IRC log of wam on 2010-01-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:38 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
14:00:38 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:00:52 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
14:00:54 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
14:00:55 [ArtB]
14:00:57 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
14:00:59 [ArtB]
Date: 21 January 2010
14:01:01 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
14:01:03 [ArtB]
Regrets: Frederick_Hirsch, Marcos_Caceres
14:01:06 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log public
14:01:43 [Zakim]
14:02:29 [marcin]
marcin has joined #wam
14:02:38 [Zakim]
+ +49.208.829.0.aaaa
14:02:48 [ArtB]
zakim, aaaa is Marcin
14:02:48 [Zakim]
+Marcin; got it
14:02:51 [marcin]
Zakim, aaaa is marcin
14:02:51 [Zakim]
sorry, marcin, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
14:02:57 [marcin]
ups :)
14:03:07 [timeless_mbp]
Zakim: who is on?
14:03:08 [marcin]
Present+ Marcin_Hanclik
14:03:10 [Zakim]
14:04:57 [ArtB]
Present: Art_Barstow, Marcin_Hanclik, Steve_Jolly, Josh_Soref
14:05:15 [ArtB]
Regrets+ Robin_Berjon
14:05:49 [ArtB]
Topic: Review and tweak agenda
14:06:08 [ArtB]
AB: the agenda was submitted on January 20 ( ). Any change requests?
14:06:27 [ArtB]
AB: without Robin here, we will need to make some modifications
14:06:34 [ArtB]
Topic: Announcements
14:06:40 [ArtB]
AB: does anyone have any short announcements? The only one I have is that we will not have a call on January 27.
14:06:41 [Zakim]
+ +47.66.99.aabb
14:06:45 [arve]
zakim, aabb is me
14:06:45 [Zakim]
+arve; got it
14:07:01 [ArtB]
Present+ Arve
14:07:52 [ArtB]
Topic: WARP spec: LC comments
14:07:58 [Zakim]
14:07:59 [ArtB]
AB: the WARP LC ( ) comment period ended 13 January ( ). I believe we only received 2 comments, from Marcos and Dom.
14:08:25 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos (Dec 21, ) and Dom (Dec 10, ).
14:08:45 [ArtB]
AB: we can't proceed to CR until we have done the necessary round-tripping with the Commentors
14:08:56 [ArtB]
ACTION: Robin process the LC comments for the WARP LC
14:08:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-478 - Process the LC comments for the WARP LC [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-01-28].
14:09:16 [ArtB]
AB: everyone else in the WG is also encouraged to respond to the LC comments
14:09:38 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on WARP LC?
14:11:36 [Steven-cwi]
zakim, dial steven-work
14:11:36 [Zakim]
ok, Steven-cwi; the call is being made
14:11:38 [Zakim]
14:11:50 [Steven-cwi]
Apologies for lateness
14:11:59 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list
14:11:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-479 - Make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-01-28].
14:12:11 [ArtB]
Present+ StevenP
14:13:19 [Zakim]
14:15:02 [ArtB]
Topic: WARP spec: extending access to local network resources
14:15:11 [ArtB]
AB: on January 14 StephenJ (SJ) started a thread ( ) re extending the <access> element to support local network resources.
14:15:29 [ArtB]
AB: Arve and Stephen continued that thread today. What's the status (I haven't yet caught up on today's e-mails)?
14:16:15 [ArtB]
SJ: I sent my proposal
14:16:20 [ArtB]
... it is a starting point
14:16:27 [ArtB]
... want to consider the local net
14:16:40 [ArtB]
... want developers to be able to specify them as accessible
14:16:46 [ArtB]
... Arve asked some questions
14:16:58 [ArtB]
... I think it makes sense to create some UCs and I'll do that
14:17:11 [ArtB]
... if people have other comments, that's good too
14:17:37 [ArtB]
Arve: for our impl at Opera, developers have been not understood very well the diff between local and non-local
14:17:53 [ArtB]
... and have just given permission to everything because of the confusion
14:17:58 [ArtB]
... so that is something to consider
14:18:19 [ArtB]
SJ: needs to be at least one good UX to accept or reject local access
14:18:48 [ArtB]
... could be a number of networks available, especially in a mobile network (wifi, operator net, etc.)
