Widgets Voice Conference

27 Aug 2009


See also: IRC log


Art, Arve, Marcos, Jere, Marcin, AndyB, Benoit, Josh, Robin, AnneVK




<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 27 August 2009

Review and tweak agenda

AB: draft agenda distributed on August 26 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0823.html ). Any change requests?

[ None ]


AB: Reminders on upcoming deadlines: 1) Sep 14 is deadline to register for Widgets Testing event ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TestWorkshop2009 ); 2) Sep 15 comment deadline for APIs and Events LCWD; 3) Sep 20 comment deadline for WARP LCWD
... Does anyone have any short announcements?

[ None ]

P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization

AB: on August 14 Marcin asked I18N Core WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0644.html ) for feedback on IRI/URI normalization. Addison replied ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0645.html ) with his personal comments but indicated the WG would review our request. Marcin, what's the status?
... found http://www.w3.org/2009/08/26-core-minutes.html#item05

<marcin2> I have not seen the update yet.

MH: no, I have no additional info on their discussions

AB: OK, I'll ping Addison on this

P&C spec: Test template

AB: on August 20 Marcos asked the MWTS WG too review the test template ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0769.html ). Marcos, what is the status?

MC: they have not yet responded

AB: I did ping Dom privately and got a message he is out of the office this week
... I'll ping him next week if he doesn't follow up


AB: is this blocking you Marcos?

MC: no
... we are progressing though as if we will get an OK from them

AB: that seems reasonable
... any other comments on this topic?
... any thing else on P+C for today?

[ No ]

A&E spec: proposal to change name to Widgets 1.0: widget interface

AB: on August 20 Marcos proposed ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0774.html ) to change the name of the A&E spec to "Widgets 1.0: widget Interface". Are there any objections to that proposal?

RB: I'm ok with this

Arve: I'm OK with this change

<marcin2> +1

AB: I'm OK with it

<JereK> +1


RESOLUTION: A&E spec will be renamed to "Widgets 1.0: widget Interface"

BS: what about short name?

RB: I think we can keep it

MC: agree

<Benoit> ;)

widget Interface spec: Storage Object

AB: on August 21 Scott Wilson ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0783.html ) asked some questions about the Storage interface. I don't believe anyone has responded to him. Marcos, what are the key issues here? The latest ED for WebStorage is http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/

MC: some things are underspecified
... re the Storage interface
... this is section 5.1
... I need to catch up on this thread

AB: anyone else have any comments?

[ No ]

AB: Marcos, how about you respond on the mail list?

MC: yes; I've started a draft response
... I agree we need to tighten the spec
... we made to do another LC
... but maybe it will just be a clarification
... I think this can be implemented in JS
... His concern is about hiding data
... and making some parts private
... thus a concern about querying
... There are some JS structures to protect data
... but it is easy for one object in JS to delete other objects
... I still think it is implementable in JS
... Perhaps Robin has some comments here.

RB: I also need to catch up on this thread

AB: what is the level of "done-ness" of the Web Storage spec?

MC: Hixie and the WHAT-WG made a change recently to allow storing any data type

AB: so there are no longer any existing implemenations of the Web Storage spec?

MC: yes, that's correct

AB: what can we do to help push that spec along?

MC: not much except to actively participate in the discussions ongoing in other forums e.g. WHAT-WG, HTML WG, etc.
... there are several tracking mechanims we would have to follow
... the WHAT-WG list is probably the most important list

<scribe> ACTION: barstow talk to Hixie about the publication status and plans for Web Storage [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-396 - Talk to Hixie about the publication status and plans for Web Storage [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-09-03].

Moving the "alert methods" to DAP?

AB: During the August 13 call we talked how to deal with the two alert methods that were removed from the A&E spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0791.html ). Marcos agreed (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/389 ) to talk to Hixie about HTML WG taking those two functions.
... On August 25 Robin indicated ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0818.html ) these functions are in scope for the DAP WG.
... Marcos, have you discussed this with Hixie?

MC: no, I haven't talked to him about this

AB: Robin, do you have an Editor commitment within DAP?

RB: it's too early to tell
... but in theory we have an Editor for the UI spec of DAP
... not can't say for certain

AB: Arve, you expressed some concerns about DAP taking on these functions

Arve: I think Robin's response covered my concerns
... I'm not too concerned about where they are defined

AB: do we have agreement that DAP will define these functions?

MC: I agree

RB: I agree

AB: are there any objections to that proposal?

Arve: not me; I agree

MC: I don't think it matters much but they do need to be define

RB: you could join DAP

<arve> +1

MC: I'm subscribed to DAP's list but not a member of the WG

RESOLUTION: the alert methods removed from the A&E spec will be specified by DAP WG with cooperation from WebApps WG

AB: OK Robin?

RB: yes

AB: anything else about the widget Interface spec?

[ None ]

View Modes spec: Issue-97 -> How is ViewModes DOM related to CSSOM?

