IRC log of wam on 2009-08-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:00:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:00:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:00:21 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
13:00:24 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
13:00:26 [Zakim]
+ +49.208.4.aaaa
13:00:26 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
13:00:40 [ArtB]
Present: Marcin, Art
13:00:47 [Marcos_]
zakim, what's the passcode?
13:00:47 [Zakim]
the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), Marcos_
13:00:48 [ArtB]
Regrets: Frederick
13:00:59 [ArtB]
Title: Widgets Voice Conf
13:01:05 [ArtB]
Date: 13 August 2009
13:01:16 [ArtB]
13:01:20 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
13:01:52 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
13:01:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
13:02:04 [Zakim]
+ +47.23.69.aabb
13:02:12 [ArtB]
Present+ Marcos, Arve
13:02:32 [arve_]
arve_ has joined #wam
13:03:16 [Bryan]
Bryan has joined #wam
13:03:31 [ArtB]
Present+ Bryan
13:03:59 [Zakim]
13:05:06 [ArtB]
Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:05:14 [ArtB]
AB: draft agenda ( ) posted 12 August. Any change requests?
13:05:20 [ArtB]
Present+ Josh
13:05:27 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:05:35 [ArtB]
Topic: Announcements
13:05:41 [ArtB]
AB: any short announcements?
13:05:48 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:06:11 [ArtB]
Topic: A&E spec: proposal to publish LCWD
13:06:20 [ArtB]
AB: during our last call on July 30 we said that today we would determine if there was consensus to publish a LCWD of the A&E spec ( ). What is the status Marcos? Latest ED is:
13:07:21 [ArtB]
AB: is July 30 the latest?
13:07:23 [ArtB]
MC: yes
13:07:36 [ArtB]
AB: MC, you have an issue about the A+E?
13:07:44 [ArtB]
MC: yes; showNotifcation
13:07:55 [ArtB]
... do we want this in a new spec?
13:08:03 [ArtB]
... some discussion on WHAT-WG list
13:08:21 [ArtB]
... some want showNotification in its own spec
13:08:48 [ArtB]
Arve: I think it should be place in its own spec
13:08:59 [ArtB]
... since it is not related to widget packaing
13:09:06 [ArtB]
... would be a good separation of concerns
13:09:16 [ArtB]
... not clear if it belongs in HTML5 or not
13:09:25 [ArtB]
... but tend to think a sep spec is best
13:09:43 [ArtB]
MH: what about getAttention?
13:09:51 [ArtB]
MC: they could be merged into one spec
13:10:04 [ArtB]
Arve: disagree; diff use cases for the two
13:10:19 [ArtB]
... but could specify both APIs in the same spec
13:10:51 [ArtB]
MH: BONDI module UI
13:11:11 [ArtB]
... handles softkeys, vibration, etc.
13:11:29 [ArtB]
... think showNot and getAttention should be defined together
13:11:57 [ArtB]
BS: getAttention not covered
13:12:11 [ArtB]
... good question about where to put UI functions
13:12:27 [ArtB]
... I do agree try to minimize the number of specs
13:12:42 [ArtB]
MC: so BS, should these UI APIs be removed from A+E?
13:12:55 [ArtB]
BS: should be consistent with other specs
13:13:19 [ArtB]
... if no other UI APis in the widget spec suite it may make sense to put them in a sep spec
13:14:21 [ArtB]
AB: I don't feel strongly about keeping them or removing these two UI APIs
13:14:30 [ArtB]
Arve: I feel strongly they should be in a separate spec
13:14:50 [ArtB]
MC: they prolly shouldn't have been there to begin with
13:15:13 [ArtB]
... think there should be a stand alone spec for these UI-related APIs
13:16:18 [ArtB]
AB: a concern I have is who will drive these two APIs fwd
13:16:33 [ArtB]
MC: we can ask Hixie to put them back in HTML5
13:17:50 [ArtB]
BS: could get DAP involved
13:19:14 [ArtB]
AB: I'm hearing these APIs are of broad enough interest to separate them from the A+E spec and the widget spec suite
13:19:36 [ArtB]
BS: but it is still within scope for WebApps, right?
