13:00:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:00:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/01-wam-irc
13:01:22 <Steven> Steven has joined #wam
13:01:33 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
13:01:35 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
13:01:36 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
13:01:38 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0979.html
13:01:39 <ArtB> Chair: Art
13:01:41 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:01:41 <darobin> ArtB, thanks :) we have quite a few more in the pipeline....
13:01:42 <ArtB> Regrets: Frederick, Marcin
13:01:57 <Steven> zakim, who is here?
13:01:57 <Zakim> sorry, Steven, I don't know what conference this is
13:01:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see Steven, RRSAgent, Zakim, darobin, joao, tlr, Marcos, ArtB, timeless_mbp, kenneth, shepazu, trackbot, steve
13:02:09 <ArtB> zakim, this is widgets
13:02:09 <Zakim> ok, ArtB; that matches IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM
13:02:11 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-781
13:02:11 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
13:02:12 <Zakim> +Thomas
13:02:32 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
13:02:32 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
13:02:34 <Zakim> +Steven
13:02:38 <Zakim> + +1.479.524.aaaa
13:02:41 <Steven> zakim, mute me
13:02:41 <Zakim> Steven should now be muted
13:03:03 <Zakim> +??P2
13:03:11 <darobin> Zakim, ??P2 is me
13:03:11 <Zakim> +darobin; got it
13:03:33 <Marcos> zakim, +1.479.524.aaaa is me
13:03:33 <Zakim> +Marcos; got it
13:03:36 <ArtB> Present: Art, Thomas, Steven, Robin, Marcos, 
13:03:50 <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:03:53 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
13:03:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see Art_Barstow, Thomas, Steven (muted), Marcos, darobin
13:03:57 <ArtB> AB: yesterday I posted the agenda ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0979.html ). Any change requests? 
13:04:06 <ArtB> AB: re Widgets Dig Sig, Frederick sent regrets for today but Thomas can join us so we'll make that the first spec.
13:04:31 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
13:04:38 <ArtB> AB: any short announcements?
13:04:52 <tlr> ack thomas
13:04:56 <Zakim> + +1.425.214.aabb
13:05:11 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
13:05:51 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
13:06:25 <ArtB> TLR: we are looking into a workshop re privacy and APIs
13:06:34 <ArtB> ... specifically, device APIs
13:06:40 <ArtB> ... e.g. Geolocation
13:06:49 <ArtB> ... TAG has done some related discussing
13:07:03 <ArtB> ... CfP could be available in a week or two
13:07:17 <ArtB> ... If anyone is interested in helping, ping me offline
13:08:01 <ArtB> MC: sounds interesting; I'd like to participate
13:08:10 <ArtB> AB: this sounds good; expect Nokia to participate
13:08:20 <ArtB> Topic: Widget DigSig spec: C14N bug
13:08:26 <ArtB> AB: earlier this week, Frederick announced a bug in the Widget DigSig spec related to C14N ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0953.html ). Yesterday he submitted a modified proposed resolution ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0980.html ).
13:08:47 <ArtB> AB: the main issue is the spec isn't clear which C14N algorithm to use i.e. 1.0 or 1.1 and the proposal is to make it explicit: use 1.1.
13:08:52 <bsulliva> bsulliva has joined #wam
13:09:07 <ArtB> AB: the modified proposal includes 3 normative changes and a couple of non-normative changes.
13:09:10 <bsulliva> present+ bryan_sullivan
13:09:21 <ArtB> AB: for today, mainly want to see if the issue(s) and proposed resolution are clear.
13:10:08 <tlr> ack thomas
13:10:57 <ArtB> TLR: there may be a bug in the bug
13:11:13 <ArtB> ... in the proposed resol re section 7.2
13:11:37 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
13:11:41 <ArtB> ... some of that text is not correct
13:11:57 <ArtB> Present+ Josh
13:12:15 <ArtB> ... I will follow-up today
13:12:19 <ArtB> AB: thank you
13:12:32 <ArtB> BS: does this mean that tools that sign will need to change?
