W3C

- DRAFT -

Widgets Voice Conference

20 Aug 2009

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Art, Bryan, Marcin, Arve, Marcos
Regrets
Frederick
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art

Contents


 

 

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<anne2> Marcos, public-webapps / whatwg ?

Date: 20 August 2009

Review and tweak agenda

AB: draft agenda submitted on August 19 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0741.html ). Since then there have been some comments on the A&E spec and View Modes (VM) spec.
... should we add A+E spec today or continue discussions on the mail list?
... any prefs?

MH: I suggest using the mail list

AB: any objections to that?

[ None ]

AB: we'll keep the agenda as is

Announcements

AB: the draft agenda agenda included 3 reminders/announcements. Does anyone have any short announcements they want to make?

[ None ]

P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization

AB: last week Marcin started a thread ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0644.html ) regarding IRI/URI normalization and the P&C Candidate. This email was sent to the I18N Core WG.
... Addison indicated the I18N WG would review the email
... but I don't think that has yet happened
... Marcin, do you want to discuss this today?

MH: I don't know when they will review my email
... but Addison said they will review it
... I don't know when they have telcos

AB: any followup for today?

MH: I don't think so

AB: do we defer discussion until I18N WG has responded?

MC: yes; I have nothing to add today

P&C Test Suite status

AB: Marcos sent an email about the P&C Test suite ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0671.html ) and he solicited comments/feedback. He also included a pointer to the P&C Test Suite Edition (aka TSE) ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html#prologue ).
... any comments for Marcos?

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/

AB: Marcos, can you give us an update of your related discussions with the MWTS WG?

MC: all tests will go in the URI above
... this will be the template we use
... explains how to write a test
... Still hoping to get more guidance from MWTS WG
... Will try to minimize dependencies on other specs
... The tests will be targeted at the P+C UA
... Want to minimize resolution
... Working with Kai Hendry on structuring, verification, etc.
... Kai will make tests and so will I
... We will then verify each others tests
... Tests will only be added to the official test suite when someone has verified a test
... Others are free to write tests too and to verify them
... Opera will contribute tests but they need to be ported to our tempate

BS: how does one verify?

MC: make sure it is written correctly i.e. the test actually tests the assertion
... this isn't pure science
... we must have someone else do the verificatin
... the TS is very important so we need to do it right

AB: any comments or feedback for Marcos?

BS: re the process, you automatically extracted the assertions, right?

MC: yes

BS: and that depends on some specific markup to work, right?

MC: yes
... is that some W3C-specific mechanism?
... yes but any other spec writer could use this mechanism
... no magic is used

BS: this is an interesting convention for others to use

MC: agree

AB: I agree this is a neat mechanism
... perhaps you can give a related talk at the November TPAC meeting e.g. a Lightning Talk

MC: yes, I can do that

BS: what's the prereq to make this work?

MC: must read the spec at least once; use links to definitions

AB: re the "minimize resolution", what do you mean?

MC: want a test to test just one particular aspect of the UA
... want each test case to be as precise and targeted as possible

AB: right, atomic test cases

MC: will create a way to make it easy to download all the tests
... and a XML format that describes the tests
... that will also need review

AB: are there any actions for the rest of u?

MC: please start reviewing the TSE and send comments
... the test suite will meet Opera's needs; want it to also meet other's needs

BS: I will certainly take a look at it

AB: how many test cases are now verified?

MC: none are yet verified
... I expect we will need at least 200 test cases
... I just uploaded the document yesterday
... We are being a bit cautious about the test cases as we want someone from MWTS e.g. Dom to give a "Blessing" before we start creating a bunch of tests
... I've been looking at a bunch of test suites e.g. CSS, Annes, etc.
... We want to leverage as much "Collective Wisdom" as possible
... and thus get it right the 1st time

AB: do you need someone to ping Dom about this?

MC: I've already done that
... on the MWTS mail list for sure, perhaps public-webapps too
... I'll send another request today

AB: this is excellent; thanks!

View Modes spec:

AB: Marcin recently updated the View Modes (VM) spec ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm/ ). Let's first see where we are the FPWD's ToDo list created by Robin a few weeks ago ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0218.html ). Based on that discussion, we will probably need to assign actions for some of the list items.