14:19:13 [ArtB]
... there is lots of more data that may be available
14:19:27 [ArtB]
Arve: I'm not sure how much we need to standardize
14:21:13 [ArtB]
SJ: how much info is needed for these UCs?
14:21:24 [ArtB]
AB: we don't have any template
14:21:35 [ArtB]
Arve: I don't expect a whole lot of details
14:21:46 [ArtB]
... if you respond to the email, that should be sufficient
14:21:53 [ArtB]
SJ: ok, no problem
14:22:39 [ArtB]
ACTION: jolly submit a UC for the local network access proposal
14:22:39 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-480 - Submit a UC for the local network access proposal [on Stephen Jolly - due 2010-01-28].
14:22:56 [ArtB]
AB: is there anything else on this topic for today?
14:22:57 [ArtB]
[ No ]
14:23:33 [ArtB]
Topic: URI Scheme spec: LC comments
14:23:42 [ArtB]
AB: the LC comment tracker ( ) indicates 7 of the 9 comments are still in the "tocheck" status.
14:24:20 [ArtB]
AB: my take on Larry Masinter's 18-Dec-2009 reply ( ) is the two main issues are: 1) he doesn't think we have showed "Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility" per RFC4395; and 2) "The description of the mapping must be complete", in particular authority. Links to the authority thread are included in the draft agenda.
14:25:23 [ArtB]
AB: without Robin, I'm not sure it makes sense to do a deep dive on this
14:25:57 [ArtB]
... when we get Robin on a call, we will need to discuss these issues
14:26:08 [ArtB]
MH: think we should first discuss on the mail list
14:26:24 [ArtB]
AB: yes, I agree we should discuss as much as possible on the mail list
14:26:42 [ArtB]
AB: One thing LM asks for is a Use Case that clearly demonstrates "New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already registered URI schemes." [ RFC4395 ]. LM asserts the thismessage scheme [ RFC2557 ] should be reused or modified to meet our requirements.
14:27:51 [ArtB]
AB: I fully agree that if some existing scheme meets 100% of our reqs, we should re use it
14:28:05 [ArtB]
... but that doesn't appear to be the case with any of the schemes we looked at
14:28:19 [ArtB]
AB: we have some a wiki page of schemes we have evaluated ( ). Perhaps it would be helpful to analyze this again (RB did last June ) but there was no reply by LM.
14:29:10 [Steven-cwi]
14:29:28 [ArtB]
AB: I think this is an area where getting some advice and guidance from the Team would be helpful
14:29:51 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on this topic for today?
14:29:53 [ArtB]
[ No ]
14:30:10 [ArtB]
Topic: View Modes Media Features spec
14:30:39 [ArtB]
AB: Marcin on Jan 14 sent questions to the list
14:30:51 [ArtB]
... and there has been no response, correct?
14:30:56 [ArtB]
MH: right, no response yet
14:31:11 [ArtB]
MH: I have added the comments from VF (as agreed previously)
14:31:31 [ArtB]
... I have some questions to discuss
14:32:08 [ArtB]
... re interactivity, I proposed a solution in the ED
14:32:18 [ArtB]
... mini says content is not interactive
14:32:30 [ArtB]
... need to know if that affects HTMLInputElement
14:32:43 [ArtB]
... I assume answers in the ED
14:32:52 [ArtB]
... but some of my answers may be controversial
14:33:15 [ArtB]
AB: Arve, any follow-up from you on this?
14:33:37 [ArtB]
Arve: re mini, in what way would that affect HTMLInputElement?
14:33:51 [ArtB]
MH: disabled atrribute
14:34:05 [ArtB]
Arve: no, this would not affect that attribute
14:34:30 [ArtB]
... in mini mode one can still have a distinction between enabled and disabled
14:34:45 [ArtB]
MH: does this need to be specified?
14:35:06 [ArtB]
Arve: no; take a look at print media type in CSS and see what happens there
14:35:26 [ArtB]
MH: so, you think we should handle this like print media?
