See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 27 August 2009
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 ]
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
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
MC: OK
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 ]
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
BS: OK
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> ;)
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].
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 ]
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)
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].
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 ]
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?
MH: re WARP
... 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
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]