See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date 3 September 2009
AB: the draft agenda was posted
on September 2 (
). I propose adding View Modes before AOB. Any objections to
... 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 other short announcements?
[ None ]
AB: on August 27, WAI's Protocols
and Formats WG submitted comments against the P&C LCWD (
). Although these comments are late, we should still respond to
them. Note these comments have been added to the P&C
post-LCWD comment tracker (
... Marcos, have you had a chance to review these?
MC: just briefly
... most related to Conformance Checker
AB: let's make sure we respond
MC: OK, will do
<scribe> ACTION: caceres respond to PFWG's comments on the P+C LCWD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-399 - Respond to PFWG's comments on the P+C LCWD [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-09-10].
AB: ok thanks Marcos; I don't consider this urgent
<arve> sorry for late IRC arrival
AB: this topic is continued from
our 27 August Voice Conf ( http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#item03
). Has anyone received feedback from the I18N WG on this issue
... I checked their public mail list and it appears they did not meet on Sept 2
... but I don't know if they meet weekly or not
MH: they meet later in the day, Europe time
AB: Marcos, Marcin - have you received any feedback from them?
AB: OK, I'll ping Addison
<scribe> ACTION: barstow follow-up with Addisson and Richard and I18N Core WG re the URI/IRI normalization issue for the P+C spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-400 - Follow-up with Addisson and Richard and I18N Core WG re the URI/IRI normalization issue for the P+C spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-09-10].
AB: anything else on that topic today?
[ No ]
AB: on IRC yesterday, Marcos raised the question "What are we going to do if no one implements the Conformance Checker (CC) requirements?".
MC: a question is how to we
progress the spec if no one implements the CC reqs
... we could make a call for implemenations
... and try to get a commitment
... Robin indicated in IRC that he could do an impl
... but I think we want "commericially viable" impls
... we need impls beyond academic proof of concepts
AB: what is the status from the MWTS WG on this?
MC: I don't have a update
... they did a "quick-and-dirty" impl
... as part of their validation service
... an add on to that service would be good
AB: is anyone willing to extend what MWTS has done to meet our reqs?
[ No ]
AB: I guess at this point, all we
can say is that at the end of CR we may have some testable
assertions for which there is no impl
... perhaps we will be OK if we have test cases and 2 or more impls for the P+C UA product
AB: even though we may not have impls for the CC product
MC: my priority at the moment is
the P+C UA product
... we will probably have about 200 tests
AB: anything else on testing Marcos?
MC: I am having some issues with CVS
MH: I was having a similar issue
a few weeks ago
... Kai and Dom can help here
MC: OK; I'll try that
AB: Marcos, if you continue to have problems let me know
MC: looking back, we should have
built the test suite during Last Call and not wait until
... before we progress any other spec to CR, we should do real work on the test suite
... especially for Widgets Interface and WARP specs
... as well as Widgets URI spec
AB: that seems like a good idea to me
AB: Steven, thanks for joining us!
SP: I am based in Amsterdam
... been involved with XHMTL, HTML, XForms, CSS, etc.
... involved with two WGs and some various Task Forces
... I was asked to help with this group but my time is limited
AB: OK; thanks for joining and we look forward to having your expertise to help us!
AB: last week we discussed Scott Wilson's thread ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0783.html ) related to the Web Storage spec ( http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ ). Marcos, during our 27 August call you indicated ( http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html#item06 ) you were going to send a response to Scott.
MC: I haven't completed that
... but I will respond before the end of the week
AB: anything else on this
... a new WD of the Web Storage WD should be published next week
... we need that spec to continue given our dependency on it
AB: on August 27, Marcin submitted comments ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0844.html ) for the WARP LCWD. We want detailed discussions to occur on public-webapps but let's take some time now to let Marcin summarize his proposed changes.
MH: the access element and its
syntax and semantics
... it would be changed to be based on the feature element
... I propose some syntax changes
... the subdomain attr is problematic e.g. doesn't support more protocols
... the uri attr is also a prob
... e.g. the value "*" is too loose
... I propose we move from the access element to the feature element
... Need to support other protocols beyond http e.g. tel:, sms:, etc.
MC: we also thought about
enabling network via the feature element
... but we think using access element simplifies the model a bit
... Doing it all via feature is a bit convoluted
... The sec policy will permit or not stuff like tel:
... The feature stuff should eventually go away as things get included by the UA; that they will be there by default
... I see some value in Marcin's proposal but I prefer the current model
... Want to hear more feedback from the WG
MH: we need to define security
... and that is the scope of the DAP WG
... don't think WARP should define security model or policy
... there are several use cases we need to consider against warp e.g. mailto:
MC: I think we should take this up on the mail list
MH: I'm OK with that
... please answer my e-mail
MC: I will but after I take care
of some P+C issues
... I do think we think about whether WARP is too over-reaching
... and I also agree we may need to discuss this with DAP
MH: should we Cc: DAP WG?
MC: I don't think so; I suspect WARP will end up going back to WD
AB: further discussions should
continue on public-webapps
... the deadline for comments for WARP LC is 20 September
... are there related discussion in BONDI about WARP?
... BONDI has an access requirement
... we need something like WARP
... but we access to be done via features
... we defined an element that similar to WARP's <access> but it is different
... BONDI wants to be based on W3C spec
AB: any last comments on this topic?
AB: on September 2 Robin completed his action to get the Widget URIs spec ready for LCWD ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ ). By publishing a LCWD we are stating the spec is functionally complete and meets all of the relevant requirements. Are there any objections to publishing this document as LCWD?
MC: I have reservations
... I sent a bunch of feedback about one hour ago
AB: I haven't looked at it
MC: the spec meets the relevant
... but it doesn't define everything that it should
... it also doesn't have a Conformance section
... and doesn't define a "product"
... I think Robin should fix the problems I found before we publish it
... If he fixes the issues I raised, I think we would have a better LCWD document
AB: what do others think?
... Do we wait until Robin addresses MC's concerns or publish as is?
MC: I think we should fix the problems first
MH: I need to review MC's
... if Robin can fix MC's comments RS that would be good
Bryan: I support that as well
AB: you mean you want MC's comments addressed first?
AB: I'm hearing the majority of
people want to postpone publication until Robin has addressed
... so that's what we will do
... anything else on this topic for today?
[ No ]
AB: Marcin, what is the status of the View Modes spec ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm/ ). Has the spec been split?
MH: the spec isn't split yet but I intend to do the split by the end of the week
... any other status to report?
MH: not today
AB: anyone else have something for this topic?
[ No ]
MH: regarding TPAC
... can attend as a group participant
... or as an Observer
... the UI of the registration form doesn't permit a person to register as a participant for two WGs on the same day
Bryan: I have the same issue
AB: I'll raise this issue with our Team Contacts
Benoit: WebApps will have two rooms, right?
... any other AOB items?
... Next meeting: next week, same logistics. This meeting is 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/BS: I have/Bryan: I have/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Marcin Art Marcos Arve Steven Bryan Benoit Regrets: Robin AndyB Frederick Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0935.html Got date from IRC log name: 03 Sep 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow caceres respond[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]