14:01:03 RRSAgent has joined #wam 14:01:03 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc 14:01:15 RRSAgent, make log public 14:01:27 ScribeNick: ArtB 14:01:29 Scribe: Art 14:01:30 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0411.html 14:01:32 Chair: Art 14:01:33 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 14:01:35 Date: 4-Feb-2010 14:01:56 Regrets: Josh 14:02:02 Steven-cwi has joined #wam 14:02:11 Present: Art, Arve, Marcos, StephenJ 14:02:13 zakim, dial steven-work 14:02:13 ok, Steven-cwi; the call is being made 14:02:14 +Steven 14:02:36 Present+ StevenP 14:02:44 +??P11 14:02:54 zakim, ??P11 is Robin 14:02:54 +Robin; got it 14:02:59 Present+ Robin 14:03:03 Zakim, Robin is me 14:03:03 +darobin; got it 14:03:15 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 14:03:22 AB: agenda submitted on Feb 3 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0411.html ). We will drop 4.a. because Macros already closed action 476. Any change requests? 14:03:33 s/Macros/Marcos/ 14:03:51 Topic: Announcements 14:03:54 + +49.208.829.0.aaaa 14:03:55 marcin has joined #wam 14:03:57 AB: any short announcements? 14:04:01 Present+ Marcin 14:04:21 Topic: P&C spec: Any critical comments against P&C CR#2? 14:04:35 zakim, aaaa is Marcin 14:04:35 +Marcin; got it 14:04:41 AB: the comment period for P&C CR#2 ended 24-Jan-2010. About 15 comments were submitted against the spec and its test suite see the list in: ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0410.html ). Marcos said ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0413.html ) "the emails resulted in clarifications to the spec and fixes in the test suite". 14:05:33 AB: any comments about Marcos' analysis or any concerns about the comments that were submitted? 14:05:39 +1 14:05:59 AB: I also did not recognize any substantial comments 14:06:14 Topic: P&C spec: Interop plans (and exiting CR) 14:06:32 AB: the P&C CR Implementation Report ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ ) shows 3 implementations pass 100% of the tests in the test suite. I think that means we can now exit CR and advance to PR. 14:06:50 AB: any comments? 14:07:01 ... any disagreements with my intepretation? 14:07:08 MC: I added one test to the test suite 14:07:16 ... thus everyone is down to 99% 14:07:23 ... planning to add one more test 14:07:32 ... then I think it will be complete 14:07:49 SP: what are the exit criteria? 14:08:03 MC: 2 impls that pass 100% of the tests 14:08:21 Arve: having 2 interop impls doesn't mean there are no problems 14:08:28 ... if those impls are widely used 14:08:42 ... Perhaps the exit criteria should have been tighter 14:09:04 AB: we are free to create any criteria we want 14:09:18 ... I would caution though on being overly constraining 14:09:50 AB: I am also sympathetic to the concerns Marcos raised 14:10:43 and demonstrated at least two interoperable implementations (interoperable meaning at least two implementations that pass each test in the test suite). 14:11:10 MC: we all agree we don't want to rush it 14:11:30 SP: agree and that's not what I was saying; just wanted to clarify 14:11:31 Traditionally, exiting CR was with two impls of each feature, rather than two implementations of EVERY feature 14:11:41 MC: think we need more "in the wild" usage 14:11:43 but we are being stricter, which is fine 14:11:58 but the wording can actually be interpreted as the looser version 14:12:03 RB: I think we're OK to ship 14:12:10 ... think we've already done pretty good 14:12:23 ... if we run into serious probs we can publish a 2nd edition 14:12:35 ... we have done a bunch of authoring and not found major issues 14:12:52 MC: if people feel confident, I won't block moving forward 14:13:11 AB: coming back to these two new test cases 14:13:16 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/ta-rZdcMBExBX/002/ 14:13:40 ... at a minumum, presume we would need at least 2/3 impls to run these 2 new tests 14:13:58 AB: one of the new tests is checked in already? 14:14:01 MC: yes 14:14:09 ... and the 2nd will be checked in today 14:15:10 AB: after you check in this 2nd test, can you notify the list and ask implementors to run them? 14:15:12 MC: yes 14:15:34 ACTION: Marcos notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C tests and ask implementors to run them and report their results 14:15:35 Created ACTION-485 - Notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C tests and ask implementors to run them and report their results [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11]. 