13:00:09 RRSAgent has joined #wam 13:00:09 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc 13:00:16 Zakim, +1.479.524.aaaa is me 13:00:16 +Marcos; got it 13:00:16 RRSAgent, make log Public 13:00:23 Scribe: Art 13:00:25 ScribeNick: ArtB 13:00:26 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0445.html 13:00:28 Chair: Art 13:00:29 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 13:00:31 Regrets: Robin, Marcin 13:00:33 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:00:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html ArtB 13:01:19 Present: Art, Marcos, Frederick 13:01:53 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 13:01:58 AB: draft agenda posted on May 4 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0445.html ). Any change requests? 13:02:38 Topic: Announcements 13:02:43 AB: Reminder: comment period for 15-Apr-2010 LCWD of Digital Signatures for Widgets spec ends May 6: http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/ 13:02:48 AB: Reminder: comment period for 20-Apr-2010 LCWD of View Mode Media Feature spec ends 18-May-2010: http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-view-mode-20100420/ 13:03:01 /me tlr, right. We do another LC. 13:03:17 Topic: Digital Signature spec 13:03:28 AB: Marcos submitted some comments against the 15-Apr-2010 LCWD ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0392.html ). 13:03:43 AB: do any of the changes affect an implementation? Do we need to publish another LCWD? 13:04:01 zakim, who is here? 13:04:01 On the phone I see Art_Barstow, fjh, Marcos 13:04:02 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, fjh, ArtB, tlr, Marcos, shepazu, steve, timeless, trackbot 13:04:27 AB: I gather we'd prefer not to publish another LC but we also agree that it would be good to get review on the changes 13:04:50 For the record, I'm in favor of doing another LC. 13:04:56 FH: I think we should publish another LC 13:05:06 ... we need to get review of the changes 13:05:11 + +055813087aabb 13:05:19 ... the removed req probably makes it easier for an implementor 13:05:42 s/the removed req probably makes it easier for an implementor// 13:05:54 MC: I can live with another LC 13:06:07 ... we can use it to continue to work on the test suite 13:06:10 additional proposed change before last call http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0499.html 13:06:21 AB: OK, so we will indeed publish a new LC 13:06:43 AB: also have a comment from Andreas ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0481.html ) 13:06:43 kenneth has joined #wam 13:07:12 FH: we need to make that change 13:07:18 ... but it won't affect an implementation 13:07:23 ... we should make that clarificatin 13:07:41 AB: Marcos, have you looked at this comment from Andreas? 13:07:53 MC: yes, I think that was the intention 13:08:26 ggest we change 3a from "The URI attribute ..." to be "For 13:08:26 references that are not same-document references, the URI attribute..." 13:08:37 AB: can that change be added to the spec today? 13:08:40 MC: yes 13:09:17 arve has joined #wam 13:09:21 AB: propose we publish a new LC with Marcos' changes plus an edit to address Andreas' comment 13:09:30 AB: any objections to that proposal? 13:09:33 [ None ] 13:09:49 +arve 13:09:52 RESOLUTION: we will publish a new LC of widget-digsig with Marcos' changes plus an edit to address Andreas' comment 13:10:05 AB: LC comment tracking doc: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/ but since we are going to publish another LC, I don't see a need to track comments for the 20-Apr-2010 LC 13:10:37 AB: anything else for DigSig? 13:10:46 FH: status should say it is a revision 13:10:51 MC: yes, I'll add that 13:11:31 ACTION: marcos notify Art when the widget-digsig LC is ready for publication 13:11:31 Created ACTION-536 - Notify Art when the widget-digsig LC is ready for publication [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-05-13]. 13:11:45 AB: thanks guys! 13:11:50 FH: thanks Marcos 13:11:57 MC: when will LC period end 13:12:13 AB: if the 3-week LC starts May 11, then the comment period will end on June 1 13:12:42 Topic: Packaging and Configuration spec 13:12:43 -fjh 13:12:55 Present+ Arve 13:13:02 Present+ Kenneth 13:13:11 Topic: Packaging and Configuration spec 13:13:18 AB: Marcos, what is the status of tests for the element and dir attribute? 13:13:43 MC: we are waiting on closure for the I18N WG 13:13:52 ... still haven't heard from them 13:14:03 ... missing about 1/2 of the tests for the override 13:14:16 AB: I thought we had closed the loop with them 13:14:28 MC: they went quiet; don't know if that means they agree 13:14:43 ... need to decide if the I18N tests become part of the main test suite 13:14:59 AB: if we do that, we loose some of our 100% implementations 13:15:04 ... is that correct? 13:15:06 MC: yes 13:15:16 AB: I'm opposed to doing it then 13:15:43 MC: agree, the I18N tests are separate from the core test suite 13:16:03 ... an impl Should be able to handle the I18N stuff 13:16:09 ... but we can't put UI reqs in the spec 13:16:51 AB: first step is getting closure from I18N WG 13:17:23 MC: we can't go to PR without 2 I18N impls 13:18:34 ACTION: barstow ask I18N WG if they approve the span and dir changes 13:18:34 Created ACTION-537 - Ask I18N WG if they approve the span and dir changes [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13]. 