13:12:48 <ArtB> TR: the change should be fairly minor
13:13:09 <ArtB> ... the change to the markup is just explicitly adding the algorithm to use
13:13:56 <ArtB> ... If a change is needed, that means you are using 1.0 for the object and 1.1 for everything else
13:14:26 <ArtB> ... Changes should be minor, depends on what the impl does
13:15:17 <ArtB> BS: so if sign a widget with current tool and then test with updated tool?
13:15:43 <ArtB> TR: the old signatures are not likely to be conformant with the spec as changed
13:16:12 <ArtB> ... if some type of generic tool was used, it may work
13:16:26 <ArtB> BS: having those details would be helpful
13:16:41 <ArtB> ... especially for those that have already deployed based on the current spec
13:16:56 <ArtB> ... Will need to resign?
13:17:23 <ArtB> TR: if a widget is signed according to old spec and uses 1.0
13:17:49 <ArtB> ... then want to know if 1.1 verifier will throw an error or not
13:18:16 <ArtB> BS: need to clear answer to these deployement questions
13:18:25 <ArtB> TR: read Frederick's email
13:18:50 <ArtB> ... there is should level support for 1.0 
13:18:58 <ArtB> BS: OK; will read it
13:19:08 <ArtB> TR: I will follow-up in email today
13:19:46 <ArtB> AB: let's try to respond to FH and TLR's emails by April 8
13:20:13 <ArtB> ... want to know by then if this is going to cause major problems or not
13:20:32 <Zakim> -Thomas
13:20:33 <ArtB> Topic: P&C spec: <span> and dir
13:20:41 <ArtB> AB: the last thread on Marcos' new <span> and dir model is ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0936.html ). Marcos, what's the status?
13:21:15 <ArtB> MC: I think we might be done
13:21:26 <ArtB> ... pending one note
13:21:41 <ArtB> ... i.e. the security precautions
13:21:54 <ArtB> ... unicode and URIs
13:22:34 <ArtB> AB: have you received any responses to your revised proposal?
13:22:46 <ArtB> MC: they said they will reivew at next voice conf
13:23:31 <ArtB> AB: so we'll need to wait for them to respond
13:24:43 <ArtB> AB: re next steps with this spec, I'm not sure we can go straight to PR
13:24:57 <ArtB> MC: we can argue we haven't really changed functionality
13:25:12 <ArtB> DR: I think it is a small enough change we can go to PR
13:25:25 <darobin> s/DR/RB/
13:25:28 <ArtB> MC: I created some tests
13:25:43 <ArtB> ... but we need some way to run the tests
13:26:38 <ArtB> AB: what % of the dir and span tests are completed?
13:26:51 <ArtB> MC: I just have a skeleton; haven't created actual widgets
13:27:29 <ArtB> RB: re how to run the tests
13:27:38 <ArtB> ... this is no diff from other aspects of the config file
13:27:47 <ArtB> ... i.e. they don't show in the UA's UI
13:27:56 <ArtB> ... just use dumps or something like that
13:28:47 <ArtB> AB: not sure you need to create the same quality of tests we have for our Mandatory tests
13:29:01 <ArtB> MC: yes, just need to show the parsing is done correctly
13:29:38 <Steven> ack me
13:31:08 <ArtB> AB: Steven, do you think Team will support going to PR?
13:31:21 <ArtB> SP: yes, as long as you've got the tests, that should be good enough
13:31:38 <ArtB> MC: it will be very diff for us to show a UA that displays the info
13:31:57 <ArtB> ... we'll have to take it on an implementor's word that they've "done it"
13:32:49 <ArtB> ... our test reports are based on a core parsing engine that doesn't have any UI
13:32:57 <ArtB> SP: depends on the exit criteria
13:33:10 <ArtB> ... CR should prove the spec is implementable
13:33:23 <ArtB> ... need to show they are implemented somewhere and interoperable
13:33:56 <ArtB> MC: thanks for the clarification
13:34:01 <ArtB> AB: yes, that was helpful
13:34:30 <ArtB> AB: the PoA is: get closure with I18N WG re the latest changes Marcos proposed and then to proceed to PR
13:34:38 <ArtB> AB: any disagreements?
13:34:43 <ArtB> ... or any concerns?
