See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
AB: the draft agenda was posted yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0035.html ). Any change requests? If we have time today, during the AOB topic, I'd like to discuss publishing a new WD of the Widget Update spec.
FH: want to talk about DigSig and WARP
AB: we can re-arrange the topics
AB: any short announcements?
AB: yesterday Frederick submitted a revised Change Request ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0028.html ) for the C14N bug we briefly discussed last week. Any comments or concerns about this CR?
[ no ]
AB: this CR will affect existing implementations. Thus the spec will need to return to Last Call WD.
FH: the feedback I got is that it is OK
MC: I think it is OK; thanks for doing this FH
FH: I discussed this with
TLR
... and with people within Nokia
... internal feedback and TLR feedback is OK
... don't think we have an backward compat harm
... I think we should adopt it since it will help prevent
future interop issues
TR: have we had review from other
implementors?
... e.g. Bryan Sullivan
FH: I haven't seen anything from Bryan
TR: who do we expect impl report and what have they said
MC: I expect Opera to implement; BONDI may have has already implemented
TR: 2nd question - there was
another comment on the list
... about optionality here re c14n
FH: I think the revised text
addresses this concern
... I responded to Andreas on the list
... don't think we want too many options
... it just leads to interop problems
<tlr> Ah, I had overlooked this file: "A ds:Reference that is not to same-document XML content
<tlr> MUST NOT have any ds:Transform elements."
MC: the feedback we get is that we don't want to do c14n on XML lines within the widget
FH: I think MC's argumentation is stronger since it is based on implementor feedback
AB: this CR will affect existing implementations. Thus the spec will need to return to Last Call WD.
FH: yes, it will affect implementations
AB: proposed RESOLUTION: the
group agrees FH's Widget DigSig Change Request should be
applied
... any objections?
FH: do we need to deal with BONDI explicitly?
AB: I think we have given
everyone sufficient time to respond
... any objections to the proposed resolution?
[ none ]
RESOLUTION: the group agrees FH's Widget DigSig Change Request should be applied
<scribe> ACTION: frederick update the Widget DigSig spec to reflect the CR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-519 - Update the Widget DigSig spec to reflect the CR [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-04-15].
RB: yes, I support this CR
AB: we need to record consensus
to publish the new LCWD
... proposed RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a new LCWD
of the Widget Digital Signature spec
... any objections?
[ no ]
RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a new LCWD of the Widget Digital Signature spec
AB: review period: I think we should go for the 3-week minimum. OK?
<darobin> +!
<fjh> +1
<darobin> +1
AB: any object to a 3-wk review period?
[ no ]
<fjh> +spot
<darobin> +his arse
AB: other than the XML Security WG, is there any other WG we want to ask to review the new LC?
FH: I'd like people to review my
change
... let's shoot for a April 15 pub
... I can make the ED changes today
AB: great
<scribe> ACTION: barstow notify the WG after FH adds the CR to the ED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-520 - Notify the WG after FH adds the CR to the ED [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-04-15].
AB: Frederick, please apply Action-508 "Widget DigSig spec: make sure references to XML Sig 1.1 are updated" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/508 )
<fjh> not Candidate Req but change request
FH: sure, I will do that
AB: anything else on dig sig for today
FH: after the ED is done, I do pub rules
AB: after it passes pubrules,
notify me
... anything else on DigSig for today?
AB: Robin, please check
Action-511 "Check if WARP spec should use RFC2181 instead of
RFC1034" based on a comment from Yves ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/511
)
... Robin completed the WARP LC disposition of comments (DoC)
document several weeks ago. Today we want to approve this
document (
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-access-20091208/doc/
).
... any issues with this WARP DoC document?
[ no ]
AB: last week we discussed
advancing the WARP spec to Candidate Recommendation. Does
anyone have any concerns about that?
... proposed RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish the WARP
spec as a Candidate Recommendation
... are there any objections to that?
<darobin> +1
AB: or voices of support?
RB: support
MC: support
RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish the WARP spec as a Candidate Recommendation
<scribe> ACTION: barstow schedule a Director's call to publish a CR of the WARP spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-521 - Schedule a Director's call to publish a CR of the WARP spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-04-15].
AB: Robin, you'll need to
attend
... anyone else want join?
DS: I should be there
AB: anything else on WARP for today?
AB: this topic is intended to review the latest comments the I18N Core WG has re Marcos' latest proposal ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0021.html ). But I haven't seen any recent replies.
<Marcos> fjh, I can help you with processing the doc
MC: I haven't seen anything more from them
AB: should we start the process of moving this spec to PR?
MC: we won't be able to show ITS support
AB: my take on this issue from previous discussions, is that SteveP has indicated we don't need to have implementations but able to show it can be implemented
MC: I thought we need the test
and a screen shot it had been implemented
... I don't think having tests is enough
DS: technically, think you just need to show it can be implemented
MC: I've implemented it in JS
DS: some people think the impls must be in real products
MC: this functionality was a
MAY
... we only added it to satisfy the I18N community
... we never had impl support for it
AB: so is this functionality optional
MC: no, it is part of the language
DS: I think Steven is correct to pass PR
MC: we have the tests
... we need Robin's impl
... and with Opera we can show some screenshots
... think wookie is going to implement
AB: are these tests part of the core test suite or off on the side?
MC: off on the side
AB: is this going to affect Implementation Report we already have?
MC: we will leave these out
... and put them in a separate impl report
AB: I think that's OK
... and it can be a really simple report
... so until we have the screenshots and impls, we can't go to
PR
MC: that's right
<darobin> [I have no idea at all]
AB: any timeframe for screenshots or implementations?
