See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<anne2> Marcos, public-webapps / whatwg ?
Date: 20 August 2009
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
AB: the draft agenda agenda included 3 reminders/announcements. Does anyone have any short announcements they want to make?
[ None ]
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
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!
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
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 ]
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
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 ]
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
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]