See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: ArtB
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Meeting Widgets Voice Conference
Date: 3 December 2009
AB: agenda posted on 2 December ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1089.html ). Any change requests?
[ None ]
AB: 1) reminder that December 18
is the last day to request a publication for 2009. 2) December
8 is the last day for comments on TWI LC#2.
... any other short announcements?
[ None ]
AB: LC#2 comment period ends Dec
08. The comment tracking (CT) document is (
... The TWI spec has several Editors. Who is going to take the lead on the CT document?
... or share the responsibility?
MC: I can maintain it
... would like some help from ArtB
... don't expect too many comments
AB: It is theoretically possible for a CR to be published in 2009 but IFF we are able to respond to complete the round-trip with all Commentors by Dec 10 and we could get approval from the Director by the 18th.
MC: I would like to try to do
... we already have the test suite
AB: in the best case scenario, on
Dec 10 we would be in a position to agree to publish a
Candidate of the spec.
... anything else on TWI for today?
[ No ]
AB: the CfC to publish WARP LC#2
ended 2 December (
). There were no objections to that CfC thus this CfC has
"passed" and later today I will submit a publication request
for this LC.
... In Marcin's response to this CfC he asked for some clarification on the commenting process ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1098.html ). Let's discuss that now.
... First, let me re-state one of WebApps' mantras: "WebApps welcomes and encourages comments for all of its specs at any time."
... naturally, there is some tension between actually completing a spec and reflecting ongoing feedback. Completing a spec can be impossible if the comment deadline isn't fixed.
... on July 9 ( http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-minutes.html#item06 ) we agreed the WARP spec met the Last Call requirements and the comment period for LC#1 was 7 weeks (more than twice the required 3-weeks).
... There has been no indication the people who participated in that agreement have changed their position. I do not generally support re-visiting Resolutions unless there is overwhelming support for doing so from the people who agreed to a Resolution.
... So, before we move to the next topic re "handling post-LC#1 comments", does anyone have any comments?
MC: no comments from Opera
AB: anyone else?
SC: no comments
MH: no comments
AB: the CfC included the
resolution so need to capture it here
... re the LC#2 comment period end date, I propose Jan 13. Any objections to that?
[ No objections ]
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to prepare LC#2 draft for WARP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-463 - Prepare LC#2 draft for WARP [on Robin Berjon - due 2009-12-10].
<scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a pub request for WARP LC#2 with a comment end date of Jan 13 2010 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-464 - Submit a pub request for WARP LC#2 with a comment end date of Jan 13 2010 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-10].
AB: during the last call we discussed how to handle "post LC#1 features" ( http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-wam-minutes.html#item06 ). Since then, Marcin created an input for the "local" feature.
<Steven> Apologies for lateness
AB: I responded ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1085.html ) with a list of information that should be included in his proposal. I think Marcin is now "aligned" with the rest of us on this re what we expect for the "local" proposal.
... I will add some sec considerations
... re use cases and requirements
... think they are the same as what we have in WARP
... or in the Widgets Reqs doc
<Suresh> Can someone please post the link to Marcin's draft?
MH: not sure what we expect for reqs and use cases
RB: re reqs and UCs, we agreed we would be put them in the Widgets Reqs doc
MH: if we want to handle the reqs this way, is that problematic?
RB: no, we just need to republish
the Reqs doc
... it's not a big deal to re-publish it
MH: so it's just a matter of editing it?
MC: on 24-Jan-2010, I plan to repub the Widgets Reqs
MH: could be a problem with timing
RB: don't think we need to publish Reqs whenever we add some new ones to the ED
AB: think it would be helpful if MH submitted "local" reqs to the list
MC: we must have the reqs documented because Director will ask for them when we try to enter CR
AB: good point MC!
... is it clear on how you are to proceed with the "local" proposal?
MH: yes; if I have any questions, I'll ask RB and MC
SC: re the process
... the local feature will be in a separate track e.g. 1.1?
MC: no, it will be in a separate
... that will extend the semantics of the WARP spec
... the way P&C was written, it is easy to add new features via new specs
SC: so we are not positioning WARP as 1.0?
MC: no, we are going to remove 1.0 from the WARP title
SC: so, it will be a stand-alone spec which will go along the Rec track separately
Arve: yes, the local spec will only depend on WARP
MH: can the "local" feature be re-submitted as a comment during the LC#2 comment period
MC: if can be submitted as a
... but I think we want it to be a separate spec
... We agreed to feature completeness last July
MC: don't want to add new features
Arve: agree with MC
... do not want to add new features to WARP
AB: from a process perspective, and adhereing to previous agreements, I agree with MC, Arve and Robin
RB: we made commitments to external parties and they expect it to ship
MC: we are NOT saying we don't
want new features spec'ed
... on the contrary, we want WARP to continue and the other features to continue
Arve: yes, we want this features to continue independently
<arve> Arve: Opera has running code and a document we will submit for review concerning local service discovery
<arve> Arve: the spec is agnostic WRT to the underlying technology
<darobin> [not to interrupt, but VF wants this feature too — just not to slow down publication]
SC: re the feature I proposed, I understand we want them spec'ed in a separate spec
AB: that is correct
MH: I understand Suresh is
working on a different proposal
... wondering if we should combine our proposals or keep them separate?
