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0936.html
... Marcos, what's the issue here?
MC: this is about the CC
... the spec isn't as complete as it could be
... with respect to the CC requirements
... These were originally just Authoring comments and they were reformulated as CC reqs
... we just didn't do all of the work that could have been done
AB: so one way fwd is to move all
of the CC reqs to a separate spec
... naturally that would be considered a substantial change
MC: yes, that's true
... Dom suggested some additions
AB: we could just add the 3 Dom indicates and any others if we find them
MC: yes, agree
AB: we could view these as bugs i.e. these 3 are missing
MC: yes, because the UA will need
to address some of these
... the CC reqs are not called out in the steps for processing
<dom> [possible implementation of conformance checker for widgets: http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/widget ]
AB: we could add the missing CC
and then during Candidate, if CC implementor feedback dictates
a sep spec we can do that
... Dom, what are your thoughts on this?
Dom: these comments are based on
the work we did on the CC Checker
... It would be be good if there is more detail on the CC checker
... it probably would be best to move the CC reqs to a separate doc
... but I don't think it would be a high priority work item
AB: so if we just added the 3 reqs you mentioned would that be sufficient to address your concern?
<dom> Dom: It would be fine yes; I would just be concerned for the pace of development of the Widgets specs that other bugs might be found at a later stage for conformance checkers, and would slow down the work for a low priority work item
AB: is anyone aware of any other CC services?
MC: Mike mentioned another person/group that is interested
<hendry> I wrote a widget validator sometime ago (it's offline) http://git.webvm.net/?p=wgtvalidator
AB: do you know how far that has gone?
MC: no, the email trail died
AB: does anyone object to us addressing Dom's CC comments by just addding the 3 missing CC reqs?
[ No objections ]
AB: next is June 17 comments from
... Marcos, what are the main issues here?
MC: I've addresed most of these
... need to go thru the spec and look for conformance reqs
... need to clarify rule for identifying media image
<dom> [I think they are mostly editorial]
MC: most of these comments are
... it will be a lot of work to go through all of the assertions
... Dom used a tool to get the assertions
<Marcos> "simplify the analysis of
<Marcos> > conformance requirements for building test suites, and identify possible
<Marcos> > ambiguities as to what is affected when the conformance requirements is
<Marcos> > not respected;"
MC: A question I have is whether or not I need to edit the spec such that the assertion extraction tool "will be happy"
AB: what do others think about this?
<dom> [it's rather an effort toward making the spec more testable]
MC: the advantage is the spec
will be better; the disadvantage is the spec will take
... I would be interested in getting a sense from Dom about how much work this would be?
Dom: it's hard to tell; most of
the assertions were in OK shape
... I don't think it is critical
... but it would be helpful
... you need to understand your schedule constraints
AB: I agree it would be helpful but I don't think it is a high priority given our schedule
<hendry> what about just checking on http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/plan.html and updating the spec when and if possible
AB: my recommendation is this work could be done during the Candidate phase
<dom> [that's fine with me fwiw]
MC: yes, I agree; it would add some clarification
MC: and I would agree to do the work during the Candidate phase
AB: any objections?
... we have support from Kai and Dom
[ No objections to doing this work during the Candidate phase ]
<scribe> ACTION: marcos During the P+C Candidate phase, make editorial changes to make assertions extractable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-376 - During the P+C Candidate phase, make editorial changes to make assertions extractable [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-07-09].
AB: next comment is from Krzy:
... I do want to note that this set of comments was submitted on June 22 which is after the deadline
MC: I asked him to submit
... I don't know how people feel about the lateness of these comments
AB: any comments on the date of these comments?
DR: I think it sets a dangerous
precedence if we were to take these late comments into
... I can't speak to the comments themselves
AB: any other feedback on the
timing of these comments?
... my recommendation is we make these low priority and not address them until after all of the LCWD comments submitted by June 19 are addressed
<drogersuk> I agree
MC: so does this mean do _not_ put them in the DoC doc?
... any objections to this way of handling Krzy's comments?
[ None ]
<dom> [I feel uncomfortable about it, but I'm not a member of the group]
AB: next up is some comments from Kai
MC: these comments were sent to
... they were NOT sent to public-webapps on June 19
... Do we include these comments as part of our LCWD review cycle?
