IRC log of wam on 2009-10-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:02:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:02:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:02:08 [darobin]
Zakim, who's here?
13:02:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Art_Barstow, Mauro
13:02:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, marcin2, Zakim, Steven, Marcos, JereK, fjh, Viper23, anne, ArtB, darobin, marcin, shepazu, heycam, trackbot
13:02:11 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
13:02:17 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
13:02:20 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
13:02:24 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
13:02:30 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conf
13:02:31 [Zakim]
13:02:36 [ArtB]
Date: 1 October 2009
13:02:39 [Zakim]
13:02:45 [ArtB]
13:03:06 [darobin]
Zakim, who's here?
13:03:08 [ArtB]
Regrets: Josh, Arve
13:03:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Art_Barstow, Mauro, marcin, fjh
13:03:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, marcin2, Zakim, Steven, Marcos, JereK, fjh, Viper23, anne, ArtB, darobin, marcin, shepazu, heycam, trackbot
13:03:46 [ArtB]
Present: Art, Marcin, Frederick, Robin
13:03:56 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-work
13:03:56 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
13:03:58 [Zakim]
13:04:05 [ArtB]
Regrets+ JereK
13:04:06 [drogersuk]
drogersuk has joined #wam
13:04:13 [ArtB]
Present+ Steven
13:04:54 [Zakim]
13:05:12 [ArtB]
Present+ David
13:05:18 [ArtB]
Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:05:24 [ArtB]
AB: Agenda posted Sep 30 ( ). Any change requests?
13:05:42 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:05:43 [ArtB]
Topic: Announcements
13:06:05 [ArtB]
AB: any short announcements? Reminder to register for the Nov 2-3 f2f meeting and TPAC ( )
13:06:16 [Steven]
13:06:23 [ArtB]
AB: any other?
13:06:38 [ArtB]
SP: please do register; early bird registration is Oct 5
13:06:49 [ArtB]
Topic: DigSig spec: Test Assertions and Test Suite Status
13:07:03 [ArtB]
AB: earlier this week Dom sent an update on the DigSig Test Suite ( ). He and MWTS continue to do good work including a DigSig Test Plan ( ). Is there anything else to add re this test suite?
13:07:27 [fjh]
13:07:32 [Steven]
13:07:48 [ArtB]
FH: I think the goal is syntactic assertions
13:08:24 [ArtB]
... not sure on the goal
13:08:38 [ArtB]
AB: would you please FH ask your question re goal on the mail list?
13:08:51 [ArtB]
FH: yes; and I'll add something to the IRC log
13:09:03 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on the DigSig test suite?
13:09:06 [fjh]
s/I think the goal is syntactic assertions/it seems we can use assertions for syntactic checking, and then compare signature values for signature generation and verification
13:09:10 [ArtB]
AB: any info to share on who is implementing this spec?
13:09:45 [drogersuk]
zakim unmute drogersus
13:09:49 [drogersuk]
zakim unmute drogersuk
13:09:50 [ArtB]
RB: is Nokia implementing it?
13:10:00 [drogersuk]
grr zakim
13:10:08 [ArtB]
AB: I am not aware of any information Nokia has made about implementing widget specs
13:10:28 [ArtB]
DR: I think you can search the lists
13:10:35 [Zakim]
+ +1.452.9.aacc
13:10:57 [ArtB]
... think the question could be answered by looking at the mail lists
13:10:59 [Zakim]
13:11:12 [ArtB]
DR: is Nokia implemmenting the DigSig and can you Art find out?
13:11:17 [fhirsch]
fhirsch has joined #wam
13:11:26 [ArtB]
AB: I answered the first part of the question
13:11:54 [ArtB]
AB: I can find out what has been stated publicly about what we are implemting
13:11:58 [ArtB]
DR: that would be good
13:12:12 [ArtB]
... there is a fair amount of info
13:12:37 [drogersuk]
13:12:41 [drogersuk]
13:12:43 [drogersuk]
13:12:43 [ArtB]
... not sure about DigSig spec but probably more about P+C spec
13:13:14 [ArtB]
AB: I am not aware of any public statements that Nokia has made regarding implementing Widget specs
13:13:44 [darobin]
13:14:34 [drogersuk]
Please can you go away and find out?