13:19:39 [ArtB]
AB: yes
13:20:50 [ArtB]
AB: I don't want these APIs to ping back and forth with the HTML WG
13:21:01 [ArtB]
... want an Editor that is committed to driving them
13:21:47 [ArtB]
MC: we took HTML5 as a basis and then started adding widget stuff on top of it
13:22:15 [ArtB]
Arve: I understand one UC from Google is to use this with Worker Threads
13:22:26 [ArtB]
MC: yes; so they have some different reqs
13:22:41 [ArtB]
Arve: yes; non-trivial to address a broad set of reqs
13:22:53 [arve]
s/worker threads/background workers/
13:23:02 [arve]
[this is even more complicated]
13:23:07 [ArtB]
BS: I think the UI part of DAP is related
13:24:05 [ArtB]
MC: since these APIs were removed from HTML5, a lot of the landscape has changed
13:24:21 [ArtB]
... there may now be enough interest for HTML5 to take these back
13:26:04 [ArtB]
AB: one way fwd is to remove them and ask HTML WG to take them back
13:26:24 [ArtB]
... if HTML WG doesn't want them, we will need to find someone in WebApps
13:26:39 [ArtB]
... or possibly DAP WG
13:26:58 [ArtB]
Arve: I don't think DAP is right, but WebApps is OK if HTML WG doesn't want them
13:27:15 [ArtB]
BS: I have some concerns about them going to HTML5
13:27:25 [ArtB]
... related to timing and complexity
13:27:42 [ArtB]
... not sure they will address widgets reqs
13:28:15 [ArtB]
BS: so an issue is where are the experts and the resources?
13:28:30 [ArtB]
MC: yes; but HTML5 plans to go to LC in a month or two
13:28:53 [ArtB]
AB: does anyone object to removing these two APIs from A+E?
13:28:56 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:29:28 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: the showNotification and getAttention APIs will be removed from the A+E spec
13:30:03 [ArtB]
AB: MC or Arve, can you take an Action to talk to Hixie about HTML taking these two functions?
13:30:05 [ArtB]
MC: yes
13:30:32 [ArtB]
ACTION: caceres talk to Hixie and HTML WG about taking the getAttention and showNotification APIs
13:30:33 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-389 - Talk to Hixie and HTML WG about taking the getAttention and showNotification APIs [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-08-20].
13:31:17 [ArtB]
AB: are there any other issues blocking a LCWD of A+E?
13:31:21 [ArtB]
MC: no
13:31:29 [ArtB]
... I will remove these two APIs
13:32:10 [ArtB]
Arve: I have a comment about openURI
13:32:34 [ArtB]
... the method is about opening a Locator not an Identifier
13:32:53 [ArtB]
MC: I want to imply any URI can be loaded
13:33:10 [ArtB]
Arve: all URLs are URI
13:33:18 [ArtB]
... but not vice-versa
13:33:51 [ArtB]
MC: look at the examples: sms: tel: feed: ...
13:34:21 [ArtB]
MH: need to have consistency
13:34:32 [ArtB]
... URI, URL, IRI, ...
13:34:46 [ArtB]
MC: can't use "IRI" because that is "W3C Speak"
13:35:01 [ArtB]
MH: but the description needs to be consistent
13:35:13 [arve]
13:35:18 [arve]
13:35:24 [ArtB]
MC: I can live with URL but I don't like it
13:35:47 [ArtB]
AB: is there a precedence we should consider?
13:36:02 [ArtB]
MC: at least 3 other widget engines use openURL
13:36:23 [ArtB]
AB: my preference is to use openURL
13:36:38 [ArtB]
... can you live with it MC?
13:36:44 [ArtB]
MC: yes; I'll change it
13:37:23 [ArtB]
AB: why is license not included?
13:37:56 [ArtB]
MC: I don't feel strongly about it
13:38:07 [ArtB]
AB: seems like it should be there for completness
13:38:41 [ArtB]
MC: I could add it; could also add license HREF
13:38:45 [Marcos]
readonly attribute DOMString license;
13:38:45 [Marcos]
readonly attribute DOMString licenseHref;
13:40:37 [ArtB]
MC: the licenseHref can have some probs
13:40:51 [ArtB]
Arve: could also have multiple licenses
13:41:04 [ArtB]
MC: yes; not clear which would be authoritative
13:41:19 [arve]
what about readonly attribute LicenseCollection license;
13:42:20 [ArtB]
Arve: would prefer to not handle license at all for API and Events
13:42:45 [ArtB]
... could define formal grammar for licenses
13:42:53 [ArtB]
AB: I don't want to go down that rathole
13:44:04 [ArtB]
AB: one option is to leave License out of the spec and to see if there are any objections during the LC review period
13:44:15 [Marcos]
13:46:30 [ArtB]
AB: my inclination is to leave the spec as is ; OK?
