See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 February 2010
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
Date: 11 February 2010
<Marcos> member:Zakim, +1.479.524.aaaa is me
<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
AB: yesterday I sent out the
draft agenda for this meeting (
). Are there any change requests?
... we will add MPEG-U discussion to AOB ( http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-u/pt1.zip )
... we will drop 5.a discuss Action-490 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/490 ) since I hoping to get to it before this meeting but did not and thus have nothing to report.
... any agenda change requests?
[ no ]
AB: two normative refs in Widgets DigSig to XML Signatures specs entered LCWD on Feb 4 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0531.html ). Any other short announcements?
AB: last week Marcos mentioned he would add a new test case to the P&C test suite. He has done that ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0485.html ). Thanks Marcos! What is the status of people running this new test?
MC: it has been run by Aplix, BONDI, Wookie have all run this new test and passed it
AB: wrt the P&C Interop Report, are we back to 3 impls that pass 100% of the test suite?
MC: yes, that is correct
AB: Marcos, what is the status of the P&C ITS testing and Action-486 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/486 )?
MC: I haven't done that yet
AB: do you need some help wrt coordinating with the I18N WG?
MC: no, I just need to create the
test or tests
... it's not that much work
... I don't think it should block us from going to PR
AB: I agree but we know the
Director has indicated he would like to see that test
... do you need an impl of ITS to test the tests?
MC: yes, that is correct
... I am not aware of any impl that will support it
... it is indeed optional
AB: would like SP to help us with the process here
SP: if it is optional then there
should be at least one impl
... with something like this, not sure what to suggest
... to go to REC with an unimplemented feature would mean the feature is at risk
AB: but what about going to PR?
SP: should try to find something that can do something with the test
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with MC and the Team to determine how to test the P&C ITS test(s) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-491 - Work with MC and the Team to determine how to test the P&C ITS test(s) [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-18].
SP: input mode on XHTML Basic, we
did find an internal impl we could use
... without revealing confidential info
... [so there is a precedence that could be followed]
MC: could it be placed in Widgeon Robin?
RB: if you want to do so :-)
MC: just need to insert the right unicodes
RB: agree it could be done but I
don't have the bandwidth to do it
... it is OSS so anyone can do the impl
SP: I think that would be fine
RB: agree it would take care of
... not sure though about how useful it is
SP: may not have one complete
impl for PR but all features must be implemented by some set of
... need to show it is implementable, not necessarily implemented
RB: we have tighter constraints
MC: we said all MUST assertions
must have tests
... support for ITS is Not Mandatory
... it wouldn't harm the spec if it was removed
AB: to wrap up, I have Action-491
and I'd like to be in a position next week during our call to
deteremine if we have consensus to move P&C spec to
... anything else on P&C for today?
AB: earlier this week Marcos proposed some security considerations text ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0501.html ) for the openURL method.
MC: we proposed some text
... Adam raised some good issues
... want to wait for additional feedback
... would be good to hear from TLR
AB: other than chasing down Adam, et al., is there anything else you need from the group?
MC: no, that's it
AB: the idea is to create non-normative guidelines?
MC: yes but there is a question about if the file:// URI should not be used
AB: would that change require us to go back to LC?
MC: not sure; want to make this
... a UA may want to support file:// URI
... we can't keep an impl from doing that
AB: any other feedback for MC on
... I'd like to see this added as non-normative text
MC: I agree
AB: Cyrll posted some general
comments about the TWI spec (
). There were quite a few follow-ups. Where do we stand on
... will addressing any of these comments require the TWI spec to go back to LC?
MC: I don't think any of these
comments affect normative text
... I consider them clarifications
... it does expose the window object issue
AB: I think he raised that in a separate thread
MC: yes, but it's in thread 0479 too
AB: here is the other thread by Cyril: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0476.htm
<Marcos> Cyril said "* What happens to the "storage" event fired by the setItem or removeItem methods when the UA does not implement the window object ?"
AB: do any of the non window object changes affect normative text?
MC: no; the others are all clarifications
AB: does anyone disagree with MC's characterization
AB: Cyril also submitted some comments about the window object ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0476.html ).
MC: the issue is the dependency
on HTML5's window object
... we use the browsing context as defined in HTML5
... this does create a problem for non HTML languages
... I don't think this means much wrt normative text for TWI spec
... could say if you implement HTML5 then put Widget object on the Window
AB: does anyone have concerns about this?
RB: I'm not convinced we need to
... we can talk about global object but that could create problems for other impls
... I think what we have is good enough
MC: I think we should just leave it as is
AB: I agree with Robin's concern
about a global Widget object
... any other comments on this?
... does it appear Cyril is OK with what you and RB are saying MC?
MC: yes; he acknowledged that what we said was correct (we pointed out some info he had not seen)
AB: proposed resolution is: the
window object as currently specified in the TWI CR is OK as
... any objections to that proposed resolution?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: the window object as currently specified in the TWI CR is OK as is
AB: is the TWI test suite still incomplete?