13:14:36 [ArtB]
AB: David, please enter your question into IRC
13:14:54 [Zakim]
13:15:00 [drogersuk]
If you can make a public statement in relation to implementation of digsig
13:15:24 [Zakim]
13:15:25 [ArtB]
AB: AFAIK, Nokia employes are not allowed to make public statements about their implementation plans
13:15:33 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #wam
13:15:39 [ArtB]
DR: ok; that's what I was asking
13:15:43 [drogersuk]
13:15:48 [ArtB]
AB: anything else about impl?
13:16:05 [fhirsch]
13:16:07 [ArtB]
RB: Aplix has released some info
13:16:09 [fhirsch]
13:16:12 [fhirsch]
13:16:14 [fhirsch]
13:16:18 [ArtB]
... I think it supports signing
13:16:43 [darobin]
s/I think it/it
13:16:54 [ArtB]
FH: it would be good to have a list of links
13:16:58 [ArtB]
RB: yes, of course
13:17:12 [ArtB]
... Marcos, are you implementing DigSig?
13:17:14 [ArtB]
MC: not sure
13:17:26 [ArtB]
... we can only confirm we are implementing P+C
13:17:47 [fhirsch]
zakim, fhirsch is fjh
13:17:47 [Zakim]
sorry, fhirsch, I do not recognize a party named 'fhirsch'
13:17:53 [fhirsch]
zakim, fjh is fhirsch
13:17:53 [Zakim]
sorry, fhirsch, I do not recognize a party named 'fjh'
13:17:54 [ArtB]
... I can check though
13:18:09 [fhirsch]
zakim, fhirsch is Frederick_Hirsch
13:18:09 [Zakim]
sorry, fhirsch, I do not recognize a party named 'fhirsch'
13:18:17 [fhirsch]
zakim, Frederick_Hirsch is fjh
13:18:17 [Zakim]
+fjh; got it
13:18:26 [ArtB]
AB: FH, as to your question, see
13:18:36 [ArtB]
... we can add new info
13:18:57 [fhirsch]
zakim, mute me
13:18:57 [Zakim]
sorry, fhirsch, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
13:19:10 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: Test Suite questions
13:19:21 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos sent an email that enumerates spec redundancies that were found during the test fest ( ). He agreed with all but one of the redundancies.
13:19:32 [drogersuk]
zakim, mute me
13:19:32 [Zakim]
drogersuk should now be muted
13:19:45 [fhirsch]
zakim, fhirsch is fjh
13:19:45 [Zakim]
sorry, fhirsch, I do not recognize a party named 'fhirsch'
13:19:47 [ArtB]
AB: if anyone disagrees with Marcos' proposals, send your feedback to public-webapps
13:20:22 [ArtB]
AB: I think there was exchange between RB and MC on one of them
13:20:46 [ArtB]
AB: your proposals seemed reasonable to me
13:21:02 [darobin]
should we look at agreeing on ?
13:23:12 [ArtB]
MC: need to say what to do if zip isn't labeled
13:23:25 [ArtB]
... should it be a must if from hard disk
13:23:42 [ArtB]
RB: but if on the disc, system could give you something different than if from the net
13:23:50 [ArtB]
MC: do we make this a must?
13:24:37 [ArtB]
RB: I don't feel strongly on this
13:25:24 [ArtB]
AB: so wrt ta-VngNBkhUXz, leave it as is?
13:25:25 [ArtB]
MC: yes
13:25:29 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
13:25:32 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:25:56 [ArtB]
AB: what about a-HTgovPjElK?
13:26:01 [ArtB]
RB: it is redundant
13:26:10 [ArtB]
... we can try to create something like an Acid test
13:26:16 [ArtB]
... we can keep it
13:26:25 [ArtB]
MC: I don't think we want Acid tests at this point
13:26:45 [drogersuk]
That is potentially on the table for the future in MWI
13:26:55 [ArtB]
RB: we need feedback from implementors
13:27:02 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #wam
13:27:26 [ArtB]
13:28:08 [ArtB]
RB: I think we just keep
13:28:12 [ArtB]
MC: I agree
13:28:17 [ArtB]
AB: any disagreements?
13:28:19 [ArtB]
[ No ]
13:28:30 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: bug in Rule for Identifying the Media Type of a File
13:28:38 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos identified a bug in the ABNF for zip relative paths ( ). Marcin proposed a fix.
13:29:06 [ArtB]
AB: have you looked at Marcin's patch?