... If we align around "local"
... we can assume the local support will be quite fast
... Whereas, Suresh's proposal could take longer to get consensus
... Suresh, what are your thoughts on how you are going to proceed?
SC: since we still a bit early, I
would prefer to keep them separate at least for now
... but depending on how things go, it may sense to merge them
... but lets wait and see
... I hope to get a proposal out this month
MH: what do others think?
RB: I think the "local" could be
relatively easy to put in a separate spec
... it could be that Suresh's proposal would make more sense for a WARP 2.0
... but until I see the proposal, it's hard to say
Arve: "local" is a difficult term
... it is relative to where the device is e.g. behind a firewall or not
... not sure we want to down the path about hardcoding network policies
... don't want to add definition of "local" to WARP
MH: I agree there is no general
defintion of "local"
... need to consider home networks too
<arve> No, the definition of local falls over even on IPv4
MH: not sure we need to define it
precisely though for the purposes of this spec
... don't want to block widget functionality
... agree local can mean different things in different contexts e.g. mobile, corporate, etc.
AB: my proposal is to continue
discusssion of "local" on the mail list
... any open questions about how to handle new features proposed after LC?
MH: is there some precedence to follow?
AB: we are required to follow the
... I think what we are saying with WARP is we will follow the PD quite closely
... I can believe there are some cases where the group agreed to do things a bit "differently" but would expect there have been unanimous support for doing that
... do we need a resoulution on how we are going to handle post-LC#1 comments for WARP?
<Suresh> It would help to avoid rediscussion
MH: we've agreed new features will be handled via new specs
AB: Draft Resolution: feature
requests beyond the scope of WARP LC#1 will be handled via new
... any objections?
MH: is this in general or just WARP?
AB: this resolution is for
... any objections to that resolution?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: feature requests beyond the scope of WARP LC#1 will be handled via new specs
AB: the LC comment period ended 10 November. The comment tracking document is: ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/ ). Robin asked Larry Masinter when we can expect a response ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0832.html ). Robin, what's the status?
RB: I have not heard back
... not sure what to do
AB: I'm not sure either
... Stephen, are you on the call?
SP: a couple of weeks is usually
... but should send him a message that clearly states if you something like "no response will be considered assent"
RB: I've done that
AB: I'm a little hesitant about this; OTOH, we can't go unbounded
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Robin and WebApps Team Contacts re getting Larry Masinter to reply to Robin's comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-465 - Work with Robin and WebApps Team Contacts re getting Larry Masinter to reply to Robin's comments [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-10].
AB: if we don't get a response,
we will move that doc to the next stage
... and that could mean that on December 10 we agree to move to URI Scheme to Candidate
... anything else on this spec for today?
RB: it has already been implemented
... any other?
RB: not that I know about
... it is easy to implement
AB: we still don't have a FPWD of the VM-I spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-interfaces.src.html ). What is the priority of this spec and what needs to be done before we can publish the FPWD?
MH: I edited it recently
... I have removed some bugs
... the ToC is there; date is updated
... the structure resemlbes D3E spec
... since they are similar "in nature"
... think it is ready for FPWD
... need to sync with VM-MF
... I want to consolidate design between VM-MF values and properties with VM-I
AB: what do others think about FPWD readiness?
MC: working with VF, we may have
some additions we'd like to make
... I'll provide a URI to those comments
AB: given Opera and VF have input
and Marcin wants to do some consolidation work, it doesn't
sound like we are ready for FPWD
... I would prefer to publish FPWD when the scope, at least at the high-level, is complete
MH: that's OK with me
SC: looking at VM
... are we talking about landscape and portrait?
... Not clear it's ready to be published
MC: take a look at the proposal I
just dropped in
... it defines the view modes a better
... my proposal is there for the WG to consider
... We may want to use some of the text
... Need to nail-down what the VMs mean at the semantic level
AB: given all this, it seems like spec won't be ready for FPWD until Jan/Feb
MH: why didn't you publish this doc on public-webapps
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos send a link to the Opera+VF view modes input to public-webapps [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-466 - Send a link to the Opera+VF view modes input to public-webapps [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-12-10].
AB: the Updates spec was last published over one year ago ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ). What is the plan a new publication?
MC: I want to have a new draft
ready by Dec 17
... need to look at core use cases
... there are a lot of issues e.g. when DigSig is used
... need to think about scope
... and whether or not DigSig is handled
SC: what is the status of the PAG?
MC: the PAG finding is
... can find the results there
... the PAG recommended some changes
... the next WD will include those recommendations
AB: yes, the recommendations are
about how to avoid the patent
... anything else on Updates for today?
[ No ]
AB: next meeting is 10 December
MC: I have been working on the
P&C Impl Report
... building some infra to reuse with other specs
... after I get things setup, want to get alignment so we can reuse editing patterns
... and hence reuse the tools
AB: Meeting Adjourned
<Steven> Regrets from me for rest of the month
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) Found Scribe: ArtB Inferring ScribeNick: ArtB Found ScribeNick: ArtB Default Present: +1.408.216.aaaa, Art_Barstow, arve, +33.2.08.82.90.aabb, marcin, darobin, Steven Present: Art Arve Marcos Marcin Suresh Robin Steven Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1089.html Found Date: 03 Dec 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow marcos robin[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]