14:16:16 AB: so this is BONDI, Aplix, Wookie? 14:16:18 RB: yes 14:16:36 AB: I wonder how long it will take to get data from them? 14:16:42 MC: I think "pretty quick" 14:16:46 RB: agree 14:17:15 AB: so the tentative plan is we should be in a postion on Feb 11 to decide if the P&C spec is ready to move to PR? 14:17:20 MC: yes 14:17:57 AB: one question I have is about the plan to test optional functionality i.e. the SHOULD and MAY assertions, in particular the ITS stuff. 14:18:14 ... any thoughts on those? 14:18:16 q+ 14:18:18 MC: no, not yet 14:18:50 ... we had some tests that covered optional functionality but they aren't part of the test suite 14:18:58 ... I don't have any ITS tests 14:19:03 ... but I can add them 14:19:49 AB: I wonder if they should be in a separate directory so it is clear they do not test Mandatory funtionality 14:20:04 SP: so SHOULD and MAY assertions are not tested? 14:20:08 MC: yes, that's correct 14:20:15 ... with a few exceptions 14:20:36 SP: normally, SHOULDs shold be treated as regular tests 14:20:50 ... re MAYs, should have at least an example of how it is used 14:21:03 s/shold be/should be/ 14:21:14 MC: we have 1 normative SHOULD in the spec 14:21:22 ... we also use OPTIONAL 14:21:42 ... e.g. with the ITS functionality 14:22:24 AB: if we follow SP's recomendation, then we just need one more test? 14:22:31 MC: yes and I already created that test 14:22:51 AB: then it seems like we should ask the implementors to run that test as well 14:22:53 MC: yes 14:23:17 SP: if ITS is optional, what is your expectation if it is used? 14:23:37 MC: used to denote certain text spans are rendered LtoR or RtoL 14:23:57 SP: what is the normative requirement you'd have to test if it is implemented? 14:24:07 ... is it a "don't crash" type test? 14:24:21 MC: would make sure the right Unicode indicators are inserted 14:24:31 ... and no crashes :-) 14:24:58 SP: wanted to understand if there is some functional behavior 14:25:07 ... or is it about translating text 14:25:42 MC: similar to HTMLs LtoR and RtoL tag 14:26:32 For example, Yay for the "متعة الأسماك!" Widget 14:26:34 BDO 14:27:17 AB: to summarize, the test suite will have 3 new tests that all implementations will need to run. Is this correct? 14:27:22 MC: yes 14:27:46 ... but ITS may require more than one test case 14:28:08 AB: what is the time frame on getting the ITS test case checked in? 14:28:24 MC: tomorrow and I will collaborate with I18N Core WG 14:28:38 ACTION: marcos create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite 14:28:38 Created ACTION-486 - Create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11]. 14:28:59 MC: I don't want to block on comments from I18N Core WG 14:29:03 ... shouldn't be complicated 14:29:29 AB: anything else on P&C for today? 14:29:31 [ No ] 14:29:43 Topic: TWI spec: test case comments 14:29:53 AB: Scott submitted comments about the two of TWI test cases ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0222.html ) and ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0300.html ). Has anyone looked at these? 14:30:18 MC: Scott's corrections are fine 14:30:24 AB: he checked in changes? 14:30:28 MC: yes, I think so 14:30:45 Topic: TWI spec: Interop plans? 14:30:54 AB: the Implementation Report ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/imp-report/ ) is still sparse. What are the plans and expectations here? 14:31:37 AB: Marcin, can ACCESS provide some results? 14:31:43 MH: I can't promise anything 14:31:55 AB: do we know what Aplix is planning? 14:31:59 MC: I can ask Kai 14:32:28 ACTION: Marcos to ask Aplix about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec 14:32:28 Created ACTION-487 - Ask Aplix about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11]. 14:32:51 ACTION: Marcos to ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec 14:32:51 Created ACTION-488 - Ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11]. 14:33:07 AB: Marcos, I can help with these two actions re TWI test results 14:33:26 AB: anyone know Widgeon's plans? 14:33:40 RB: it hasn't been a high priority for me ATM 14:33:51 AB: what about Wookie? 