13:29:50 [ArtB]
MC: could change the prose instead of changing the ABNF
13:30:02 [marcin2]
13:30:26 [ArtB]
... option #2 is to just change some prose
13:31:18 [darobin]
ack marcin
13:31:25 [ArtB]
AB: options are to change the ABNF or the prose and there are two ways to handle it via prose changes
13:31:25 [fhirsch]
13:31:40 [ArtB]
MC: I don't think we need to update the prose but do need to change the ABNF
13:31:40 [fhirsch]
ack fjh
13:31:43 [fhirsch]
ack fhirsch
13:31:54 [ArtB]
s/MC: I don't/MH: I don't/
13:32:09 [ArtB]
MC: agree the ABNF has an ambiguity
13:32:28 [ArtB]
... think we need to change ABNF and prose
13:32:46 [ArtB]
MH: I am OK with modifying both
13:32:58 [ArtB]
... i.e. add sniffing
13:33:43 [ArtB]
AB: would like MC and MH to work on a proposal and submit it to the list
13:33:48 [ArtB]
MC: OK; I'll do that
13:34:17 [ArtB]
ACTION: Marcos submit a proposal to address the Rule for Identifying MT of a file bug
13:34:17 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-408 - Submit a proposal to address the Rule for Identifying MT of a file bug [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
13:34:25 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C: Proposal to move Conformance Checker assertions from P&C spec to another doc
13:34:34 [ArtB]
AB: since we are not aware of any implementations of the Conformance Checker requirements, Marcos proposed ( ) they be moved into a separate spec. Any comments on this proposal?
13:35:12 [ArtB]
AB: does anyone object to this proposal?
13:35:22 [ArtB]
Present+ Benoit
13:35:26 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: P&C Conformance Checker requirements will be removed
13:35:43 [ArtB]
AB: we can figure out later how to handle it
13:35:59 [darobin]
13:36:02 [ArtB]
MC: it's already in a new standalone doc
13:36:13 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C: Test suite status
13:36:17 [Marcos]
13:36:20 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, Kai, Dom, et al. have done some good work on the P&C test suite ( ). What's the status of the test suite?
13:37:06 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda
13:37:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-409 - Add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-08].
13:37:50 [ArtB]
MC: all of the tests were verified during the test event
13:37:57 [ArtB]
... that means someone checked each of them
13:38:06 [ArtB]
... I now to copy them into the master XML file
13:38:11 [ArtB]
... and check for consistency
13:38:23 [ArtB]
... also need to remove some redundant assertions
13:38:36 [ArtB]
AB: what type of time frame?
13:38:40 [ArtB]
MC: about a week
13:38:46 [ArtB]
... there are about 160 tests
13:39:07 [ArtB]
AB: are there still some TAs that are outside our repo?
13:39:17 [ArtB]
MC: no, I was told they are now in w3 domain
13:39:26 [ArtB]
AB: cool; last comments?
13:39:34 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C: Next steps & planning
13:39:43 [ArtB]
AB: we've had a couple of thread related to next steps for P&C, latest one is ( ). The fact is, sufficient issues have been identified in CR#1 that we must go back to Working Draft.
13:40:03 [ArtB]
AB: although in theory we could skip CR#2, I am reluctant to do so as I indicated in ( ). Any comments on that?
13:40:26 [drogersuk]
zakim, unmute drogersuk
13:40:26 [Zakim]
drogersuk should no longer be muted
13:40:53 [ArtB]
RB: I don't see any value in skipping CR#2
13:41:07 [ArtB]
... same timeline diff
13:41:10 [drogersuk]
Art you stated that you don't know that anyone is implementing P&C - there are some public statements about that
13:41:20 [ArtB]
... we should go to CR ASAP
13:41:43 [ArtB]
DR: we have quite a few implementations we know about
13:41:50 [ArtB]
... e.g. Microsoft
13:42:13 [ArtB]
... we know Opera has implemented
13:42:19 [ArtB]
... we think Nokia has as well
13:42:30 [ArtB]
AB: re the plan going forward, according to Dom, we can publish a new LC before CR#1 ends. This seems like a process bug to me because I think a reasonable interpretation of "a PR will not be published before Nov 1" is "I have until October 31 to submit comments about CR#1". As such, I'm concerned that publishing CR#2 on or before Oct 31 could mean we miss comments.
13:43:41 [ArtB]
DR: how long is CR#2?
13:43:50 [ArtB]
RB: we must go to LC
13:44:04 [ArtB]
... LC starts an exclusion period that lasts 8 weeks
13:44:14 [ArtB]
... shortest LC period is 3 weeks
13:44:57 [ArtB]
DR: is this a sequential period?
