13:00:17 RRSAgent has joined #wam 13:00:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc 13:00:23 RRSAgent, make log Public 13:00:31 ScribeNick: ArtB 13:00:32 fhirsch has joined #wam 13:00:34 Scribe: Art 13:00:38 Chair: Art 13:00:43 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0073.html 13:00:54 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conf 13:00:58 Date: 8 October 2009 13:01:23 Regrets: Josh, Robin 13:01:25 +??P24 13:01:26 -??P24 13:01:31 +??P24 13:01:31 zakim, ??P24 is fjh 13:01:39 +Marcos 13:01:52 marcin has joined #wam 13:01:56 +fjh; got it 13:02:07 Present: Art, Frederick, Marcos, Jere, Marcin, 13:02:12 + +1.850.385.aaaa 13:02:40 zakim, dial steven-617 13:02:40 ok, Steven; the call is being made 13:02:41 +Steven 13:02:43 zakim, aaaa is JereK 13:02:43 +JereK; got it 13:02:44 + +49.163.829.aabb 13:02:46 Present+ Steven 13:03:09 Zakim, aabb is Marcin 13:03:09 +Marcin; got it 13:03:20 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 13:03:27 AB: draft agenda submitted Oct 7 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0073.html ). Any change requests? 13:03:42 [ No ] 13:03:47 Topic: Announcements 13:03:52 AB: does anyone have any short announcements? 13:04:04 AB: see member-webapps for TPAC announcements 13:04:25 MC: I noticed RIM is supporting the W3C widgets spec 13:04:30 AB: yes, I saw that too 13:04:43 +Bryan_Sullivan 13:04:50 Bryan has joined #wam 13:04:56 Present+ Bryan 13:05:09 ACTION: barstow contact RIM and ask them to join WebApps 13:05:10 Created ACTION-412 - Contact RIM and ask them to join WebApps [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-15]. 13:05:40 drogersuk has joined #wam 13:05:47 Topic: P+C: Issue #88 13:05:57 AB: Issue #88 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/88 ) was Raised several months ago. If we are going to address this, the spec must be changed before the next LCWD is published. 13:06:02 + +1.919.536.aacc 13:06:11 Present+ AndyB 13:06:22 +??P5 13:07:15 AB: Marcos raised this in May 13:07:19 q+ 13:07:30 ... we should record a group's decision on this for v1 13:07:35 q+ 13:07:35 Present+ David 13:07:40 Hi, yes on mute 13:07:47 +q 13:07:48 Horrendous feedback from someone 13:08:00 JK: not much a widget can do because there is no event re locale change 13:08:08 zakim, ??P5 is drogersuk 13:08:08 +drogersuk; got it 13:08:11 ... if there was an event, something could be done 13:08:19 ... not clear how prefs are connected 13:08:25 ... should be locale independent 13:08:29 zakim, aacc is AndyB 13:08:29 +AndyB; got it 13:08:30 MC: agree it is a no issue 13:08:39 Bryan: agree with what has been said 13:08:48 ... thus I say don't do anything 13:08:50 q- 13:08:53 q- 13:09:00 I agree with Bryan's comment 13:09:12 AB: any disagreements with what has been said so far? 13:09:47 MC: I agree there is no relationship between locale and prefs 13:10:26 AB: my recommendation is we change the state to Closed since we aren't going to do anything about it 13:10:37 AB: any disagreements with that recommendation? 13:10:38 [ None ] 13:10:49 RESOLUTION: Issue #88 is closed 13:10:59 Topic: P&C: Issue #93: deprecated, grandfathered, and redundant tags should be skipped 13:11:05 AB: Issue #93 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/93 ) was raised by Opera during the CR phase. Has this been fixed in the TSE spec? 13:11:41 MC: yes I believe this has been addressed 13:12:03 AB: your use of "believe" here makes me feel a bit uncomfortable 13:12:32 ACTION: caceres send a status report on Issue #93 13:12:32 Created ACTION-413 - Send a status report on Issue #93 [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-10-15]. 13:12:56 AB: if you think it is closed, please include a proposal to close it, Marcos 13:12:58 MC: OK 13:13:11 Topic: P&C: its:dir 13:13:19 AB: the its:dir feature is marked "At Risk" in CR#1. Going forward the options include: remove before LC#3; remove before CR#2; move it to a new spec; keep it in the spec. What do people think we should do with this feature? 13:14:28 MC: I think we should leave the feature and remove the at risk 13:14:36 ... that is, make it an optional part of the spec 13:14:45 AB: any other comments? 