14:35:36 [ArtB]
Arve: we probably shouldn't reference HTML at all
14:36:10 [ArtB]
MH: OK, I'll look at that; this could affect the User Experience
14:36:25 [ArtB]
... then we can discuss over email
14:37:01 [ArtB]
AB: what's the issue with the opacity property?
14:37:41 [ArtB]
MH: not sure how this applies for some of the modes
14:38:14 [ArtB]
... need to explain this e.g. with body element?
14:38:24 [ArtB]
Arve: no, I don't think we should do that
14:38:35 [ArtB]
... don't want to tie this to body element
14:40:14 [ArtB]
MH: we have 4 view modes now
14:40:24 [Zakim]
+ +47.23.69.aacc
14:40:28 [Zakim]
14:40:29 [ArtB]
... transparency depends on UA
14:40:34 [arve]
zakim, aacc is me
14:40:34 [Zakim]
+arve; got it
14:40:54 [ArtB]
... widget developer may not be able to detect if viewport is transparent or not
14:41:24 [Steven-cwi]
zakim, who is noisy?
14:41:27 [ArtB]
... don't necessarily want to add more properties and exponentially increase the property/view mode table
14:41:36 [Zakim]
Steven-cwi, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Marcin (82%), Art_Barstow (3%)
14:41:51 [Steven-cwi]
zakim, who is noisy?
14:42:07 [Zakim]
Steven-cwi, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Marcin (9%), arve (59%), Art_Barstow (19%)
14:42:19 [Steven-cwi]
zakim, mute arve temporarily
14:42:19 [Zakim]
arve should now be muted
14:42:20 [arve]
I'm back in, but speaking is difficult
14:42:29 [arve]
landline = flat battery
14:42:35 [Zakim]
arve should now be unmuted again
14:42:49 [ArtB]
MH: want to continue opacity discussion
14:43:14 [ArtB]
... want author to require opaque viewport but now that can't be done - it is up to the UA
14:43:33 [ArtB]
... In my email I said "I would like to have the widget behave like fullscreen or mini, but the transparency could depend on the content"
14:43:43 [arve]
[We should do that by making opacity attribute separate from view mode]
14:44:17 [ArtB]
MH: yes, I'm fine with that
14:44:26 [ArtB]
... but not sure where that would be specified
14:44:30 [arve]
[config.xml, probably]
14:44:34 [ArtB]
... config.xml? CSS?
14:44:48 [ArtB]
MH: ok, config.xml
14:45:21 [ArtB]
AB: let's please continue this discussion on the mail list
14:45:32 [arve]
CSS is for adjust certain aspects of presentation in web-type documents, while this is about the window type the widget is to be rendered in
14:45:41 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on the VM-MF spec for today?
14:46:07 [ArtB]
MH: I'm a bit behind on the VM-I spec but will try to get something done by the next call
14:46:15 [ArtB]
... they are closely related
14:46:20 [ArtB]
AB: ok; understood
14:46:38 [ArtB]
Topic: AOB
14:46:50 [ArtB]
AB: Next call: No call on January 27; next call is Feb 4.
14:47:21 [ArtB]
AB: anything else for today?
14:47:39 [ArtB]
JS: regrets for Feb 4
14:47:47 [ArtB]
AB: meeting adjourned
14:47:56 [Steven-cwi]
Jan 28th you meant?
14:48:26 [ArtB]
AB: oops - I meant no call on Jan 28! - next call is Feb 4
14:48:30 [Zakim]
14:48:31 [Zakim]
14:48:32 [Zakim]
14:48:35 [Zakim]
14:48:35 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:48:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
14:48:41 [Zakim]
14:49:18 [Zakim]
14:49:19 [Zakim]
IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:49:20 [Zakim]
Attendees were Art_Barstow, +49.208.829.0.aaaa, Marcin, +47.66.99.aabb, arve, Steven, Josh_Soref, +47.23.69.aacc
14:50:27 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
14:50:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wam
14:51:24 [arve]
arve has left #wam
14:53:36 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, bye
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Robin process the LC comments for the WARP LC [1]
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list [2]
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jolly submit a UC for the local network access proposal [3]
14:53:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in