MC: yes, that's correct
... I need to get together with Dom after he returns next week
... If anyone can help with the Web IDL, please let me know
RB: I can take a look but I
recommend you ask Dom first
... I think it is correct
MC: I think what Dom proposed
... but there are problems with the automatically generated tests the Dom created
... that is the only real blocker at the moment
... some implementors are already running the test suite
... Wookie has been reporting some results and Opera too
AB: how does the report process work?
MC: an implementor creates and
maintains their own XML file
... of the test results
... we are not verifying results
AB: do people drop their test results in CVS or email them to you?
MC: preferably the implementors just put their results in CVS
AB: anything else on the TWI spec for today?
AB: Doug sent out a call for
comments on WebApps charter renewal (
). Scott Wilson requested some new deliverables (
... I think the #1 priority for the new charter is completing the work we already have in progress.
SP: I don't have any comments on the charter yet
SP: the copyright is incorrect
DS: thanks for that pointer
... we wanted to re-use as much of the existing charter as possible
... I will look at that output
... we will include a pointer to our publication status: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus
AB: I prefer a pointer to a living document
SP: the charter should include a pointer to that pub status page
AB: yes, it does
DS: Art, I have now included the
change you proposed
... I expect to get management review next week so a formal AC review could happen late next week
... what new widget delieverables do we want?
AB: Scott Wilson proposed a few things
AB: the Social APIs need more
... there is also a widget intercommunciation proposal
... some have said that should leverage HTML5's mechanisms as much as possible and I agree with that
DS: if we want to add any new work, we should make it explicit
Arve: I don't think we want a widget-specific spec for communication, we want a Web communcation spec
DS: so a "Web messaging" spec?
Arve: yes, something like that
... don't know where we will end up e.g. one spec versus two and scope
... we should probably start with use cases
... need messaging to signal between windows for example
... not sure postMessage will be the best way to solve it
[ Doug reads related text he has added to the draft charter http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html ]
DS: I think we should have an explicit deliverable
Arve: yes, agree
... there may be some relationship between notifications and messaging
... we can also consider widgets embedded on a web page e.g. Google gadget
DS: think this format can be used by other apps e.g. flash
<darobin> DS: it is very common for designers to need to send a file with all its resources, this would be very useful for that
DS: I can add messaging and
... and that will take care of Scott's #1 point
... re point #2 from Scott, I think that's a reasonable use case
... re point #3 and Social api, not sure
Arve: I'd like to see some use case about the Social API
MC: there is some related work onging in one of the XGs
Arve: I don't think we can add something like Social API without more information
AB: I agree with Arve
<scribe> ACTION: wilson submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - wilson
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ChrisWilson, swilson3, awilson2)
<scribe> ACTION: scott submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-492 - Submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [on Scott Wilson - due 2010-02-18].
AB: I think we given Doug sufficient info for points #1 and #2
DS: not sure I have wording about
the embedding proposal
... but I will work on some wording
AB: anything else on charter?
MC: in the scope of the charter,
should say something about packaged client-side
... perhaps i.e. widgets
... make it very clear that widgets are in scope
[ Doug reads latest related text form the scope ]
MC: that's good enough
<shepazu> [[Widgets Embedding:: a mechanism to allow server-side deployment of packaged client-side applications, within a Web page or as standalone content.]]
<darobin> +1 to Marcos
<arve> [Widgets Embedding: A mechanism to allow deployment and embedding of packaged widgets in web applications, within a web page or as stand-alone content]
MC: not sure about "deployment" here
DS: perhaps I should remove stand-alone content
[ DS reads updated proposed text ... ; positive nods from attendees ... ]
AB: thanks Doug!
<arve> +1 thanks
AB: ISO' MPEG-U group is
"embracing and extending" our widget specs e.g. see: (
... without Cyril here, not sure we should have this discussion today?
... has anyone there spec?
[ No ]
<scribe> ACTION: barstow invite Cyril to our widget call on 18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-493 - Invite Cyril to our widget call on 18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-18].
DS: I skimmed it
RB: I skimmed it too
... some parts are concerning
DS: I propose we send an
immediate response and will respond with details later
... think they want to finish their work in April
... I think some of their work will conflict with our widget messaging work
AB: how about we invite Cyril to
next call and use that as a way to explain our concerns
... that would give everyone 1 week to review their doc
AB: then that's what we'll
... anything else on this topic?
... anything else for today?
... meeting adjourned; next meeting is Feb 18
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/Anne/Adam/ Succeeded: s/discover/discovery/ Succeeded: s/pioont/point/ Succeeded: s/anyhting/anything/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Robin Bryan StevenP Marcos Arve Doug Regrets: Stephen_Jolly David_Rogers Marcin_Hanclik Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0532.html Found Date: 11 Feb 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow cyril invite scott wilson[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]