13:14:54 MH: I'm OK with making it optional 13:15:13 JK: I'm kinda' indifferent 13:15:32 ... not much of a diff between leaving it optional and removing 13:15:33 would leaving it in require interop and will that be achieved? 13:15:40 MC: think it will be needed at some point 13:15:53 zakim, who's making noise? 13:16:07 drogersuk, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: JereK (24%), Art_Barstow (42%), Marcos (75%) 13:16:14 ... if we leave it in, requires use of another name space 13:16:34 ... think we should define these two attrs in our own namespace 13:16:46 AB: not sure I agree with that later recommendation 13:17:40 AB: summary: people want to keep it in 13:18:09 AB: does anyone object to keeping it in? 13:18:11 [ No ] 13:18:26 RESOLUTION: the its:dir feature will remain in the P+C spec 13:19:02 MC: want to also discuss removing the At Risk Feature 13:19:20 AB: that's a separate discussion that I would like more time for the group to consider 13:20:14 MC: I'm OK with more time but personally I want to remove At Risk for this feature 13:20:47 ACTION: barstow start some type of CfC on whether or not the the its:dir should be labeled as Feature At Risk 13:20:47 Created ACTION-414 - Start some type of CfC on whether or not the the its:dir should be labeled as Feature At Risk [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-15]. 13:21:23 FH: I think what MC says makes sense but wonder if we create a problem during interop 13:21:34 MC: no because we will not test Optional parts of the spec 13:21:38 FH: OK; thanks 13:21:53 Topic: P&C: Need normative statement of Mandatory vs. Optional attributes? 13:22:23 AB: apparently, I am the only member of the group that thinks the P&C spec should include a normative statement about attributes being Required or Optional ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0072.html ). This information was included in CR#1 but is not included in the TSE. 13:23:06 AB: Marcos indicated in ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1476.html ) that he moved the Conformance Checker requirements to the new PC-CC spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html ). That email did not say anything about removing normative authoring requirements from the spec. 13:24:01 AB: Marcos thinks this was the right thing to do; anyone else? 13:24:13 MH: I think the spec should say whether attrs are optional or not 13:24:52 q+ 13:24:57 q- 13:25:01 +q 13:25:14 JK: the relax NG schema, is it normative? 13:25:24 ... if yes, it should state what is required 13:25:39 MC: none of the attributes are required 13:25:50 ... the schema can't help here 13:26:03 ... I think Step 7 is clear enough 13:27:05 MC: the document doesn't include author requirements 13:27:17 ... that is the role of the ConfChecker 13:27:53 ... the spec is only about the user agent 13:28:05 AB: this is not consistent with the WARP spec which explicitly states whether the element's attributes are Required or Optional 13:28:15 AB: this is not consistent with the Updates spec which explicitly states whether the element's attributes are Required or Optional 13:28:21 + +1.452.9.aadd 13:29:41 maybe need both normative schema and processing model? 13:29:51 AB: does anyone else have any comments on this topic? 13:29:57 + Benoit 13:30:04 q+ 13:30:05 The rationale for removing if something is required to be used by an author is that it does not matter to the user agent. The user agent just processes files, it does not tell the author anything meaningful. 13:30:29 q- 13:31:38 q+ 13:31:44 MC: if a CC is included, these concerns about authoring will be addressed 13:32:06 ... it could use the schema and correct authoring errors 13:32:47 HTML with errors in browser is different use case than this 13:33:04 Bryan: the constraints in limited devices are clear 13:33:06 I don't want validation in device either 13:33:20 ... can't have comprehensive conf checking for example 13:33:51 ... when processing does occur, the ua should inform user if there are errors 13:34:02 ... are you saying ua should do no validation 13:34:10 MC: want to separate concerns 13:34:18 ... ua may or may not inform user 13:34:27 ... can add CC reqs on top or not 13:34:39 q- 13:34:46 q- 13:34:50 AB: I object to this spec no longer addressing the requirements for the Author/Creator of a config document. I would prefer this be fixed before we publish the next LCWD but if people feel there is some urgency to publish a new LCWD, I can wait and submit my formal objection during the next LC review period. 