13:46:32 [ArtB]
MC: yes
13:47:08 [ArtB]
AB: are there any objections to publishing a LCWD of the A+E spec with the agreed changes today?
13:47:12 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:47:43 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: the WG agrees to publish a LCWD of the A+E with the changes agreed during the 13 Aug 2009 Voice Conf
13:48:02 [ArtB]
ACTION: Caceres notify Art when A+E LCWD is pub ready
13:48:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-390 - Notify Art when A+E LCWD is pub ready [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-08-20].
13:48:38 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C: Test suite dependency on A&E spec
13:48:48 [ArtB]
AB: first P&C topic is the question about whether or not the P&C test suite can have a dependency on the APIs and Events spec ( ). Marcos and Scott Wilson exchanged some emails on this. Marcos?
13:50:00 [ArtB]
MC: there is a tradeoff between having a simpler test suite for the P+C spec if the test suite can use the A+E spec
13:50:32 [ArtB]
... don't want to have to add a bunch of extra steps for simple things
13:52:24 [ArtB]
AB: I don't see a problem with such a dependency
13:52:53 [ArtB]
AB: what do you need Marcos, a resolution?
13:52:53 [Marcos]
13:54:04 [ArtB]
MC: I am working with Kai on the templates
13:54:13 [ArtB]
... we now have about 80 tests
13:54:58 [ArtB]
AB: are these templates all new?
13:55:07 [ArtB]
MC: yes; did them very recently
13:55:20 [ArtB]
... I have been working with the MWTS on this
13:55:40 [ArtB]
... there are 114 testable assertions
13:55:50 [ArtB]
... we will create one or more tests for each assertion
13:56:03 [ArtB]
... this helps us understand if assertions are testable or not
13:56:16 [Marcos]
13:57:29 [ArtB]
AB: this looks real good Marcos!
13:58:26 [ArtB]
MC: I think this is going to work quite well
13:58:34 [ArtB]
... it will also help us find issues in the spec
13:59:37 [ArtB]
MC: I want to talk about how to track bugs
13:59:43 [ArtB]
... Marcin found a bug too
14:01:08 [ArtB]
AB: what is the status of Kai's prior work?
14:01:15 [Bryan]
I have to drop for another call. I sent a mail closing ACTION-357.
14:01:27 [Zakim]
14:01:33 [ArtB]
MC: he is updating those tests to use the new template
14:01:43 [Marcos]
14:01:59 [ArtB]
... they will be moved into our CVS repository
14:02:25 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C: Candidate "Bug Alerts"
14:02:34 [ArtB]
AB: Opera has submitted three "Bug Alerts" against the P&C Candidate and each of these has been captured as Raised Issues ( ). Let's go through these quickly and at a minimum determine if there is an issue or not.
14:04:37 [ArtB]
AB: I want to postpone process related discussions until we have a Team Member on the call
14:05:03 [ArtB]
Topic: Issue #93: deprecated, grandfathered, and redundant tags should be skipped.
14:05:15 [ArtB]
AB: Issue #93 ( ). The original email is ( ).
14:05:43 [ArtB]
MC: this is definitely a bug
14:07:07 [ArtB]
AB: one question I have is why deprecated subtags should be ignored
14:07:19 [Marcos]
14:07:27 [Marcos]
"i, hello"
14:07:39 [Marcos]
14:10:06 [ArtB]
AB: there a bunch of subtags that begin with "x"
14:10:14 [ArtB]
... dozens were added 29 July 2009
14:10:21 [ArtB]
... do you mean "x-..."?
14:10:27 [Marcos]
14:10:34 [ArtB]
MC: yes, I mean "x-"
14:11:37 [ArtB]
AB: I'm not convinced we have a serious bug here
14:11:51 [ArtB]
MC: agree; we do have some redundancies we need to address
14:12:20 [ArtB]
AB: my recommendation is to move from RAISED to OPEN
14:12:33 [ArtB]
... and during impl phase we need to get feedback from the implementors
14:12:35 [ArtB]
... OK?
