14:00:38 RRSAgent has joined #wam 14:00:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-irc 14:00:52 ScribeNick: ArtB 14:00:54 Scribe: Art 14:00:55 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0217.html 14:00:57 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 14:00:59 Date: 21 January 2010 14:01:01 Chair: Art 14:01:03 Regrets: Frederick_Hirsch, Marcos_Caceres 14:01:06 RRSAgent, make log public 14:01:43 +Art_Barstow 14:02:29 marcin has joined #wam 14:02:38 + +49.208.829.0.aaaa 14:02:48 zakim, aaaa is Marcin 14:02:48 +Marcin; got it 14:02:51 Zakim, aaaa is marcin 14:02:51 sorry, marcin, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 14:02:57 ups :) 14:03:07 Zakim: who is on? 14:03:08 Present+ Marcin_Hanclik 14:03:10 +??P2 14:04:57 Present: Art_Barstow, Marcin_Hanclik, Steve_Jolly, Josh_Soref 14:05:15 Regrets+ Robin_Berjon 14:05:49 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 14:06:08 AB: the agenda was submitted on January 20 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0217.html ). Any change requests? 14:06:27 AB: without Robin here, we will need to make some modifications 14:06:34 Topic: Announcements 14:06:40 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 + +47.66.99.aabb 14:06:45 zakim, aabb is me 14:06:45 +arve; got it 14:07:01 Present+ Arve 14:07:52 Topic: WARP spec: LC comments 14:07:58 -??P11 14:07:59 AB: the WARP LC ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20091208/ ) comment period ended 13 January ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-access-20091208/ ). I believe we only received 2 comments, from Marcos and Dom. 14:08:25 AB: Marcos (Dec 21, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1472.html ) and Dom (Dec 10, http://www.w3.org/mid/1260460310.3355.2561.camel@localhost ). 14:08:45 AB: we can't proceed to CR until we have done the necessary round-tripping with the Commentors 14:08:56 ACTION: Robin process the LC comments for the WARP LC 14:08:56 Created ACTION-478 - Process the LC comments for the WARP LC [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-01-28]. 14:09:16 AB: everyone else in the WG is also encouraged to respond to the LC comments 14:09:38 AB: anything else on WARP LC? 14:11:36 zakim, dial steven-work 14:11:36 ok, Steven-cwi; the call is being made 14:11:38 +Steven 14:11:50 Apologies for lateness 14:11:59 ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list 14:11:59 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 Present+ StevenP 14:13:19 +Josh_Soref 14:15:02 Topic: WARP spec: extending access to local network resources 14:15:11 AB: on January 14 StephenJ (SJ) started a thread ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0173.html ) re extending the element to support local network resources. 14:15:29 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 SJ: I sent my proposal 14:16:20 ... it is a starting point 14:16:27 ... want to consider the local net 14:16:40 ... want developers to be able to specify them as accessible 14:16:46 ... Arve asked some questions 14:16:58 ... I think it makes sense to create some UCs and I'll do that 14:17:11 ... if people have other comments, that's good too 14:17:37 Arve: for our impl at Opera, developers have been not understood very well the diff between local and non-local 14:17:53 ... and have just given permission to everything because of the confusion 14:17:58 ... so that is something to consider 14:18:19 SJ: needs to be at least one good UX to accept or reject local access 14:18:48 ... could be a number of networks available, especially in a mobile network (wifi, operator net, etc.) 14:19:13 ... there is lots of more data that may be available 14:19:27 Arve: I'm not sure how much we need to standardize 14:21:13 SJ: how much info is needed for these UCs? 14:21:24 AB: we don't have any template 14:21:35 Arve: I don't expect a whole lot of details 14:21:46 ... if you respond to the email, that should be sufficient 14:21:53 SJ: ok, no problem 14:22:39 ACTION: jolly submit a UC for the local network access proposal 14:22:39 Created ACTION-480 - Submit a UC for the local network access proposal [on Stephen Jolly - due 2010-01-28]. 14:22:56 AB: is there anything else on this topic for today? 14:22:57 [ No ] 14:23:33 Topic: URI Scheme spec: LC comments 14:23:42 AB: the LC comment tracker ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/doc/ ) indicates 7 of the 9 comments are still in the "tocheck" status. 14:24:20 AB: my take on Larry Masinter's 18-Dec-2009 reply ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1455.html ) 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 AB: without Robin, I'm not sure it makes sense to do a deep dive on this 14:25:57 ... when we get Robin on a call, we will need to discuss these issues 14:26:08 MH: think we should first discuss on the mail list 14:26:24 AB: yes, I agree we should discuss as much as possible on the mail list 14:26:42 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 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395 ]. LM asserts the thismessage scheme [ RFC2557 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557 ] should be reused or modified to meet our requirements. 