Widgets Voice Conf

01 Oct 2009


See also: IRC log


Art, Marcin, Frederick, Robin, Steven, David, Benoit
Josh, Arve, JereK




<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 1 October 2009

Review and tweak agenda

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 ( http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/ )
... any other?

SP: please do register; early bird registration is Oct 5

DigSig spec: Test Assertions and Test Suite Status

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 test suite?
... 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 lists
... 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 the question
... 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

<drogersuk> no

<drogersuk> google

<drogersuk> :-)

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

<darobin> http://bondisdk.limofoundation.org/docs/Signing_a_Web_Widget/

<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

<drogersuk> thanks

AB: anything else about impl?

RB: Aplix has released some info
... 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 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting
... we can add new info

P&C spec: Test Suite questions

AB: Marcos sent an email that enumerates spec redundancies that were found during the test fest ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1477.html ). 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 isn't labeled
... 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?

MC: yes

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 implementors
... I think we just keep

MC: I agree

AB: any disagreements?

[ No ]

P&C spec: bug in Rule for Identifying the Media Type of a File

AB: Marcos identified a bug in the ABNF for zip relative paths ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1475.html ). 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 ambiguity
... think we need to change ABNF and prose

MH: I am OK with modifying both
... 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].

P&C: Proposal to move Conformance Checker assertions from P&C spec to another doc

AB: since we are not aware of any implementations of the Conformance Checker requirements, Marcos proposed ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1476.html ) they be moved into a separate spec. Any comments on this proposal?
... 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

<darobin> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html

MC: it's already in a new standalone doc

P&C: Test suite status

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html

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?

P&C: Next steps & planning

AB: we've had a couple of thread related to next steps for P&C, latest one is ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1499.html ). 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 skipping CR#2
... 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?

<drogersuk> lol

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 ABNF
... 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

AB: agree

<drogersuk> Art - I just noticed you're attributing some of Robin's comments to me :-) RB and DR

AB: here is a pointer http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets/PandC-LCWD-28May2009
... 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 time
... what do I review?
... is the TSE going to be the main spec?

MC: yes but without the styles

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html

AB: so everyone should start reviewing the TSE

TWI spec: Closing widget Interface issues

AB: the Instance versus Origin issue has plagued this spec for quite a while now ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1456.html ). It appears there is now agreement to use Instance and to remove the dependency on Origin as defined in the Widget URI scheme spec.
... 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 spec
... 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].

TWI spec: TWI and View Modes

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 question
... it will need some discussion when we get to VM-I spec

AB: anything else on this for today?

[ No ]

TWI spec: A&E LC comments

AB: Marcin sent two sets of comments re the TWI LC spec: ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1080.html ) and ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1081.html )
... do we have consensus yet?

MH: localization is still open
... 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 for these
... think we should follow-up on the list

TWI spec: Status of LC comment responses and their tracking

AB: Marcos, what is the status of the TWI LC comment tracking doc ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20090818/ )?
... 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?

MC: yes
... there are only 3-4 threads

AB: anything else on TWI for today?
... if we want to get a new LC before TPAC, we just have a few weeks

6. View Modes Media Features spec:

View Modes Media Feature 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 comments ( http://www.w3.org/mid/F4F5ECF4-4DB8-4A8F-9744-7C6E0200A766@berjon.com ).
... where are we?

MH: I tried to address his comments
... I agree with all of them
... I changed the layout quite a bit, especially Section 3
... I will continue to work on it

<darobin> +1

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 prose.
... 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 for FPWD
... any objections?

[ None ]

RESOLUTION: VM-MF spec is ready for FPWD

<darobin> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules

AB: I think MC and RB can help with pub rules

Widget URI spec

<darobin> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/Overview-LC.html

RB: I re-wrote it entirely
... it's much better
... think it is ready for LC

MC: think it's good and fun to read
... 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

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] 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]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos submit a proposal for the definition of Widget Instance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/10/01 14:17:10 $

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/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]