13:45:16 [ArtB]
RB: during the exclusion period we can pub a new CR but we cannot exit CR
13:45:55 [ArtB]
BS: not sure about exclusion period
13:46:05 [ArtB]
RB: the only exclusion we have is on Updates spec
13:47:27 [ArtB]
RB: DR was aksing about timeline
13:47:32 [drogersuk]
what would be the earliest date we could exit LC#2
13:47:55 [drogersuk]
a date to aim for
13:47:55 [ArtB]
... when ever we publish LC, we can expect to exit CR at the earliest about 8 weeks after entering LC
13:48:02 [drogersuk]
for CR
13:48:15 [Steven]
CR can be zero length
13:48:53 [ArtB]
DR: if we publish LC next week, earliest we can exit CR is 8 weeks later
13:48:57 [drogersuk]
So realistically we're looking at about Christmas eve?
13:49:08 [drogersuk]
A nice Christmas present?
13:49:11 [drogersuk]
13:49:16 [ArtB]
AB: on the other hand, we all want P&C to continue to progress ASAP
13:49:54 [ArtB]
AB: what needs to be done before we can publish a new LC?
13:50:03 [ArtB]
MC: we need to add fxes for ABNF
13:50:22 [ArtB]
... need to remove redundancies
13:50:46 [ArtB]
... before we publish a new doc want to have TS completed
13:51:43 [ArtB]
AB: note we must also address all other comments that came in during the CR e.g. the WAI P+F WG
13:51:56 [ArtB]
RB: we must address all comments before LC
13:52:01 [ArtB]
AB: agree
13:52:02 [drogersuk]
Art - I just noticed you're attributing some of Robin's comments to me :-) RB and DR
13:52:39 [ArtB]
AB: here is a pointer
13:53:07 [drogersuk]
zakim, mute drogersuk
13:53:07 [Zakim]
drogersuk should now be muted
13:53:54 [ArtB]
AB: please respond to WAI comments
13:54:07 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on P+C for today?
13:54:13 [Marcos]
ACTION: Marcos to respond to
13:54:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-410 - Respond to [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
13:54:32 [ArtB]
RB: have we agree to a timeline for P+C?
13:54:50 [ArtB]
AB: AFAIC, we should publish a new LC when we are ready
13:55:17 [ArtB]
RB: Marcos, how much time do you think you need?
13:55:25 [ArtB]
MC: I will try for 1-week
13:55:41 [ArtB]
AB: I know I want some review time
13:55:57 [ArtB]
AB: what do I review?
13:56:05 [ArtB]
... is the TSE going to be the main spec?
13:56:13 [ArtB]
MC: yes but without the styles
13:56:33 [Marcos]
13:56:36 [ArtB]
AB: so everyone should start reviewing the TSE
13:57:03 [ArtB]
Topic: TWI spec: Closing widget Interface issues
13:57:10 [ArtB]
AB: the Instance versus Origin issue has plagued this spec for quite a while now ( ). It appears there is now agreement to use Instance and to remove the dependency on Origin as defined in the Widget URI scheme spec.
13:57:52 [ArtB]
AB: so we now need to agree on a defn of Instance, correct Marcos?
13:58:00 [ArtB]
MC: yes that's true
13:58:08 [ArtB]
AB: what is the plan for a proposed definition?
13:58:46 [ArtB]
MC: I will check in changes soon
13:58:51 [ArtB]
RB: this change is OK with me
13:59:08 [ArtB]
MC: TWI has no dependency on URI spec
13:59:21 [ArtB]
... defining Instance is a bit tricky
13:59:42 [ArtB]
ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of Widget Instance
13:59:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-411 - Submit a proposal for the definition of Widget Instance [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
14:00:07 [ArtB]
Topic: TWI spec: TWI and View Modes
14:00:17 [ArtB]
AB: last week Marcin sent an email about TWI and View Modes spec ( ).
14:01:03 [ArtB]
MH: I have an answer to the main question
14:01:17 [ArtB]
... it will need some discussion when we get to VM-I spec
14:01:35 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on this for today?
14:01:37 [ArtB]
[ No ]
14:01:43 [ArtB]
Topic: TWI spec: A&E LC comments
14:01:52 [ArtB]
AB: Marcin sent two sets of comments re the TWI LC spec: ( ) and ( )
14:01:56 [tlr]
tlr has joined #wam
14:02:21 [ArtB]
AB: do we have consensus yet?