13:35:21 q+ 13:35:23 AB: is there a preference? 13:35:37 SP: last call implies all issues are dealt with 13:36:05 ... so group should address the issue before new LC is published 13:36:16 q+ 13:36:35 MC: I still am confused as to how these things are expressed 13:36:47 ... not sure what to say 13:36:48 AB: my concern could be addressed by stating something like the following in Section 7 "From an authoring perspective, all attributes are optional unless explicitly stated as required." 13:37:36 AB: let's continue on the mail list 13:37:50 q+ 13:38:29 ack me 13:38:36 DR: does this mean we need to deal with this now? 13:38:42 Benoit: yes, I think so 13:38:58 AB: yes, David that's what I meant by "continue on the mail list" 13:39:07 DR: OK; so we need to agree with this now 13:39:38 AB: by "now" we mean before next LC not "during this voice conf" 13:39:57 MC: I understand what Art wants 13:40:03 q- 13:40:16 ... we could say something about the minimal config doc 13:40:26 ... agree to continue on the mail list 13:40:37 Benoit: so you are OK with what Art wants to add? 13:40:43 MC: yes 13:41:04 Topic: is P&C-CC ED ready for FPWD? 13:41:19 AB: last week we said that today we would discuss whether the P&C-CC ED ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html ) was ready for FPWD. 13:41:32 AB: it's missing too much of the boilerplate plus I need to review it in the context of what holes it may have created in the P&C spec. 13:42:06 AB: we will poll on this question today 13:42:21 AB: anything else on this new doc for today? 13:42:42 AB: I strongly encourage to look at both the TSE and this P+C-CC spec 13:43:02 ... I think we need to advance these two simultaneously 13:43:08 Some notes to add to minutes above: (just above my q+) My original question said that art stated that he would object if we didn't solve this before next LC so I responded by saying that we therefore need to deal with this issue before LC - happy to continue on mailing list. 13:43:20 Topic: TWI: status of LC comments? 13:43:27 AB: TWI Editors, what is the status of the TWI LC comment processing ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20090818/ 13:43:49 MC: the td is not up to date 13:44:06 ... the spec itself still has some outstanding emails 13:44:23 Topic: TWI: spec testability 13:44:47 AB: is the TWI spec testable as is? It would be good if we can learn from our P&C test suite and minimize the number of LCWDs that need to be published. 13:45:25 AB: does this spec need a huge amount of work? 13:45:28 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ 13:45:36 MC: no; it already uses the test case markup syntax 13:45:51 ... thus it should be relatively easy to extract testable assertions 13:45:58 ... and hence to create test cases 13:46:21 AB: OK; good 13:47:08 MC: probably need to check the assertions to make sure they all have ids 13:47:29 ... also have some test infra in place and that should help 13:47:37 Topic: TWI: LCWD#2 publication plans 13:48:05 AB: when will it be ready for us to do a pre-LC scrub? 13:48:24 MC: I'm held back because P+C is higher prio 13:48:43 AB: is there something you need from the rest of us re the TWI spec? 13:48:53 MC: not really 13:49:25 MC: I still have a fair amount of work on P+C 13:49:33 ... including media type 13:50:04 ... Arve isn't available now and that doesn't help 13:50:21 Topic: WARP: is "uri" attribute name clear enough? 13:50:31 AB: Scott Wilson ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0019.html ) and Phil Archer ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0042.html ) have given their opinion. Is the new information compelling enough to change the name of the "uri" attribute? 13:51:08 q+ 13:51:29 MH: the comments are more about the contents of the attr rather than the name 13:52:23 ... need to think about the proposals e.g. use regex 13:52:34 q- 13:52:45 Topic: WARP: is semantics too constrained? 