13:34:45 <ArtB> [ No ]
13:34:50 <darobin> +1
13:35:03 <ArtB> Topic: TWI spec: Issue #116
13:35:10 <ArtB> AB: Issue-116 is "Need to flesh out the security considerations for the openURL method in the Widget Interface spec" (  http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 ). Marcos, what's the status on the proposed text?
13:35:38 <ArtB> MC: we are still sorting it out
13:35:44 <ArtB> ... I don't have a new proposal
13:35:50 <ArtB> ... but hope to have something soon
13:36:10 <ArtB> AB: is there something the rest of us can provide to help?
13:36:25 <ArtB> MC: I don't think it will change any normative text
13:36:30 <Steven> zakim, mute me
13:36:30 <Zakim> Steven should now be muted
13:36:37 <ArtB> ... we are blocked on implementations
13:37:11 <ArtB> ... don't think we need to worry about it
13:37:16 <ArtB> Topic: TWI spec: interop status
13:37:27 <ArtB> AB: the TWI Implementation Report ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/imp-report/ ) indicates Opera passes 100% of the tests. We need another implementation to pass 100% of the tests to exit Candidate. Can anyone provide some additional implementation data?
13:38:16 <ArtB> RB: I do plan to make an update within two weeks 
13:38:20 <ArtB> AB: for widgeon?
13:38:27 <ArtB> RB: for a new approach for widgeon
13:39:15 <ArtB> AB: does anyone else have impl data they can share?
13:39:33 <ArtB> Topic: WARP spec: test suite status
13:39:39 <ArtB> AB: what is the status of the WARP test suite ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-access/test-suite/ )? 
13:39:56 <ArtB> RB: nothing recent from me
13:40:03 <ArtB> MC: nothing recent from me either
13:40:23 <ArtB> ... the spec has been marked-up for testing
13:40:28 <ArtB> ... just need the tests
13:40:39 <ArtB> ... I'd like to move this to CR as quickly as possible
13:40:57 <ArtB> ... and I don't think we need a test suite before publishing the CR
13:41:12 <ArtB> RB: I'm fine with that as well
13:43:21 <ArtB> AB: any other comments about going to CR now?
13:43:24 <ArtB> [ No ]
13:43:44 <Zakim> - +1.425.214.aabb
13:43:46 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow add proposal to move WARP spec to CR to April 8 agenda
13:43:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-513 - Add proposal to move WARP spec to CR to April 8 agenda [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-04-08].
13:44:03 <ArtB> Topic: URI Scheme spec: Action-510
13:44:09 <ArtB> AB: before I can ping IETF on the status of our scheme registration, Robin needs to respond to Julian re ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/510 ). Robin, what's the status of this action?
13:44:11 <Zakim> + +1.425.214.aacc
13:44:47 <ArtB> RB: I still have some edits to make
13:44:52 <ArtB> ... then I will respond
13:45:10 <eiras> eiras has joined #wam
13:45:15 <ArtB> ... they have a 4-week review period
13:45:20 <ArtB> ... think that ends next week
13:45:34 <ArtB> ... I intend to reply to original posters
13:45:46 <ArtB> ... and then to uri-review to determine the status
13:46:34 <ArtB> RB: anyone know about implementation?
13:46:49 <ArtB> MC: not sure about our status
13:46:56 <ArtB> ... could have been based on an old spec
13:47:02 <ArtB> RB: widgeon implements it
13:47:16 <ArtB> AB: we had some discussion about the authority 
13:47:44 <ArtB> Topic: View Modes Media Feature spec: comments from CSS WG
13:47:52 <ArtB> AB: during our last meeting we had a short discussion re comments from CSS WG re the VMMF spec ( http://www.w3.org/2010/03/18-wam-minutes.html#item06 ) but without Robin, we didn't dive too deep.