14:34:06 MC: yes, I think so but he hasn't published anything yet 14:34:23 ACTION: Barstow to ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec 14:34:23 Created ACTION-489 - Ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-11]. 14:34:54 AB: do you consider the TWI test suite complete? 14:34:56 MC: no 14:35:08 ... one issue was raised by Dom 14:35:27 ... some of the tests were built manually and some were auto-generated 14:35:45 ... some of the auto-generated tests need review and possilby some work 14:36:05 ... there are still some other issues with that test suite 14:36:19 ... I can fix the manual things by Feb 5; no big issues 14:36:34 ... Would say the TWI test suite is about 90% done 14:37:03 AB: anything else on the TWI spec for today? 14:37:22 Topic: WARP spec: test suite plans 14:37:38 AB: Marcos indicated he does not support publishing a LC spec before a test suite exists. Any comments on this? 14:38:36 RB: I'm fine with either plan 14:39:00 ... I think the time is the same if test suite is done before or after CR 14:39:12 ... I do want the WG to consider the spec as frozen 14:39:44 AB: I think the fact that we already recorded consensus to publish the LC means the spec is frozen 14:40:21 RB: there aren't very many testable assertions 14:40:34 ... but it will require some special setup 14:40:44 MC: we need some help from the W3C 14:40:56 ... we need to have at least 2 domains to test against 14:41:09 ... because we will do cross-domain requests 14:41:24 [there are 10 MUSTs, 0 SHOULDs] 14:41:41 AB: wonder if there is any precedenc in W3C for this 14:42:03 MC: Dom mentioned some related work being done in a test suite WG or QA group 14:42:32 ACTION: barstow work with MC, RB and Dom on creating a infrastructure to test the WARP spec 14:42:32 Created ACTION-490 - Work with MC, RB and Dom on creating a infrastructure to test the WARP spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-11]. 14:43:01 AB: anything else on WARP testing for today? 14:43:05 [ No ] 14:43:41 Topic: WARP spec: use cases for local network access 14:43:56 AB: Yesterday Stephen sent some use cases for local network access ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0385.html ). Let's start with an overview from Stephen. 14:44:43 SJ: the UCs are related in that they all require access to resources on a local network 14:45:00 ... can expect these resources to have API a widget may want to call 14:45:13 ... e.g. to access a camera 14:45:36 AB: any comments on these UCs? 14:45:53 Arve: these UCs are consistent with what Opera considers "local network" 14:46:40 ... not sure where to go from here 14:47:00 ... not sure how the service discovery will be done 14:47:13 ... could reference some other spec or could add that function to WARP 14:47:24 MC: I'd prefer not to add this functionality to WARP 14:47:37 ... automated discovery has a lot of prior work 14:47:50 ... want to keep WARP spec scope as is 14:48:12 ... and then we can add on top of WARP 14:48:55 Arve: the definition of local network can change during an invocation of widget i.e. while it is running 14:49:37 AB: so what is the next step for SJ and this proposal? 14:50:05 SJ: I can understand the consensus to not change WARP scope 14:51:06 [ Note taker missed some of SJ's comments .... ] 14:51:24 MC: I don't think WARP should include service discovery 14:51:41 ... don't want to list things the spec doesn't do 14:51:47 RB: agree with Marcos 14:52:37 SJ: if local net discovery could be standardized somewhere e.g. in DAP WG 14:52:48 ... could WARP then reference that spec 14:53:24 SJ: so this functionality could be added in a subsequent spec? 14:53:36 RB: yes, we could add it to something like WARP 1.1 14:54:13 [I would like to clarify that I am very supportive of these local network things] 14:55:14 Zakim, mute arve/marcos 14:55:14 arve/marcos should now be muted 14:55:40 +1 14:55:51 AB: perhaps we should have followups on the mail list 14:56:00 SJ: I'm OK with that 14:56:17 Arve: if widget must connect to local net and then to the public net 14:56:52 ... otpions are to give completely open access or to just the local net plus the one specific public service 14:57:49 ... definition of local is tricky and don't want to open too much 14:58:05 tlr has joined #wam 14:58:16 s/otpions/options/ 14:58:23 AB: would be helpful if you Arve would respond on the mail list 14:58:27 Arve: yes, I'll do that 14:58:48 SJ: where can I ask questions about service discovery? Is it this WG or some other? 