<darobin> ["weeks"]
MC: no, not at this point; could be in a few weeks
AB: are there any other action
items re P&C spec?
... can we go from CR to CR?
DS: no, must go thru LC
<darobin> [straight to PR!]
AB: OK, so we continue to sit in CR until we have at least 2 implementation reports of the <span> and dir atrribute
DS: if you know you have to wait, it could be more efficient to go back to LC
AB: thanks for that input
AB: ED is: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/
... what is the status of responding to comments, updating the
spec?
RB: I expect to make progress today
AB: great
... anything you need from the rest of us?
RB: nothing now
AB: anything else for VMMF?
KC: think chrome definition needs some work
<darobin> [send an issue :)]
KC: as I said on the list
RB: I will go through all of the emails; won't miss it
KC: sounds good
AB: Kenneth proposed to rename ViewModeChanged to ViewModeChange ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0002.html ). Any comments on this proposal?
<darobin> +1
JS: need to look at what HTML
does
... have onMouseDown
... and similar
<timeless_mbp> OnViewChange
JS: could argue for onViewChange
KC: onWidgetModeChange
<kenneth> yes
<kenneth> I think opera uses onwidgetmodechange
JS: not sure we want to use that
triple
... also pretty sure we do not want to include the term
"widget"
<kenneth> the problem with onviewchange is that it didnt change to another view
<kenneth> include?
JS: perhaps "presentation" is
better
... could look for prior usage of it
... onPresentationChange or onRepresentationChange
<timeless_mbp> I'm done :)
<kenneth> i got dropped from the call wait
AB: if people have
counter-proposals, please respond to KC's email on the
list
... Kenneth suggests we need an API for requesting view mode
changes from JavaScript? (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0002.html
). Any comments?
<kenneth> I cannot get the phone to work :-(
<kenneth> ArtB, any way, what about the -d ? changed vs change?
AB: there is no consensus on your
proposal
... continue discussion on the mail list
<darobin> [FWIW I think that dropping the -d is fine, it's more consistent with the rest]
<kenneth> ok
<darobin> [I also think that naming issues shouldn't be discussed by groups, they are editor territory]
KC: we need that API
... so apps can change view modes
... but some widgets may not support all modes
... thus need a request
... also a question about where the API should be defined
... e.g. the Widget Interface spec
MC: we can't put it in TWI spec since that spec is in CR
RB: could be put in TWI spec 1.1
MC: don't want versioned specs but supplemental specs
<timeless_mbp> TWITNG
MC: if we can put this in CSSOM [Views] that would be good
<darobin> Anne van Kesteren
KC: who can talk to about doing that?
MC: Anne van Kesteren and/or the CSS WG
<kenneth> sounds frisian :-)
<kenneth> ah
MC: Opera's view is to use CSSOM as much as possible
AB: can you take a cut at what should move to CSSOM and what, if anything, would be left for us to specifiy
MC: I got some pushback from AvK
(see list)
... may need to take this to the CSS WG
... perhaps Robin or Josh can help here
AB: we do indeed need someone to agree to do spec split analysis
<darobin> [I will look into it, but just like timeless I need time]
MC: I can ask AvK
<scribe> ACTION: marcos talk to AvK about how to split the VM-I spec and the CSSOM spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-522 - Talk to AvK about how to split the VM-I spec and the CSSOM spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-04-15].
MC: perhaps we can co-edit the spec with him
AB: anyone else beside KC that can help with this spec split analysis?
MC: I will push internally
AB: ok, sounds good
... anything else on VM-I for today?
AB: I believe Marcos has added all of the PAG's recommendations to the ED
MC: yes, that is correct
... it was actually Robin that did the edits
AB: thanks Robin!
... I think it would be useful to get a formal WD published
that just reflects the PAGs recommendations
... thus I'd like to see a new WD published as soon as we
can
MC: I agree
... it needs to be labeled as a snapshot
AB: we can address that via the Status of the Doc
MC: I'll add some more stuff
AB: propose that we publish the
Widget Update spec as soon as Marcos can get it ready
... any objections?
[ none ]
AB: can you get it ready for publication next week?
MC: yes, I can get it pubrules compliant today
<scribe> ACTION: marcos notify ArtB when Widget Update spec is ready for a new WD publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-523 - Notify ArtB when Widget Update spec is ready for a new WD publication [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-04-15].
MC: perhaps we can coordiante the publications
AB: there is some value in that
but also some additional coordination overhead
... anything else on Updates spec for today?
AB: any other topics for
today?
... next meeting is April 15. This meeting is adjourned.
<kenneth> I might not be joining as I'm travelling to US
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/we know BONDI/BONDI may have/ Succeeded: s/adopt it/adopt it since it will help prevent future interop issues/ Succeeded: s/file/line/ Succeeded: s/thru/through/ Succeeded: s/not sure we want to include/pretty sure we do not want to include/ Succeeded: s/Kestern/Kesteren/ Found Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Default Present: fjh, Art_Barstow, Marcos, +55813087aaaa, +47.23.69.aabb, Josh_Soref, +47.23.69.aacc, arve, Thomas, wonsuk, darobin, Doug_Schepers, KennethChristiansen?, +55813087aadd, KennethChristiansen Present: Art Marcos Frederick Kenneth Josh Arve Thomas Wonsuk_Lee Robin Doug Regrets: StevenP Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0035.html Got date from IRC log name: 08 Apr 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow frederick marcos talk[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]