13:48:17 <ArtB> AB: Comments from CSSWG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0804.html
13:48:25 <ArtB> AB: Comments from Daniel Glazman: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0800.html
13:48:35 <ArtB> AB: Comments from Brad Kemper: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0803.html
13:48:45 <ArtB> AB: Height and width attribute (raised by Marcos): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0847.html
13:49:28 <ArtB> AB: I'd first like to talk about the scope question e.g. keep its scope limited or expand it. Daniel said "why is this restricted to widgets"
13:50:00 <ArtB> RB: I agree with DG that it shouldn't be
13:50:10 <ArtB> MC: I agree to but what does that mean work wise
13:50:25 <ArtB> RB: I think it just means removing any refs to "widgets"
13:50:28 <kenneth> me too, btw I have additional comments: http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg08111.html
13:50:34 <ArtB> ... it could affect the test suite
13:51:09 <Marcos> Kenneth, will you join the call? 
13:51:23 <kenneth> Marcos, can I?
13:52:05 <Marcos> certainly is
13:52:10 <darobin> kenneth: certainly
13:52:45 <ArtB> RB: I can respond to all of the comments 
13:52:56 <ArtB> AB: there are a couple I'd like to discuss today
13:52:59 <kenneth> ok could anyone give me info on how to call? Then I will find a room with wifi
13:53:13 <ArtB> MC: re width and height
13:53:36 <ArtB> RB: not sure it needs to be in MF spec
13:53:46 <ArtB> MC: yes, I kinda' see what you mean
13:54:03 <ArtB> RB: in P&C we say they are indications
13:54:17 <kenneth> ok I will try!
13:54:50 <ArtB> MC: P&C says given width and height, it says what UA does is dependent on the view mode
13:55:16 <Marcos> "Authoring Guidelines: It is optional for authors to use the width attribute with a widget element. This value is only applicable to particular view modes, meaning that for certain view modes this value is ignored. The view modes that honor the value of the height attribute are defined in the [Widgets-Views] specification. "
13:55:19 <ArtB> ... but that text is non-normative
13:55:31 <ArtB> AB: ah, I see 
13:55:45 <ArtB> RB: we could just drop that last sentence
13:55:53 <ArtB> AB: would that be OK Marcos?
13:56:04 <ArtB> MC: I think that would be OK
13:56:23 <ArtB> ... don't think it will cause interop probs
13:56:37 <ArtB> AB: feels like being silent here is the right approach
13:57:03 <ArtB> MC: OK, I will remove those two sentences (once for width and once for height)
13:57:07 <ArtB> AB: ok, good
13:57:22 <Zakim> + +055813087aadd
13:57:32 <ArtB> AB: the need for the "all" value
13:58:04 <ArtB> Present+ Kenneth
13:58:27 <ArtB> RB: I think it makes sense to have a catch-all
13:58:33 <ArtB> ... an API could return all
13:58:45 <ArtB> ... and it tends to be consistent with some of the other MQs
13:58:57 <ArtB> ... I'm not married to it
13:59:07 <ArtB> ... Kinda' like the inherit value
13:59:36 <ArtB> KC: but isn't it equiv to not having anything
13:59:58 <ArtB> RB: I just copied it from MQs stuff
14:00:44 <ArtB> KC: if have any new view modes in the feature, it would cause probs
14:00:55 <Zakim> -Steven
14:01:31 <ArtB> RB: if can match on all, then know the UA supports view-mode
14:02:09 <ArtB> KC: could just ask for view-mode then
14:02:27 <ArtB> MC: on the config side, leaving view mode out equates to all
14:02:37 <ArtB> ... which equates to view mode
14:02:54 <Marcos> <widget viewmodes=""> 
14:02:58 <ArtB> AB: so there would be some consistency for not having it?
14:03:39 <ArtB> AB: would anyone object to it being removed?
14:03:42 <ArtB> RB: I would not
14:03:57 <ArtB> KC: could clarify it is always true if it is a widget
14:04:06 <ArtB> RB: but we don't want to tie it to widget
14:04:33 <ArtB> AB: proposed RESOLUTION: the "all" value will be removed from the VM-MF spec
14:04:38 <darobin> +1
14:04:39 <ArtB> AB: any objection?
14:04:46 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the "all" value will be removed from the VM-MF spec
14:05:21 <ArtB> AB: the "hidden" value DG proposed
14:05:34 <ArtB> RB: I can see some value
14:05:48 <ArtB> ... e.g. stopping a CSS animation
14:06:32 <ArtB> AB: without more compelling use case and resources to drive it, not sure about it
14:06:58 <ArtB> KC: may want to stop CSS animations on mobile devices e.g. to save battery
14:07:10 <ArtB> JS: is that a UA problem or author issue?