14:27:51 AB: I fully agree that if some existing scheme meets 100% of our reqs, we should re use it 14:28:05 ... but that doesn't appear to be the case with any of the schemes we looked at 14:28:19 AB: we have some a wiki page of schemes we have evaluated ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme ). Perhaps it would be helpful to analyze this again (RB did last June http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0972.html ) but there was no reply by LM. 14:29:10 OK 14:29:28 AB: I think this is an area where getting some advice and guidance from the Team would be helpful 14:29:51 AB: anything else on this topic for today? 14:29:53 [ No ] 14:30:10 Topic: View Modes Media Features spec 14:30:39 AB: Marcin on Jan 14 sent questions to the list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0170.html 14:30:51 ... and there has been no response, correct? 14:30:56 MH: right, no response yet 14:31:11 MH: I have added the comments from VF (as agreed previously) 14:31:31 ... I have some questions to discuss 14:32:08 ... re interactivity, I proposed a solution in the ED 14:32:18 ... mini says content is not interactive 14:32:30 ... need to know if that affects HTMLInputElement 14:32:43 ... I assume answers in the ED 14:32:52 ... but some of my answers may be controversial 14:33:15 AB: Arve, any follow-up from you on this? 14:33:37 Arve: re mini, in what way would that affect HTMLInputElement? 14:33:51 MH: disabled atrribute 14:34:05 Arve: no, this would not affect that attribute 14:34:30 ... in mini mode one can still have a distinction between enabled and disabled 14:34:45 MH: does this need to be specified? 14:35:06 Arve: no; take a look at print media type in CSS and see what happens there 14:35:26 MH: so, you think we should handle this like print media? 14:35:36 Arve: we probably shouldn't reference HTML at all 14:36:10 MH: OK, I'll look at that; this could affect the User Experience 14:36:25 ... then we can discuss over email 14:37:01 AB: what's the issue with the opacity property? 14:37:41 MH: not sure how this applies for some of the modes 14:38:14 ... need to explain this e.g. with body element? 14:38:24 Arve: no, I don't think we should do that 14:38:35 ... don't want to tie this to body element 14:40:14 MH: we have 4 view modes now 14:40:24 + +47.23.69.aacc 14:40:28 -arve 14:40:29 ... transparency depends on UA 14:40:34 zakim, aacc is me 14:40:34 +arve; got it 14:40:54 ... widget developer may not be able to detect if viewport is transparent or not 14:41:24 zakim, who is noisy? 14:41:27 ... don't necessarily want to add more properties and exponentially increase the property/view mode table 14:41:36 Steven-cwi, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Marcin (82%), Art_Barstow (3%) 14:41:51 zakim, who is noisy? 14:42:07 Steven-cwi, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Marcin (9%), arve (59%), Art_Barstow (19%) 14:42:19 zakim, mute arve temporarily 14:42:19 arve should now be muted 14:42:20 I'm back in, but speaking is difficult 14:42:29 landline = flat battery 14:42:35 arve should now be unmuted again 14:42:49 MH: want to continue opacity discussion 14:43:14 ... want author to require opaque viewport but now that can't be done - it is up to the UA 14:43:33 ... 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 [We should do that by making opacity attribute separate from view mode] 14:44:17 MH: yes, I'm fine with that 14:44:26 ... but not sure where that would be specified 14:44:30 [config.xml, probably] 14:44:34 ... config.xml? CSS? 14:44:48 MH: ok, config.xml 14:45:21 AB: let's please continue this discussion on the mail list 14:45:32 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 AB: anything else on the VM-MF spec for today? 14:46:07 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 ... they are closely related 14:46:20 AB: ok; understood 14:46:38 Topic: AOB 14:46:50 AB: Next call: No call on January 27; next call is Feb 4. 14:47:21 AB: anything else for today? 14:47:39 JS: regrets for Feb 4 14:47:47 AB: meeting adjourned 14:47:56 Jan 28th you meant? 14:48:26 AB: oops - I meant no call on Jan 28! - next call is Feb 4 14:48:30 -Art_Barstow 14:48:31 -Marcin 14:48:32 -??P2 14:48:35 -Steven 14:48:35 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:48:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:48:41 -arve 14:49:18 -Josh_Soref 14:49:19 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended 14:49:20 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 zakim, bye 14:50:27 Zakim has left #wam 14:51:24 arve has left #wam 14:53:36 RRSAgent, bye 14:53:36 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-actions.rdf : 14:53:36 ACTION: Robin process the LC comments for the WARP LC [1] 14:53:36 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-irc#T14-08-56 14:53:36 ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list [2] 14:53:36 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-irc#T14-11-59 14:53:36 ACTION: jolly submit a UC for the local network access proposal [3] 14:53:36 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-irc#T14-22-39