14:58:56 Arve: I think DAP is more appropriate 14:59:03 RB: I think this WG is OK 14:59:12 ... but this isn't really in WebApps' charter 14:59:20 ... so you can expect some pushback 14:59:34 s/WebApps' charter/DAP charter/ 14:59:51 RB: I am open to discuss this in DAP but think we'll get pushback 15:00:36 AB: I'm not aware of any other WGs for which service discovery is in scope 15:01:16 AB: anything else on this topic for today? 15:01:28 Topic: URI Scheme spec: Status of LC comment tracking 15:01:41 AB: the tracking document for LC comments for the URI scheme spec is ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/doc/ ). Seven of the comments are labeled "tocheck" and this implies some additional communication with the Commenter is needed. 15:02:51 AB: what's your sense on the next step Robin? 15:03:21 RB: we can make a few changes based on the TAG's input 15:03:40 ... not sure if we should submit registration before or after CR 15:04:02 AB: the PoR says after CR 15:04:19 ... is there some input that would change that? 15:04:42 RB: depending on the feedback from IETF we may need to go back to CR 15:04:53 s/back to CR/back to LC 15:05:02 ... may want to have IETF feedback before Director's Call for the CR 15:06:17 AB: I'm certainly OK with doing the registration before we propose CR to the Director 15:07:04 AB: how can we satisfy the "thismessage scheme doesn't meet our reqs"? 15:07:19 RB: I don't think that will be hard; AFAIK, it hasn't been implememted 15:07:47 RB: I can take an action to do the registration 15:08:15 AB: there is a related action http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/416 15:08:17 action-416? 15:08:17 ACTION-416 -- Robin Berjon to register URI scheme for the Widgets URI spec -- due 2010-01-01 -- OPEN 15:08:17 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/416 15:08:39 action-416 due 2010-02-11 15:08:39 ACTION-416 Register URI scheme for the Widgets URI spec due date now 2010-02-11 15:09:22 AB: OK, then let's get the registration submitted and then we will have more information to use in our decision on what to do next 15:09:35 AB: anything else on this spec for today? 15:09:54 AB: does anyone have experience with scheme registration? 15:10:07 ... I'm wondering what the expecations are re timeframe 15:10:24 RB: HTML5 may have done something recently re WebSockets 15:10:32 AB: OK; I'll check that 15:10:45 Topic: AOB 15:10:52 AB: I don't have anything for today. The next call is scheduled for 11 February. 15:11:30 AB: anything else? 15:11:30 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/system-info-api/ 15:11:49 AB: Meeting Adjourned for today 15:12:02 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:12:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html ArtB 15:12:02 -Marcin 15:12:04 -Steven 15:12:06 -arve/marcos 15:12:08 -darobin 15:12:18 -Art_Barstow 15:12:19 -Stephen_Jolly 15:12:19 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended 15:12:20 Attendees were Art_Barstow, arve/marcos, Stephen_Jolly, Steven, darobin, +49.208.829.0.aaaa, Marcin 15:12:47 heh, I just had a conversation thanking Art for his congratulations and explaining the spec — but was muted... 15:28:47 zakim, bye 15:28:47 Zakim has left #wam 15:28:52 rrsagent, bye 15:28:52 I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-actions.rdf : 15:28:52 ACTION: Marcos notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C tests and ask implementors to run them and report their results [1] 15:28:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-15-34 15:28:52 ACTION: marcos create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite [2] 15:28:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-28-38 15:28:52 ACTION: Marcos to ask Aplix about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [3] 15:28:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-32-28 15:28:52 ACTION: Marcos to ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [4] 15:28:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-32-51 15:28:52 ACTION: Barstow to ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [5] 15:28:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-34-23 15:28:52 ACTION: barstow work with MC, RB and Dom on creating a infrastructure to test the WARP spec [6] 15:28:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-42-32