See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 1 October 2009
AB: Agenda posted Sep 30 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1493.html ). Any change requests?
[ None ]
AB: any short announcements?
Reminder to register for the Nov 2-3 f2f meeting and TPAC (
... any other?
SP: please do register; early bird registration is Oct 5
AB: earlier this week Dom sent an update on the DigSig Test Suite ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1468.html ). He and MWTS continue to do good work including a DigSig Test Plan ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/tests/ ). Is there anything else to add re this test suite?
FH: it seems we can use
assertions for syntactic checking, and then compare signature
values for signature generation and verification
... not sure on the goal
AB: would you please FH ask your question re goal on the mail list?
FH: yes; and I'll add something to the IRC log
AB: anything else on the DigSig
... any info to share on who is implementing this spec?
<drogersuk> zakim unmute drogersus
<drogersuk> zakim unmute drogersuk
RB: is Nokia implementing it?
<drogersuk> grr zakim
AB: I am not aware of any information Nokia has made about implementing widget specs
DR: I think you can search the
... think the question could be answered by looking at the mail lists
... is Nokia implemmenting the DigSig and can you Art find out?
AB: I answered the first part of
... I can find out what has been stated publicly about what we are implemting
DR: that would be good
... there is a fair amount of info
DR: not sure about DigSig spec but probably more about P+C spec
AB: I am not aware of any public statements that Nokia has made regarding implementing Widget specs
<drogersuk> Please can you go away and find out?
AB: David, please enter your question into IRC
<drogersuk> If you can make a public statement in relation to implementation of digsig
AB: AFAIK, Nokia employes are not allowed to make public statements about their implementation plans
DR: ok; that's what I was asking
AB: anything else about impl?
RB: Aplix has released some
... it supports signing
FH: it would be good to have a list of links
RB: yes, of course
... Marcos, are you implementing DigSig?
MC: not sure
... we can only confirm we are implementing P+C
... I can check though
AB: FH, as to your question, see
... we can add new info
AB: Marcos sent an email that
enumerates spec redundancies that were found during the test
). He agreed with all but one of the redundancies.
... if anyone disagrees with Marcos' proposals, send your feedback to public-webapps
... I think there was exchange between RB and MC on one of them
... your proposals seemed reasonable to me
<darobin> should we look at agreeing on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1488.html ?
MC: need to say what to do if zip
... should it be a must if from hard disk
RB: but if on the disc, system could give you something different than if from the net
MC: do we make this a must?
RB: I don't feel strongly on this
AB: so wrt ta-VngNBkhUXz, leave it as is?
AB: any objections?
[ None ]
AB: what about ta-HTgovPjElK?
RB: it is redundant
... we can try to create something like an Acid test
... we can keep it
MC: I don't think we want Acid tests at this point
<drogersuk> That is potentially on the table for the future in MWI
RB: we need feedback from
... I think we just keep
MC: I agree
AB: any disagreements?
[ No ]
AB: Marcos identified a bug in
the ABNF for zip relative paths (
). Marcin proposed a fix.
... have you looked at Marcin's patch?
MC: could change the prose
instead of changing the ABNF
... option #2 is to just change some prose
AB: options are to change the ABNF or the prose and there are two ways to handle it via prose changes
MH: I don't think we need to update the prose but do need to change the ABNF
MC: agree the ABNF has an
... think we need to change ABNF and prose
MH: I am OK with modifying
... i.e. add sniffing
AB: would like MC and MH to work on a proposal and submit it to the list
MC: OK; I'll do that
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos submit a proposal to address the Rule for Identifying MT of a file bug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<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].
AB: since we are not aware of any
implementations of the Conformance Checker requirements, Marcos
) they be moved into a separate spec. Any comments on this
... does anyone object to this proposal?
RESOLUTION: P&C Conformance Checker requirements will be removed
AB: we can figure out later how to handle it
MC: it's already in a new standalone doc
AB: Marcos, Kai, Dom, et al. have done some good work on the P&C test suite ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting#Widgets_1.0:_Packaging_and_Configuration_spec ). What's the status of the test suite?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-409 - Add FPWD discusion of CC spec to Oct 8 agenda [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-08].
MC: all of the tests were
verified during the test event
... that means someone checked each of them
... I now to copy them into the master XML file
... and check for consistency
... also need to remove some redundant assertions
AB: what type of time frame?
MC: about a week
... there are about 160 tests
AB: are there still some TAs that are outside our repo?
MC: no, I was told they are now in w3 domain
AB: cool; last comments?
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.
... although in theory we could skip CR#2, I am reluctant to do so as I indicated in ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1499.html ). Any comments on that?