13:52:58 AB: Steve Jolly says ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0011.html ) WARP's model is too constrained for some of BBC's use cases. Do people agree and if so, is this something we want to address in v1.0? 13:53:24 q+ 13:53:36 MH: I think we should address this in v1 13:54:06 ... if we go to v2 with this req, could have interop prob with v1 13:54:21 q- 13:54:23 just one minute to read Steve's email 13:54:24 AB: any other comments on this? 13:55:02 q+ 13:55:05 AB: David, do you have a comment on this topic 13:55:37 Bryan: the question about URI resolvability and how to access stuff behind firewalls 13:55:53 ... I don't think can be answered by the P+C or WARP spec 13:56:13 q+ 13:56:32 ... the protocols of resource access should not be blocked by what we specified 13:56:44 ... need to be very clear with wildcards, etc. 13:56:56 ... but don't' think we need logical operators like "not" 13:56:59 q- 13:58:09 MH: SteveJ's use case re UPnP and DLNA 13:58:27 ... there is no way today to express those by the WARP syntax 13:59:01 ... I think there is a need for a more flexible syntax 13:59:12 ... we should include this UC in v1's model 13:59:38 ... If we do what Steve proposes, we probably do not need the subdomains attribute 13:59:52 q- 14:00:37 AB: we still have some issues to work thru before LC; please continue to discuss this on the mail list 14:00:52 Topic: VM-MF spec 14:01:00 AB: the FPWD of the VM-MF spec was published on Oct 6 ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/ ). Marcin already indicated some issues ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0047.html ). I think this spec needs a lot of work, especially regarding definitions (e.g. what does "application-like" mean), what is actually implemented versus what is "hints" to a UA etc. 14:01:40 AB: send comments to the list 14:02:05 AB: is there any particular group we should contact for review besides CSS WG 14:02:23 MH: just CSS 14:02:33 Topic: Updates spec 14:02:41 AB: the Charter of the Widget Updates PAG ( http://www.w3.org/2009/03/widgets-pag-charter#schedule ) expired 30 September. Presumably that means the PAG will soon complete its work with one of the so-called "PAG Conclusions" per the W3C Patent Policy ( http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-conclude ). 14:03:12 AB: this PAG operates on a Member-confidential mail list so we need to be careful not to disclose any Member-confidential information. That said, what can we tell the Public about our plans for this spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ )? 14:04:54 MC: after the PAG's report is published, we can communicate what, if anything, will be changed 14:05:06 ... I don't think we need to add any new features 14:05:35 AB: I think we have higher priorities ATM than this spec 14:06:31 MC: after the PAG publishes the report, the WG will need to review the recommendations and agree on what to do 14:07:47 Topic: URI spec: who do we ask to review the 8-Oct-2009 LCWD? 14:07:53 AB: the LCWD of the URI spec should be published today ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/Overview-LC.html ). Other than the TAG, who do we want to review that spec? 14:08:38 SP: could ask the HCG 14:08:44 AB: good point; I'll do that 14:08:56 MH: how about the people working on the IRI spec 14:09:11 AB: is that an IETF WG? 14:09:18 MH: yes plus others 14:09:37 AB: I'll pursue with the Team how to get review from IETF 14:09:57 ACTION: barstow ask Team about how to get IETF review of the Widgets URI spec 14:09:57 Created ACTION-415 - Ask Team about how to get IETF review of the Widgets URI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-15]. 14:10:09 Topic: Requirements doc 14:10:16 AB: we haven't published the requirements doc in about a half-year ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/ ). What's the pub plan for that Marcos? 14:11:22 MC: some reqs from WARP and URI spec need to be removed to the Reqs doc 14:11:48 ... let's aim to get it published after the TPAC 14:12:01 ... but get it ready to review during our Nov 2-3 f2f meeting 14:12:14 Topic: AOB 14:12:25 AB: any other topics for today? 