Widgets Voice Conf

15 Oct 2009


See also: IRC log


Art, Marcin, Arve, Marcos, Robin, David
Frederick, Josh




<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 15 October 2009

<Marcos> +marcos

<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 ]

<Marcos> http://samaxes.svn.beanstalkapp.com/widgets_compatibility_matrix/trunk/index.html

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

Review and tweak agenda

AB: I submitted a draft agenda on Oct 14 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0172.html ). Any change requests?

[ None ]

P&C spec: Issue #93 - deprecated, grandfathered, and redundant tags should be skipped

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 the TSE
... 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?

MC: yes

AB: then we can presumably come to consensus on the text

MC: I'll do that today

AB: anything else on Issue #93 for today?
... 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

P&C spec: ABNF changes for Valid Zip Relative Path

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 this
... 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?

<Marcos> something.x

MH: that is the main problem
... 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 ]

P&C spec: what's blocking LC#3 publication?

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 bugs
... 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?

MC: yes
... 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 topic
... 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 22
... any comments on that?
... that would mean LC#3 of the P+C will be published Oct 27

TWI spec: Action 411 - need a definition of Widget Instance

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 Instance"?
... 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

<marcin> ohh

MC: I need to complete P+C tests
... 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 what's there
... 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 ]

VMMF spec: Comments from Marcin:

AB: Marcin submitted some comments re the VMMF spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0047.html ). 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: thanks

Continue technical discussions on WARP, URI, Updates, VM-I, etc. on public-webapps

AB: we've skipped several specs today.
... sorry to put Robin on the spot, but what's the status and plans for WARP?

RB: I have made some changes
... 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

<darobin> http://www.w3.org/mid/4AC4BA41.3070702@rd.bbc.co.uk

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 Feature
... will start on the Interfaces spec
... there are bugs that need to be fixed
... think MF is higher priority

AB: any comments for Marcin?
... I tend to agree MF is higher priority


AB: does any AOB for today?

[ None ]

AB: Meeting adjourned; next call will be Oct 22

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] 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]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/10/15 13:54:21 $

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/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]