RB: I don't see any value in
... same timeline diff
<drogersuk> Art you stated that you don't know that anyone is implementing P&C - there are some public statements about that
RB: we should go to CR ASAP
DR: we have quite a few
implementations we know about
... e.g. Microsoft
... we know Opera has implemented
... we think Nokia has as well
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.
DR: how long is CR#2?
RB: we must go to LC
... LC starts an exclusion period that lasts 8 weeks
... shortest LC period is 3 weeks
DR: is this a sequential period?
RB: during the exclusion period we can pub a new CR but we cannot exit CR
BS: not sure about exclusion period
RB: the only exclusion we have is
on Updates spec
... DR was aksing about timeline
<drogersuk> what would be the earliest date we could exit LC#2
<drogersuk> a date to aim for
RB: when ever we publish LC, we can expect to exit CR at the earliest about 8 weeks after entering LC
<drogersuk> for CR
<Steven> CR can be zero length
DR: if we publish LC next week, earliest we can exit CR is 8 weeks later
<drogersuk> So realistically we're looking at about Christmas eve?
<drogersuk> A nice Christmas present?
AB: on the other hand, we all
want P&C to continue to progress ASAP
... what needs to be done before we can publish a new LC?
MC: we need to add fxes for
... need to remove redundancies
... before we publish a new doc want to have TS completed
AB: note we must also address all other comments that came in during the CR e.g. the WAI P+F WG
RB: we must address all comments before LC
<drogersuk> Art - I just noticed you're attributing some of Robin's comments to me :-) RB and DR
AB: here is a pointer
... please respond to WAI comments
... anything else on P+C for today?
<Marcos> ACTION: Marcos to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0843.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-410 - Respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0843.html [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
RB: have we agree to a timeline for P+C?
AB: AFAIC, we should publish a new LC when we are ready
RB: Marcos, how much time do you think you need?
MC: I will try for 1-week
AB: I know I want some review
... what do I review?
... is the TSE going to be the main spec?
MC: yes but without the styles
AB: so everyone should start reviewing the TSE
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
... so we now need to agree on a defn of Instance, correct Marcos?
MC: yes that's true
AB: what is the plan for a proposed definition?
MC: I will check in changes soon
RB: this change is OK with me
MC: TWI has no dependency on URI
... defining Instance is a bit tricky
<scribe> ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of Widget Instance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-411 - Submit a proposal for the definition of Widget Instance [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-08].
AB: last week Marcin sent an email about TWI and View Modes spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1203.html ).
MH: I have an answer to the main
... it will need some discussion when we get to VM-I spec
AB: anything else on this for today?
[ No ]
AB: Marcin sent two sets of
comments re the TWI LC spec: (
) and (
... do we have consensus yet?
MH: localization is still
... and don't have consensus on features
... I still need to follow-up
<marcin2> I plan to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1173.html
RB: I think we should push this to v2
MH: I think there are use cases
... think we should follow-up on the list
AB: Marcos, what is the status of
the TWI LC comment tracking doc (
... you want to maintain this doc even though we will publish a new LC
MC: yes; I think we need to do this because we may not get any comments during LC#2
AB: so you will add all of the data?
... there are only 3-4 threads
AB: anything else on TWI for
... if we want to get a new LC before TPAC, we just have a few weeks
6. View Modes Media Features spec:
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
... where are we?
MH: I tried to address his
... I agree with all of them
... I changed the layout quite a bit, especially Section 3
... I will continue to work on it
AB: you think it is ready now for FPWD?
MH: yes; want to get Public feedback now
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
... is this what we want to do?
RB: yes; works for me
MC: good plans
MH: yes, OK
AB: propose VM-MF spec is ready
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD
AB: I think MC and RB can help with pub rules
RB: I re-wrote it entirely
... it's much better
... think it is ready for LC
MC: think it's good and fun to
... it address the concerns I had
AB: any other feedback?
... I haven't looked at it yet and want to review it
... how about we give people until Tues morning to submit comments and if none are submitted, I'll submit a Trans Req for LC?
RB: OK with me
RESOLUTION: we will publish a LCWD of the Widget URI scheme spec if no major issues are raised by Oc 6
AB: any topics?
[ 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/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/ Succeeded: s/I think it/it/ Succeeded: s/a-HT/ta-HT/ Succeeded: s/MC: I don't/MH: I don't/ Succeeded: s/good/good and fun to read/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Marcin Frederick Robin Steven David Benoit Regrets: Josh Arve JereK Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1493.html Found Date: 01 Oct 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html People with action items: add barstow cc discusion fpwd marcos of spec[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]