See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
AB: agenda submitted on Feb 3 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0411.html ). We will drop 4.a. because Marcos already closed action 476. Any change requests?
AB: any short announcements?
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:
). Marcos said (
) "the emails resulted in clarifications to the spec and fixes
in the test suite".
... any comments about Marcos' analysis or any concerns about the comments that were submitted?
AB: I also did not recognize any substantial comments
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
... any comments?
... any disagreements with my intepretation?
MC: I added one test to the test
... thus everyone is down to 99%
... planning to add one more test
... then I think it will be complete
SP: what are the exit criteria?
MC: 2 impls that pass 100% of the tests
Arve: having 2 interop impls
doesn't mean there are no problems
... if those impls are widely used
... Perhaps the exit criteria should have been tighter
AB: we are free to create any
criteria we want
... I would caution though on being overly constraining
... I am also sympathetic to the concerns Marcos raised
<Steven-cwi> and demonstrated at least two interoperable implementations (interoperable meaning at least two implementations that pass each test in the test suite).
MC: we all agree we don't want to rush it
SP: agree and that's not what I was saying; just wanted to clarify
<Steven-cwi> Traditionally, exiting CR was with two impls of each feature, rather than two implementations of EVERY feature
MC: think we need more "in the wild" usage
<Steven-cwi> but we are being stricter, which is fine
<Steven-cwi> but the wording can actually be interpreted as the looser version
RB: I think we're OK to
... think we've already done pretty good
... if we run into serious probs we can publish a 2nd edition
... we have done a bunch of authoring and not found major issues
MC: if people feel confident, I won't block moving forward
AB: coming back to these two new test cases
AB: at a minumum, presume we
would need at least 2/3 impls to run these 2 new tests
... one of the new tests is checked in already?
... and the 2nd will be checked in today
AB: after you check in this 2nd test, can you notify the list and ask implementors to run them?
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C tests and ask implementors to run them and report their results [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: so this is BONDI, Aplix, Wookie?
AB: I wonder how long it will take to get data from them?
MC: I think "pretty quick"
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?
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.
... any thoughts on those?
MC: no, not yet
... we had some tests that covered optional functionality but they aren't part of the test suite
... I don't have any ITS tests
... but I can add them
AB: I wonder if they should be in a separate directory so it is clear they do not test Mandatory funtionality
SP: so SHOULD and MAY assertions are not tested?
MC: yes, that's correct
... with a few exceptions
SP: normally, SHOULDs should be
treated as regular tests
... re MAYs, should have at least an example of how it is used
MC: we have 1 normative SHOULD in
... we also use OPTIONAL
... e.g. with the ITS functionality
AB: if we follow SP's recomendation, then we just need one more test?
MC: yes and I already created that test
AB: then it seems like we should ask the implementors to run that test as well
SP: if ITS is optional, what is your expectation if it is used?
MC: used to denote certain text spans are rendered LtoR or RtoL
SP: what is the normative
requirement you'd have to test if it is implemented?
... is it a "don't crash" type test?
MC: would make sure the right
Unicode indicators are inserted
... and no crashes :-)
SP: wanted to understand if there
is some functional behavior
... or is it about translating text
MC: similar to HTMLs LtoR and RtoL tag
<Marcos> For example, <name>Yay for the "<its:span dir="rtl">متعة الأسماك!</its:span>" Widget</name>
AB: to summarize, the test suite will have 3 new tests that all implementations will need to run. Is this correct?
... but ITS may require more than one test case
AB: what is the time frame on getting the ITS test case checked in?
MC: tomorrow and I will collaborate with I18N Core WG
<scribe> ACTION: marcos create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-486 - Create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11].
MC: I don't want to block on
comments from I18N Core WG
... shouldn't be complicated
AB: anything else on P&C for today?
[ No ]
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?
MC: Scott's corrections are fine
AB: he checked in changes?
MC: yes, I think so
AB: the Implementation Report (
) is still sparse. What are the plans and expectations
... Marcin, can ACCESS provide some results?
MH: I can't promise anything
AB: do we know what Aplix is planning?
MC: I can ask Kai
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos to ask Aplix about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-487 - Ask Aplix about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11].
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos to ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: Marcos, I can help with these
two actions re TWI test results
... anyone know Widgeon's plans?
RB: it hasn't been a high priority for me ATM
AB: what about Wookie?
MC: yes, I think so but he hasn't published anything yet
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow to ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: do you consider the TWI test suite complete?