MH: several of these items are now done
... I am keeping a list; the rest should be done by tomorrow
... Event intitializers still needs to be discussed
... that thread was started by Cam and Robin
... need to copy some definitions and/or link to them

AB: any comments about Marcin's status?
... do we want to cover http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0764.html today?

MC: yes; I think so

MH: yes

View Modes spec: Proposal: split the specification, add new events

AB: earlier today, Marcin submitted a proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0764.html to split the VM spec into two

MH: there is some inconistency between VM and MQ spec
... I think it would be better to split the spec into two separate specs
... keep the MQ and Events together in a new spec
... Ch #3 of the current doc would go in one spec
... Ch #4 would go in the new spec

AB: any feedback on splitting the spec?
... Given this proposal is very recent, I'm a little reluctant to make a decision on the split now
... OTOH, if this is blocking progress, we can increase the urgency of a decision

MH: I'm OK with waiting

AB: if we do a split, are you Marcin, willing to be the main Editor and driver?

MH: yes
... the one spec probably will not be part of the Widgets 1.0 spec suite but the other will be

AB: I'll respond to the proposal and ask WG members to submit feedback on the proposal by August 27

<scribe> ACTION: barstow respond to Marcin's VM spec split [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-394 - Respond to Marcin's VM spec split [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-27].

MH: I will follow-up with my email with some more details and include CSS WG

AB: good idea
... any other feedback on the spec split?

MC: I have no objections to the spec split

BS: I don't have a strong opinion;
... want to get a better understanding of what is put in the widget spec space versus the broader Web Apps use cases

MH: CSS Media Queries is relevant here
... if the View Modes is part of the Widgets spec suite, reader will assume the context is for widgets

BS: need to get a better understanding of what goes into the two different specs

MH: think we need a separate document that ties all of the Widgets specs together

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#widgets-1.0-family-of-specifications

<scribe> ACTION: barstow what is good way to capture the notion of "Family of Widget Specs"? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-395 - What is good way to capture the notion of "Family of Widget Specs"? [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-27].

<marcin2> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#widgets-1.0-family-of-specifications has 6 docs

AB: anything else on the spec split for today?

<marcin2> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-apis/#widgets-1.0-family-of-specifications has 7 docs

[ No ]

VM spec: Best practice and scalability

AB: earlier this week Richard Tibbett sent an email about the VM spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0667.html ) and I don't think anyone has yet responded.
... I believe Richard is a member of the WG
... one option is to postpone discussion until Richard can join us
... another option is to follow-up on the mail list

MC: I prefer the mail list option

AB: any other opinions?

MH: mail list

AB: all - please followup Richard
... email on the list

BS: think we need some discussion Richard's email
... need more discussion about events and scalability

URI Scheme spec: next steps

AB: the last publication of the URI Scheme spec was 18 June. What is the status of that spec ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ ) and what are the next steps?
... I notice now that Robin isn't here
... We will postpone discussion unless someone has some urgent comments on this spec

[ None ]

AOB

AB: Marcos, any recent emails we want to discuss now?

MC: not really

AB: WebStorage?

MC: WebStorage changing to arbitrary data will affect A+E spec
... the LCWD is no longer correct

AB: that's not good

MC: a lot of the related discussions are happening on the WHAT WG mail list
... which I don't follow
... nor the HTML5 list

BS: what's the main change?

MC: Storage used to just be Strings and now it can be anything
... that will affect implementation
... could in theory store the Storage or Window object
... need to understand the reason the spec was changed
... think there is a now a req to store structured data e.g. JSON
... originally, Storage was just for Strings

BS: so now I could store an image?

MC: yes, I think in theory that is now possible
... Look at the latest ED

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/

http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/

AB: so this has the potential to have a serious impact on the A+E LC?

MC: the spec will need to change
... not clear yet if that change will be considered Serious or not
... I need to learn more about "why" the spec changed

AB: any other AOB for today?

[ None ]

AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: barstow respond to Marcin's VM spec split [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow what is good way to capture the notion of "Family of Widget Specs"? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/08/20 14:00:51 $

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 Bryan Marcin Arve Marcos
Regrets: Frederick
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0741.html
Found Date: 20 Aug 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow good is respond way what

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]