14:12:37 [ArtB]
MC: yes
14:12:52 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow move Issue #93 to OPEN state
14:12:52 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-391 - Move Issue #93 to OPEN state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-20].
14:13:08 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on #93?
14:13:10 [ArtB]
[ No ]
14:13:11 [ArtB]
Topic: Issue #94: Try to fallback to default start files when src path is invalid or not existing
14:13:17 [ArtB]
AB: Issue #94 ( ). The original email is (
14:13:39 [ArtB]
AB: you want to withdraw this one Marcos?
14:13:41 [ArtB]
MC: yes
14:14:02 [ArtB]
AB: so we should close this as not an issue?
14:14:06 [ArtB]
MC: yes; and Josh agreed
14:14:16 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to closing this?
14:14:19 [ArtB]
[ None ]
14:14:37 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow close Issue #94 - this is not an Issue - it is a Feature!
14:14:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-392 - Close Issue #94 - this is not an Issue - it is a Feature! [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-20].
14:14:45 [ArtB]
Topic: Issue #95: Conformance checker behavior intermixed with UA behavior
14:14:51 [ArtB]
AB: Issue #95 ( ). The original email is ( )
14:15:52 [ArtB]
MC: want to reject features of ZIP that are not universally supported
14:16:36 [ArtB]
... want to remove this to allow future UAs to still work
14:16:48 [ArtB]
... so its a bit of future proofing
14:17:18 [ArtB]
... then a CC could warn the author about such features
14:17:47 [ArtB]
AB: I agree it is a bug
14:18:19 [ArtB]
... and would keep it open for now
14:18:38 [ArtB]
MC: don't want the UA to be a CC
14:18:46 [ArtB]
AB: I agree that isn't good
14:19:35 [ArtB]
AB: so you indeed want to remove that quoted sentence from the spec, right?
14:19:37 [ArtB]
MC: yes
14:20:11 [ArtB]
AB: my proposal is to move to Open state and ask implementors for feedback
14:20:21 [ArtB]
MH: no comments now on this
14:20:31 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to my proposal?
14:20:34 [ArtB]
[ None ]
14:20:50 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow move issue #95 to the Open state
14:20:51 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-393 - Move issue #95 to the Open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-20].
14:21:48 [ArtB]
AB: anything else about the P+C for today?
14:21:51 [ArtB]
[ No ]
14:21:57 [ArtB]
Topic: View Modes spec
14:22:03 [ArtB]
AB: we still don't have a FPWD of the View Modes spec despite the P&C CR defining the list of modes ( ). On July 15 Robin published a ToDo list ( ).
14:22:25 [ArtB]
AB: We also discussed this spec on July 30 ( ) and clarified that Marcin can edit this spec as needed. What's the status and in particular, what remains to be done before we can publish the FPWD?
14:23:03 [ArtB]
AB: I think we need to make this spec a High Priority
14:23:28 [ArtB]
MH: I will update the spec this week or next
14:23:40 [ArtB]
14:24:15 [ArtB]
AB: let us know if you need help
14:24:19 [ArtB]
MH: will do
14:24:32 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on View Modes spec for today?
14:24:43 [ArtB]
[ None ]
14:24:49 [ArtB]
Topic: AOB
14:25:00 [ArtB]
AB: I don't have anything for today
14:25:06 [ArtB]
... anyone else?
14:25:09 [ArtB]
[ No ]
14:25:16 [ArtB]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
14:25:35 [Zakim]
- +49.208.4.aaaa
14:25:36 [Zakim]
- +47.23.69.aabb
14:25:37 [Zakim]
14:25:42 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:25:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
14:25:43 [Zakim]
14:25:44 [Zakim]
IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:25:48 [Zakim]
Attendees were Josh_Soref, Art_Barstow, +49.208.4.aaaa, +47.23.69.aabb, Bryan_Sullivan
14:26:40 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #wam
14:26:52 [Marcos_]
Marcos_ has joined #wam
14:26:56 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
14:27:01 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:27:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
14:28:33 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
14:28:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wam
14:28:38 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items saved in :
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: caceres talk to Hixie and HTML WG about taking the getAttention and showNotification APIs [1]
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Caceres notify Art when A+E LCWD is pub ready [2]
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow move Issue #93 to OPEN state [3]
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow close Issue #94 - this is not an Issue - it is a Feature! [4]
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow move issue #95 to the Open state [5]
14:28:38 [RRSAgent]
recorded in