... one issue was raised by Dom
... some of the tests were built manually and some were auto-generated
... some of the auto-generated tests need review and possilby some work
... there are still some other issues with that test suite
... I can fix the manual things by Feb 5; no big issues
... Would say the TWI test suite is about 90% done
AB: anything else on the TWI spec for today?
AB: Marcos indicated he does not support publishing a LC spec before a test suite exists. Any comments on this?
RB: I'm fine with either
... I think the time is the same if test suite is done before or after CR
... I do want the WG to consider the spec as frozen
AB: I think the fact that we already recorded consensus to publish the LC means the spec is frozen
RB: there aren't very many
... but it will require some special setup
MC: we need some help from the
... we need to have at least 2 domains to test against
... because we will do cross-domain requests
<darobin> [there are 10 MUSTs, 0 SHOULDs]
AB: wonder if there is any precedenc in W3C for this
MC: Dom mentioned some related work being done in a test suite WG or QA group
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with MC, RB and Dom on creating a infrastructure to test the WARP spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: anything else on WARP testing for today?
[ No ]
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.
SJ: the UCs are related in that
they all require access to resources on a local network
... can expect these resources to have API a widget may want to call
... e.g. to access a camera
AB: any comments on these UCs?
Arve: these UCs are consistent
with what Opera considers "local network"
... not sure where to go from here
... not sure how the service discovery will be done
... could reference some other spec or could add that function to WARP
MC: I'd prefer not to add this
functionality to WARP
... automated discovery has a lot of prior work
... want to keep WARP spec scope as is
... and then we can add on top of WARP
Arve: the definition of local network can change during an invocation of widget i.e. while it is running
AB: so what is the next step for SJ and this proposal?
SJ: I can understand the consensus to not change WARP scope
[ Note taker missed some of SJ's comments .... ]
MC: I don't think WARP should
include service discovery
... don't want to list things the spec doesn't do
RB: agree with Marcos
SJ: if local net discovery could
be standardized somewhere e.g. in DAP WG
... could WARP then reference that spec
... so this functionality could be added in a subsequent spec?
RB: yes, we could add it to something like WARP 1.1
<darobin> [I would like to clarify that I am very supportive of these local network things]
AB: perhaps we should have followups on the mail list
SJ: I'm OK with that
Arve: if widget must connect to
local net and then to the public net
... options are to give completely open access or to just the local net plus the one specific public service
... definition of local is tricky and don't want to open too much
AB: would be helpful if you Arve would respond on the mail list
Arve: yes, I'll do that
SJ: where can I ask questions about service discovery? Is it this WG or some other?
Arve: I think DAP is more appropriate
RB: I think this WG is OK
... but this isn't really in DAP charter
... so you can expect some pushback
... I am open to discuss this in DAP but think we'll get pushback
AB: I'm not aware of any other
WGs for which service discovery is in scope
... anything else on this topic for today?
AB: the tracking document for LC
comments for the URI scheme spec is (
). Seven of the comments are labeled "tocheck" and this implies
some additional communication with the Commenter is
... what's your sense on the next step Robin?
RB: we can make a few changes
based on the TAG's input
... not sure if we should submit registration before or after CR
AB: the PoR says after CR
... is there some input that would change that?
RB: depending on the feedback
from IETF we may need to go back to LC
... may want to have IETF feedback before Director's Call for the CR
AB: I'm certainly OK with doing
the registration before we propose CR to the Director
... how can we satisfy the "thismessage scheme doesn't meet our reqs"?
RB: I don't think that will be
hard; AFAIK, it hasn't been implememted
... I can take an action to do the registration
AB: there is a related action http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/416
<trackbot> ACTION-416 -- Robin Berjon to register URI scheme for the Widgets URI spec -- due 2010-01-01 -- OPEN
<darobin> action-416 due 2010-02-11
<trackbot> ACTION-416 Register URI scheme for the Widgets URI spec due date now 2010-02-11
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
... anything else on this spec for today?
... does anyone have experience with scheme registration?
... I'm wondering what the expecations are re timeframe
RB: HTML5 may have done something recently re WebSockets
AB: OK; I'll check that
AB: I don't have anything for
today. The next call is scheduled for 11 February.
... anything else?
AB: Meeting Adjourned for today
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/Macros/Marcos/ Succeeded: s/shold be/should be/ Succeeded: s/otpions/options/ Succeeded: s/WebApps' charter/DAP charter/ Succeeded: s/back to CR/back to LC/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Arve Marcos StephenJ StevenP Robin Marcin Regrets: Josh Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0411.html Found Date: 04 Feb 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow marcos[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]