14:07:18 <ArtB> KC: may want to give author control
14:08:02 <ArtB> ... some of the names are confusing
14:08:13 <ArtB> RB: I'm ok with windowed instead of application
14:08:29 <ArtB> MC: I'm OK with that but we've already implemented "app"
14:08:40 <ArtB> RB: I don't want to bikeshed on names
14:08:42 <ArtB> AB: agree
14:08:50 <ArtB> MC: yes, but we do have implementations
14:09:00 <ArtB> ... we don't want to invalidate them
14:09:10 <ArtB> RB: they should be use -X
14:09:27 <ArtB> KC: in webkit, using -webkit
14:09:42 <ArtB> RB: MC, can you get us some data
14:10:06 <Marcos> http://widget.vodafone.com/dev/
14:10:11 <ArtB> ... need to be careful here 
14:11:03 <ArtB> AB: without substantial reasons to change, not sure we should change them
14:11:15 <ArtB> KC: need to make them more general
14:11:25 <ArtB> RB: the entire spec is more general
14:11:41 <ArtB> KC: should be relatively easy to support different names
14:11:58 <ArtB> RB: I'd like to get implementors debate this on the mail list
14:12:23 <ArtB> AB: any other comments on VM-MF for today?
14:12:30 <ArtB> Topic: View Modes Interfaces spec: 
14:12:40 <ArtB> AB: during the discussion about the pre-LC version of the VMMF spec, questions were asked about the relationship between VM-I spec and CSSOM specs ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-interfaces.src.html ) and ( http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/ ) via the thread ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0933.html )
14:14:03 <ArtB> KC: need a way to change the View Mode from JavaScript
14:14:13 <ArtB> ... everything else is already in CSSOM
14:14:54 <ArtB> AB: are you saying VM-I spec isn't really needed
14:15:16 <ArtB> KC: just need the view mode change stuff moved into CSSOM
14:16:09 <bsulliva> bsulliva has left #wam
14:17:09 <ArtB> MC: it would be ideal if CSSOM Editor and Kennett could work today and make sure our use cases get into the CSSOM spec
14:17:22 <ArtB> KC: not sure how that would work in practice
14:17:29 <ArtB> MC: we're happy to help
14:18:03 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow work with Kenneth on a plan to address VM-I use cases and reqs via the CSSOM spec
14:18:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-514 - Work with Kenneth on a plan to address VM-I use cases and reqs via the CSSOM spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-04-08].
14:18:18 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
14:18:33 <ArtB> AB: does anyone have any other discussion points for today?
14:18:41 <ArtB> AB: next meeting will April 8
14:19:01 <ArtB> MC: will charter be renewed by then?
14:19:05 <ArtB> AB: no
14:20:17 <Marcos> "When the attribute is missing, or is left empty, it implies that the author allows the user agent to select and appropriate viewmode for the widget."
14:21:05 <timeless_mbp> … it indicates the author has not requested a specific viewmode 
14:21:06 <timeless_mbp> ?
14:21:18 <Zakim> - +1.425.214.aacc
14:21:20 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
14:21:21 <Zakim> -darobin
14:21:24 <Zakim> -KennethChristiansen
14:21:26 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
14:21:27 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
14:21:41 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:21:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/01-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:21:41 <Zakim> -Marcos
14:21:44 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:21:45 <Zakim> Attendees were Art_Barstow, Thomas, Steven, darobin, Marcos, +1.425.214.aabb, Josh_Soref, +1.425.214.aacc, +055813087aadd, KennethChristiansen
14:22:01 <Marcos> or lunch
14:22:58 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
14:22:58 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/01-wam-actions.rdf :
14:22:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow add proposal to move WARP spec to CR to April 8 agenda [1]
14:22:58 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/01-wam-irc#T13-43-46
14:22:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow work with Kenneth on a plan to address VM-I use cases and reqs via the CSSOM spec [2]
14:22:58 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/01-wam-irc#T14-18-03
14:23:01 <ArtB> zakim, bye
14:23:01 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wam