AB: what do other people think?
<drogersuk> I agree with art
AB: I think we just sent a precedent that we should follow
<dom> [I think it makes no sense to reject good comments]
AB: and that would mean we should not consider these until after LCWD
DR: agree with Art; we need to have some discipline and respect the deadlines
<drogersuk> I also agree with dom by the way
<dom> [not including them in the DoC reduces the value of the DoC]
MC: no problem; we can address them after LC
AB: to be consistent, we should NOT include Kai's comments in the DoC
MC: yes, I agree; I will not add them
AB: any objections to not addressing Kai's comments during this LCWD review cycle?
[ No objections ]
AB: next up is a 2nd comment from
Kai that is also dated June 19
... was this also private email to you Marcos?
MC: yes; this email was also sent
to me privately by Kai on June 19
... so we should ingore this too for this LCWD review cycle
AB: OK; do not add this 2nd comment of Kai's to the DoC
MC: I have 8 emails that I have
not yet responded to
... I plan to respond to all of them by Friday July 3
AB: what can we do to help you?
MC: the main concern I had was
how to handle Dom's comments
... apart from that, it's mostly Editorial stuff
... not sure there is much other WG members can do
... I asked Jere for some help on L10N and he has responded
... I still have about 20 emails that I waiting for responses
... apart from that, I think we are pretty good
AB: I am happy to ping/bother people that have not responded to you
MC: it's only been a few days so
we need to give people at least a week
... I can give people about one week
... with a plan to close DoC on July 10
AB: I'll follow up with you
Marcos on July 6 re who needs to be pinged
... when you reply, please include a July 10 deadline for a response
MC: time to start setting up a Trans to Candidate
AB: we won't have all of the data to make a decision about CR vs. WD until we have feedback from the Commentors about our responses
DR: I think we should be
aggresive with the Commentors re deadline for responses to our
... think 1:1 follow-ups would be good to do
AB: it would be best if the deadline for resonses was July 9
MC: yes, that's OK with me
AB: so ideally, on July 9 when we
meet we will have responses from all of the Commentors
... Mike, do we need to wait for responses from all Commentors before we make a decision of CR vs. WD?
MS: not sure what the Process Doc
... but I think we need to give adequate opportunity to comment
MC: so you think one week isn't enough?
MS: one week may not be
... I think 1 week is the minimum
<drogersuk> I would like to think that one week is enough
AB: it makes sense to also consider the comments themselves
<drogersuk> ...if we are proactively contacting people too
AB: thanks for that feedback
... anything else?
MC: I could use some help with
the DoC document
... it is about 80-90% done
... it would mean clicking some buttons when emails come in
AB: any volunteers?
... I can help starting July 6
... anything P+C spec today?
AB: in MC's response to Francois, he indicated the group should discuss one of Francois' comments ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0037.html)
MC: most of the questions have to
do with the Widget URI scheme spec
... so we are "punting" on those issues with respect P+C
AB: any comments on that?
[ None ]
AB: yesterday I started a widget testing wiki to consolidate pointers to testing resources ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting ). This is a Group Resource and as such, everyone should contribute to its evolution and maintenance.
AB: Kai has started some related
work but I think it would be helpful to get an enumeration of
all of the testable assertions.
... can anyone commit to contributing a testable assertion list for the Widgets Digital Signature spec?
AB: Dom, that was relatively easy because of the markup P+C used, right?
... does DigSig use the same convention?
<dom> (based on http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/extractTestAssertions.xsl )
AB: OK, that's good; it will help
us scope the set of test cases needed
... anything else on WidDigSig testing for today?
... any status from you Kai?
Kai: I'm finding it difficult to
do the testing
... thought there would be some examples
<fjh> should also look at 1.1 interop for new algorithms.
<scribe> ACTION: barstow find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig Sig tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-377 - Find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig Sig tests [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-09].
MC: what kinds of probs are you
... generating or verifying?