AB: Anne noted ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0800.html ) there is some overlap between the CSSOM View Module and the latest ED of the VM spec ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm ). Marcin raised this as Issue-97 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97 )

<arve> we can hear you

AB: Anne and Marcin, want to find a way forward on this spec

<annevk> hmm

<annevk> if I sit closer to the Mac I can't see the screen

<marcin2> you could type what you say

<annevk> I'll just type

<annevk> the main problem I noted was that there was overlap between the interfaces

<annevk> and I was wondering whether that overlap had been studied

<annevk> I haven't reviewed View Modes in full

<marcin2> it was not studied thoroughly yet

MH: yes, I noticed this overlap
... we will need to review each others specs
... and determine a way forward
... I think splitting View Modes spec will help us
... one part is Media feature; other is the interfaces
... think we can get quick agreement on Media feature
... and it does not overlap at all with CSSOM spec
... think priority should be the Media spec
... then we can take on the interfaces

AB: I get the sense that discussing the interfaces now prolly isn't the #1 priority
... until we do more analysis, we should postpone discussion on the interfaces

AvK: it may make more sense for the CSS WG to define the APIs

AB: thanks Anne for joining us; we will get back to you after we do more work on the interfaces

MC: if need be, perhaps someone from WebApps can join CSS WG and help form a bridge between the two WGs

MH: think first we should split the spec
... then we could propose APIs are spec'ed by CSS WG
... I think we can define the Media feature

MC: I don't care so much where the specs are done
... more important that the specs Get Done
... but we can't rely on CSS WG to do our work

MH: think we should define Media feature here in WebApps
... and them give them the interfaces

MC: but we'll need to give them resource to define the interfaces

MH: a concern I have is their scope is broader than our requirements
... I agree though we should do more about our interfaces
... but need to work closely with CSS WG
... want to avoid us creating something for which CSS WG finds problematic

AB: we can certainly ask them to review anything we want
... we can't guarantee a response

RB: we need to be careful about tracking whether or not they respond

AB: agree; that means I'll need to follow-up with the CSS WG Chairs and/or their Team Contact

<annevk> (nitpicking on the sideline here: you're required to reply actually)

View Modes spec: Issue-96 -> Should we split the ViewModes specification?

AB: on August 20 Marcin sent an email to CSS WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0764.html ) that asked for feedback about a propose spec split. On August 24 Robin sent a follow-up to CSS WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0799.html ). Marcin raised this as Issue-96 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/96 ).

MH: I created this to track the question

AB: what you did is OK
... what do people think about this?

MC: ok to split

RB: OK with me

AB: anyone object to splitting the spec?

[ None]

RESOLUTION: the VM spec will be split into two parts interfaces and View Mode Media feature

MH: we can discuss spec titles with CSS WG
... I will split the spec into two specs
... I will get this FPWD ready ASAP

AB: I think you should get the Media feature spec ready first

MH: will do but I willl be on holiday most of next week

<scribe> ACTION: barstow close issue #96 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-397 - Close issue #96 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-09-03].

View Modes spec: Issue-98 -> Cargo-culting (Relation DOM3 Events)

AB: Marcin raised ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/98 ) this issue on August 26 after a related discussion on www-dom and public-webapps but it appears there is consensus o( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0814.html ) n how to address this issue. Marcin, what's the status of this Issue?

MH: there are a few sub-issues
... what is closed is the type argurment
... the bubbling and canceling still needs some discussion
... we need to talk with the DOM people
... but these issues are part of the VM Interfaces spec so not the highest priority ATM
... we can discussion started with DOM and CSS WG after we get a FPWD out
... we could close this issue and create a new one re bubbling and canceling

AB: that's OK with me
... anyone object to that?

RB: I'm fine with that

[ No other objections ]

RESOLUTION: Issue #98 will be closed and Marcin will create a new issue related to Bubbling and Canceling events vis-a-vis the VM Interfaces spec

AB: anything else on View Modes for today?

[ None ]

URI Scheme spec: status and next steps

AB: the URI Scheme spec's FPWD was 18 June ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ )

RB: we haven't had much feedback
... was expecting more feedback from TAG despite me prodding them
... Not sure what to do next
... We could fix the technical issues and then publish a LCWD
... That would prolly be the easiest way

MC: I agree we should do that

RB: I'm happy to make the related fixes

AB: I tend to support that proposal
... I don't think we'll get any more feedback until we publish a LCWD
... any objections to preparing a LCWD of the URI Scheme spec?

[ None ]

<scribe> ACTION: Berjon prepare URI Scheme spec for LCWD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-398 - Prepare URI Scheme spec for LCWD [on Robin Berjon - due 2009-09-03].

RB: I'll try to get it ready in one week

AB: OK, so then let's try to be in a position where on Sep 3 we can make a Yes/No decision


AB: anything?

... we in ACCESS are thinking about objecting to this spec
... I provided some info a while ago
... the feature element and this spec is the basis for our concern
... the subdomain attribute of access element is a problem area
... think we need a more extensible design
... may want to include other URI schemes e.g. sms:, tel:, etc.
... also the name of the spec is an issue
... need more work on security model
... need more spec on what is done in the proc model and what is defined in the syntax of <access>
... need to have some related discussions in DAP

RB: can you put your concerns in an email?

MH: yes, I will do that

RB: for each issue, please raise a LC issue
... if you are not satisified with the WG's response, that will lead to a Formal Objection

MH: my email will include proposals on how to address the issues I raise

RB: please indicate the issues are against the LC doc

AB: anything else on this subject?
... one reason we had a long review period for WARP was to give DAP some time to ramp up and review it
... any other topics for AOB?

[ None ]

AB: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: barstow close issue #96 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow talk to Hixie about the publication status and plans for Web Storage [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Berjon prepare URI Scheme spec for LCWD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/08/27 14:07:51 $

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)

Succeeded: s/we nee/we need/
Succeeded: s/Interraces/Interfaces/
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Present: Art Arve Marcos Jere Marcin AndyB Benoit Josh Robin AnneVK
Regrets: Frederick
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0823.html
Found Date: 27 Aug 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow berjon talk

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]