14:02:28 [ArtB]
MH: localization is still open
14:02:45 [ArtB]
... and don't have consensus on features
14:02:56 [ArtB]
... I still need to follow-up
14:03:14 [marcin2]
I plan to respond to
14:03:24 [ArtB]
RB: I think we should push this to v2
14:03:38 [ArtB]
MH: I think there are use cases for these
14:03:46 [ArtB]
... think we should follow-up on the list
14:04:06 [ArtB]
Topic: TWI spec: Status of LC comment responses and their tracking
14:04:13 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, what is the status of the TWI LC comment tracking doc ( )?
14:04:52 [ArtB]
AB: you want to maintain this doc even though we will publish a new LC
14:05:13 [ArtB]
MC: yes; I think we need to do this because we may not get any comments during LC#2
14:05:20 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #wam
14:05:38 [ArtB]
AB: so you will add all of the data?
14:05:39 [ArtB]
MC: yes
14:05:50 [ArtB]
... there are only 3-4 threads
14:06:02 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on TWI for today?
14:06:42 [ArtB]
AB: if we want to get a new LC before TPAC, we just have a few weeks
14:06:49 [ArtB]
6. View Modes Media Features spec:
14:07:01 [Zakim]
14:07:06 [ArtB]
Topic: View Modes Media Feature Spec
14:07:11 [ArtB]
AB: we still haven't published a FPWD of VM-MF spec. I think it is particularly urgent to get something published before we republish P&C spec so we have a "real" spec to reference (not just some ED). Robin sent some comments ( ).
14:07:48 [ArtB]
AB: where are we?
14:07:55 [ArtB]
MH: I tried to address his comments
14:08:05 [ArtB]
... I agree with all of them
14:08:16 [ArtB]
... I changed the layout quite a bit, especially Section 3
14:08:21 [ArtB]
... I will continue to work on it
14:08:45 [darobin]
14:08:46 [ArtB]
AB: you think it is ready now for FPWD?
14:08:59 [ArtB]
MH: yes; want to get Public feedback now
14:10:03 [ArtB]
AB: if we were to record consensus now that it is ready for FPWD, then it could be published by Oct 6 and that would give MH some time to add prose.
14:10:17 [ArtB]
AB: is this what we want to do?
14:10:27 [ArtB]
RB: yes; works for me
14:10:32 [ArtB]
MC: good plans
14:10:38 [ArtB]
MH: yes, OK
14:11:00 [ArtB]
AB: propose VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD
14:11:04 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
14:11:06 [ArtB]
[ None ]
14:11:16 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD
14:11:48 [darobin]
14:12:07 [ArtB]
AB: I think MC and RB can help with pub rules
14:12:27 [ArtB]
Topic: Widget URI spec
14:12:29 [darobin]
14:12:42 [ArtB]
RB: I re-wrote it entirely
14:12:51 [ArtB]
... it's much better
14:12:57 [ArtB]
... think it is ready for LC
14:13:05 [ArtB]
MC: think it's good
14:13:17 [darobin]
s/good/good and fun to read/
14:13:22 [ArtB]
... it address the concerns I had
14:13:34 [ArtB]
AB: any other feedback?
14:14:38 [ArtB]
AB: I haven't looked at it yet and want to review it
14:15:12 [ArtB]
... how about we give people until Tues morning to submit comments and if none are submitted, I'll submit a Trans Req for LC?
14:15:18 [ArtB]
RB: OK with me
14:15:31 [ArtB]
14:16:05 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: we will publish a LCWD of the Widget URI scheme spec if no major issues are raised by Oc 6
14:16:13 [ArtB]
Topic: AOB
14:16:17 [ArtB]
AB: any topics?
14:16:20 [ArtB]
[ None ]
14:16:26 [ArtB]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
14:16:34 [Zakim]
14:16:36 [Zakim]
- +1.452.9.aacc
14:16:37 [Zakim]
14:16:39 [Zakim]
14:16:39 [Zakim]
14:16:40 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:16:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
14:16:41 [Zakim]
14:16:59 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
14:17:05 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:17:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
14:18:15 [drogersuk]
drogersuk has left #wam
14:19:21 [Zakim]
14:19:23 [Zakim]
IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:19:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.617.588.aaaa, Art_Barstow, +1.617.588.aabb, marcin, fjh, darobin, Steven, drogersuk, +1.452.9.aacc, Marcos
14:19:31 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, bye
14:19:31 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in :
14:19:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Marcos submit a proposal to address the Rule for Identifying MT of a file bug [1]
14:19:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:19:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda [2]
14:19:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:19:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Marcos to respond to [3]
14:19:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:19:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of Widget Instance [4]
14:19:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in