Kai: I'm not familiar with
... not that familiar with XML Dig Sig 1.1
... not sure if I'm generating the right keys and their formats
<fjh> there are also java tools
Kai: would like someone to just tell me what to do
AB: I will find the right experts to help you
<fjh> perhaps you should summarize your questions and send to the xml security public list
<dom> (thomas roessler would definitely be a good person to contact on that)
MC: if there is some guidance needed in the spec, please let me know
<dom> (Frederick Hirsch would be another candidate)
MC: we want it easy to author
<fjh> I'm suggesting we share questions on public xml security list - collective intelligence
<fjh> I cannot call into the bridge, the conference is "restricted"
Kai: After I get "hello world" done then I can start some real work
AB: Kai, FH recommends you send your questions directly to XML Sec WG -> firstname.lastname@example.org
MC: and please cc public-webapps
Kai: ok; will do
AB: Dom recently announced ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1201.html ) the availability of an alpha version of an Online Widget Checker service (
AB: Thanks very much for this
Dom! I haven't used it yet; does anyone have feedback for
... Dom, what is the status and plans for this service?
Dom: waiting for some feedback
before we do anything more
... would like to get others to contribute to the code
... it does some good things now but will require a big chunck of effort to make it really useful
AB: make a plea to everyone
... 1. Review the services
... 2. Send comments to Dom
... 3. Contribute to the code
... anything else on this service Dom?
Dom: could be useful with going to CR i.e. going thru the CC reqs
AB: yesterday I noticed Dom had created a P&C Test Plan ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets/tests/plan.html ). Dom, what is the status and plan for this Test Plan?
Dom: I only annouced it to the
... it is based on the extractable assertions for the CC
... added some comments on some of the tests
... Kai has taken an action to review the Test Plan
... Marcos said he would review it too
... Plan to have something "fairly reliable" next week
MC: want to fix the spec to make the extraction process work better
Dom: we are focusing on test
... I think our test cases will be ok even if the spec changes
... but they may require some minor updating
Arve: since Robin isn't here, we could take this topic to the mail list
AB: yes, that's fine with me
AB: there has been some off-list discussion about a Widgets Test Fest in September.
DR: I can give a brief
... VF proposed a "test fest" but that may not be the most descriptive title
... want to create test cases
... want it to be coordinated by W3C
... want OMTP to be involved
... VF can host it
... proposed dates are Sep 21 thru 23
... can handle 50-55 people
... want it to be under the W3C rules
... want to understand more about how test suites are created in W3C
... need to think about licensing since it will be collaborative effort
DR: Does this sound like a good idea?
MC: sounds like a good idea to me
AB: sounds like quite a bit of support
DR: I've asked VF to send a mail to public-webapps
AB: that sounds good
... we agreed in London we would not have any more f2f meetings until TPAC
... this is NOT a WebApps WG meeting
DR: yes; understood; want the impl people to attend
AB: you will form some type of organizing committee?
DR: yes, that's the idea
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Mike and Dom to determine if their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with OMTP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-378 - Work with Mike and Dom to determine if their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with OMTP [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-09].
DR: OMTP supports this but it is VF that is sponsoring this initiative
<drogersuk> Yes this intiative is Vodafone's so I am just speaking on behalf of Christian who is not here
Dom: I don't think we need an organizing committee; I am awaiting more info from VF
<drogersuk> I would also like to add that for licensing - I believe it should be under the W3C process
Dom: re the licensing, I am already working on this
<dom> > 3.) If non-W3C members / non Bondi members declare their wish to participate, they must possibly sign an extra agreement for IP exclosure (like the Turin rules for BONDI members). This is possibly an "edge case" but we should bear it in mind. My suggestion is that W3C legal take a closer look at that.
<dom> Essentially, those that don't participate to the Web Applications
<dom> Working Group should fill up and submit the Grant I linked from the test
<dom> cases policy:
AB: anything else on the Test Fest?
DR: not sure if the Turin Rules apply
Dom: there is No Patent Policy issue re test cases but there will be some Copyright issues that will be applicable
AB: because of summer holidays,
there will be NO Widgets calls on July 16, July 23 and August
... any other business?
[ None ]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
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) Succeeded: s/brief/brief udpate/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Marcos Arve Mike Jere Kai David Marcin AndyB Dom Regrets: TLR Benoit Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0041.html Found Date: 02 Jul 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow dom marcos mike with work[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]