See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 15 October 2009
<arve> marcos is physically present
AB: #1 reminder October 27 is the
deadline to submit publication requests before the TPAC
publication moratorium begins.
... #2 yesterday I created a wiki to track implementations of the widgets specs ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetImplementation ). Everyone in the WG is welcome to edit and help maintain this document.
... any other announcements?
[ None ]
MC: this work by Samuel and
Daniel is part of our annoucements
... they would like to join WebApps as Invited Experts
... they are conducting some widget compatibility work
... have an intern that run the tests
... I think this data will be useful
Arve: what does Present Techn do?
MC: they are based in Portugal;
do a lot of stuff
... one thing is building mobile web sites
... they want to understand who supports the W3C's widgets specs
... they want to know exactly which features are implemented by the various vendors
... they will help me with testing
... but they will NOT do their own independent impl
<scribe> ACTION: barstow follow-up with Team about how to get Present Technologies participating in WebApps' Widgets work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-419 - Follow-up with Team about how to get Present Technologies participating in WebApps' Widgets work [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-10-22].
AB: has this work been announced on the Public mail list?
MC: no, not yet
... I need to do some work first
... I am having massive probs with CVS on W3C server
AB: I submitted a draft agenda on Oct 14 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0172.html ). Any change requests?
[ None ]
AB: last week Marcos agreed to pursue Issue #93 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/93 ); see also Action #413 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/413 ). Marcos, what's the status? This should be closed before we publish the next LCWD.
MC: this has been implemented in
... I'm not entirely comfortable with the text in the spec
... should ignore propr tags
AB: could you cite the text in a public mail list?
AB: then we can presumably come to consensus on the text
MC: I'll do that today
AB: anything else on Issue #93
... let's err on the side of caution here
<Marcos> the text is question is: "If this range begins with the subtag "i", "x", or the range is marked as "deprecated" in the IANA Language Subtag Registry, skip all the steps in this algorithm below, and move onto the next range. "
AB: let's continue on the mail list
MC: definitely check the TSE version
AB: earlier this week Marcos proposed a revised ABNF for a valid Zip Relative Path ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0149.html ). What is the problem that requires this bug fix?
MC: when paths are checked, the CR's BNF wasn't quite correct for lang tags
AB: has anyone reviewed the changes?
MH: I will review it
... by tomorrow at the latest
MC: I ran a bunch of tests
AB: where is the lang-range rule copied from?
MC: it is modified because we
only support lower case
... CP437 allows upper case and we don't want that
AB: "*-c*" is valid?
MC: yes, that is valid
AB: wanted to know if you were codifying a registry?
MC: the registry is constantly changing
AB: these changes will eliminate some refs?
MC: yes; additionally the prose and BNF match whereas in the CR they were not in sync
AB: can anyone else commit to a review?
[ None ]
AB: I did a quick review and didn't notice any issues
MH: in case #4, what is "ext"?
MC: the prose clarifies
... I did some tests on MacOS and Windows
... but if have ".filename", need prose to handle that case
... gets too messy to cover that case with BNF
MH: is ".something.ext" a file or an extension?
MH: that is the main
... the BNF I created addressed that case
<Marcos> ".something.ext" = extension
<Marcos> "something." is file name
<Marcos> ".something" is file name
<marcin> filename.something.ext : what is extension here?
MC: "ext" is the extension in
that case MH
... please read the prose as well as the new BNF
MH: the ABNF is ambiguous
... can't write a parser
... only the "." is a problem
MC: want to leave the BNF as is and clarify in prose the one case
AB: is the proposal already in the TSE?
MC: yes, that's correct
<Marcos> 9.1.10 Rule for Identifying the Media Type of a File
AB: so the task then is to review
this new section in the TSE version - DO NOT USE THE CR!
... anything else on this topic for today?
[ None ]
AB: it would be good to publish
LC#3 before the TPAC publication moratorium.
... besides Issue #93 and BNF, anthing else?
MC: yes, I found a couple of
... Rule for finding a file within a widget
... but I fixed that
... the prose had a bug
AB: that is an important part of the proc model
<Marcos> 9.1.3 Rule for Finding a File Within a Widget Package
<Marcos> is buggy
AB: would you please send an email that summarizes the bug and the fix?
... I am feeling quite comfortable about republishing
AB: what about the "Fail
encrypted archive" thread?
... my gut feel is that we should just leave the text as is given how late in the process we are
... what do people think about leaviing it as is?
RB: I can live with either option
MH: I think this is a big
... If we want to go quickly, we should leave it as is
MC: I can live with leaving it as is
AB: I propose we record an
agreement to leave the spec as is re encryption fail
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: leave the widget encryption fail text as is
AB: when do expect it to be ready to publish?
MC: as soon as MH completes his review of the BNF, it will be ready
AB: it seems like the earliest we
will be able to record agreement on publishin LC#3 is Oct
... any comments on that?
... that would mean LC#3 of the P+C will be published Oct 27
AB: Marcos, what is the status of
Action #411 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/411
) - "Submit a proposal for the definition of Widget
... who is willing to help ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ )?
... can you work with Scott Wilson on this?
MC: yes, I can
AB: what's the priority?
MC: I can take on TWI tasks after P+C is done
<arve> ArtB: apparently, you are making noise :D
<marcin> I put myslef on mute usually
MC: I need to complete P+C
... I can work with Scott
... not sure I can meet the pub deadline of Oct 27 for the TWI spec
... if Robin can help, that would be good
RB: most of time is now dedicated to DAP
AB: other than the Instance definition, what else needs to be done?
MC: I'm not sure
AB: if there is anything that I can or others can do to help, please let us know
MC: best thing to do is to review
... if we are going to make another LC, then I guess we don't need to work on the DoC document
AB: the precedence is to skip the
DoC doc if we know we are going to publish a new LC
... but I agree it would be ideal to create the DoC
... anything else on TWI for today?
[ No ]
AB: Marcin submitted some
comments re the VMMF spec (
). We won't discuss those comments here but please follow-up on
the Public mail list
... this is an important document
... I wonder if BONDI has any input on the VMMF spec?
DR: I'll check
AB: we've skipped several specs
... sorry to put Robin on the spot, but what's the status and plans for WARP?
RB: I have made some
... I haven't checked them in yet
... think a new LCWD will be needed
... two classes of comments: 1) scope; 2) what are the limits
... need to clarify what a URI needs to do; may want to match what CORS does
... need to reflect Marcin's and Dom's comments as well as some stuff from Marcos
... Hopefully, will have something to review by next week
... not sure about the BBC comment re local network
RB: what is described seems
useful but not sure what we should do about it
... really want others to submit feedback for that use case
AB: so everyone, please review
this other use case and provide feedback
... sorry to put Marcin on the spot, but what's the status and plans for VM-I?
MH: I have been focusing on Media
... will start on the Interfaces spec
... there are bugs that need to be fixed
... think MF is higher priority
AB: any comments for
... I tend to agree MF is higher priority
AB: does any AOB for today?
[ None ]
AB: Meeting adjourned; next call will be Oct 22
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/but they will also do their own independent impl/but they will NOT do their own independent impl/ Succeeded: s/haing/having/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Marcin Arve Marcos Robin David Regrets: Frederick Josh Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0172.html Found Date: 15 Oct 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-wam-minutes.html People with action items: about barstow follow-up how team with[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]