14:12:40 FH: I updated Widgets DigSig example 14:12:48 ... is there anything else that needs to be done? 14:13:03 MC: it puts conformance criteria on docs and UAs 14:13:11 ... could create a TSE of that doc 14:13:18 ... to change the conformance criteria 14:13:27 ... to statements of facts 14:13:36 ... then create test cases based on that 14:13:49 ... will need to republish that doc after we've made the TSE changes 14:14:12 FH: not sure need a test for every MUST 14:14:27 ... two categories of tests 14:14:38 MC: agree; we need to differentiate the two 14:14:49 FH: what's the prio of these tests? 14:14:55 MC: Kai is working on it now 14:15:09 ... I am not personally involved with it 14:15:20 ... but expect to get involved after the P+C is done 14:15:29 ... it would be good if you FH could help 14:15:44 ... e.g. to make sure we aren't creating tests that XML Sig tests 14:16:01 AB: anything else for today? 14:16:02 Properties will need testing as well as widget specific processing. 14:16:27 Regrets from me for the next two weeks 14:16:30 Benoit: who is attending TPAC? 14:16:33 AB: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC09/registrants#apis 14:16:37 -AndyB 14:16:53 AB: Meeting Adjourned; next meeting same time on Oct 15 14:17:01 Regrets from me for the next two weeks 14:17:03 -Bryan_Sullivan 14:17:05 -Marcos 14:17:06 -Art_Barstow 14:17:06 -fhirsch 14:17:06 - +1.452.9.aadd 14:17:08 -Marcin 14:17:09 -Steven 14:17:09 -JereK 14:17:12 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:17:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:17:36 -drogersuk 14:17:38 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended 14:17:39 Attendees were Art_Barstow, Marcos, +1.850.385.aaaa, Steven, JereK, +49.163.829.aabb, Marcin, Bryan_Sullivan, fhirsch, +1.919.536.aacc, drogersuk, AndyB, +1.452.9.aadd 14:18:29 ArtB: would this be sufficient? 14:18:30 Authoring Guidelines:Authors need to be aware that all elements, apart from the widget element, and related attributes are optional. 14:18:30 The following example shows the smallest possible configuration document that a widget user agent will be able to process. 14:18:43 14:19:32 Present+ Benoit 14:20:28 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:20:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:21:54 JereK has left #wam 14:22:10 I rewrote it as: 14:22:10 The only mandatory element in a configuration document is the widget element. All other elements and their respective attributes are optional. 14:22:31 Benoit_ has joined #wam 14:43:38 Marcos has joined #wam 15:32:40 s/object/objection 15:37:21 huh? 15:37:28 who objected against what? 15:45:59 trl, Artb did not like that I removed normative text that described which element's attributes are mandatory from an authoring perspective. 15:47:00 I made them into "Authoring guidelines" 15:47:07 which are non-normative 15:47:09 for example 15:47:14 It is optional for authors to use the type attribute with a content element. When the value is absent, the user agent will assume the value text/html. 15:51:18 Marcos, just back to my cube; will need to catch up and then I'll reply ... 15:51:36 ArtB: no probs 15:52:03 If you have time, can we please sort this out today? It's stressin me out :( 15:52:49 Artb, Select *, move to trash (except if from: marcos :) ) 15:56:19 MikeSmith has joined #wam 15:58:15 annevk has joined #wam 16:00:17 zakim, bye 16:00:17 Zakim has left #wam 16:01:44 RRSAgent, bye 16:01:44 I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-actions.rdf : 16:01:44 ACTION: barstow contact RIM and ask them to join WebApps [1] 16:01:44 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc#T13-05-09 16:01:44 ACTION: caceres send a status report on Issue #93 [2] 16:01:44 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc#T13-12-32 16:01:44 ACTION: barstow start some type of CfC on whether or not the the its:dir should be labeled as Feature At Risk [3] 16:01:44 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc#T13-20-47 16:01:44 ACTION: barstow ask Team about how to get IETF review of the Widgets URI spec [4] 16:01:44 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-irc#T14-09-57