13:18:57 AB: ACTION-533 "P&C spec: re the dir attributes "lro" and "rlo" values, need to define these or add a reference to their definitions" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/533 ) 13:20:03 AB: Marcos and I talked about this in IRC last 13:20:15 ... week without any resolution 13:21:19 AB: are these override values used much in HTML? 13:21:26 Arve: no, don't think so 13:21:35 Kenneth: no, not much use 13:21:45 MC: get them for "free" via unicode 13:22:55 ... the idea is to say something like: see Unicode's bidi algorithm for more info about the overrides 13:23:34 AB: OK, so there is agreement something needs to be added 13:23:52 MC: yes, I'll address this action 13:24:04 Topic: Widget interface spec 13:24:11 AB: ISSUE-116 "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 ). 13:24:57 AB: MC proposed text here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0439.html 13:25:07 AB: that text looked OK to me 13:25:20 MC: a question is whether or not this becomes normative 13:25:29 ... I also asked Adam Barth about that 13:25:38 AB: did Adam respond? 13:25:43 MC: not yet 13:25:54 ... and TLR was wondering about Adam's feedback 13:26:12 ACTION: barstow follow up with Adam Barth re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0439.html 13:26:12 Created ACTION-538 - Follow up with Adam Barth re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0439.html [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13]. 13:26:41 AB: my gut feel is to make that text non-normative 13:27:01 MC: TLR was inclined to make it Normative 13:27:24 AB: I would like that spec to remain in Candidate 13:27:25 no comments from me 13:27:26 MC: I agree 13:27:40 none from me either 13:28:05 Topic: WARP spec 13:28:18 AB: note, that Robin isn't here 13:28:20 AB: are there any developments on the test suite? 13:28:48 MC: I am not aware of any work on the WARP test suite 13:28:54 AB: is some additional text needed re the default policy ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0456.html ) 13:29:17 ... this thread was started by Scott Wilson 13:29:44 ... Marcos' replies provided good info 13:30:03 AB: do we need some new text about default policy? 13:30:35 MC: I think we should wait for Robin's input here 13:31:08 ... need to have more discussion especially re embedded widgets 13:31:30 ... embedded widgets get their origin from the Web page 13:31:58 ... we need a spec about what happens here i.e. Web sec model or Widget sec model 13:32:43 ACTION: robin work with Marcos on what WARP should or should not say for the default security model re AB: is some additional text needed re the default policy ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0456.html ) 13:32:43 Created ACTION-539 - Work with Marcos on what WARP should or should not say for the default security model re AB: is some additional text needed re the default policy ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0456.html ) [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-05-13]. 13:33:54 Topic: URI scheme spec 13:34:15 AB: without Robin, we won't do a deep dive today 13:34:17 AB: ACTION-526 "Widget URI scheme: define the widget *URI* syntax in terms of RFC 3986 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0141.html" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526 ) 13:34:37 AB: ISSUE-16 "Do widgets need their own URI scheme?" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/16 ) 13:35:26 AB: what do we do with this Issue? 13:35:33 ... should we just close it? 13:35:46 ... we have a spec which certainly implies we need it 13:35:50 MC: yes, I would close it 13:36:19 ACTION: barstow close Issue-16 base on the widget: URI scheme LC 13:36:19 Created ACTION-540 - Close Issue-16 base on the widget: URI scheme LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13]. 13:37:20 ACTION: barstow can tracker be rigged so that the assignee is sent an e-mial when an action is created? 13:37:20 Created ACTION-541 - Can tracker be rigged so that the assignee is sent an e-mial when an action is created? [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13]. 13:37:46 Topic: View Modes 13:37:56 AB: ISSUE-97 "How is ViewModes DOM related to CSSOM?" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97 ). 13:38:59 -arve 13:39:02 ... we have decided to use CSSOM spec 13:39:11 ... and not a View Modes API spec 13:39:16 ... thus I think we can close this 13:39:19 MC: agree 13:39:27 im fine with closing it 13:39:41 ACTION: barstow close issue-97 given the WG's decision to use CSSOM 13:39:42 Created ACTION-542 - Close issue-97 given the WG's decision to use CSSOM [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13]. 13:39:50 AB: ACTION-535 "VMMF spec: respond to CSS WG re timeline for the CSSOM spec" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/535 ). Discussion with CSS WG is public ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hypertext-cg/2010AprJun/0005.html ). We are asked about timelines. 13:40:18 timeless_mbp has joined #wam 13:40:27 AB: does anyone have any input on the timelines for CSSOM? 13:40:46 MC: no; but think we need to submit our use cases 13:40:49 ... to the CSS WG 13:40:54 ... I sent them to Robin 13:41:06 ... He gave me some feedback 13:41:18 ... I need to integrate that feedback and then send them to the CSS WG 13:41:42 +Josh_Soref 13:41:49 AB: ok, we will leave this open for now 13:41:53 Present+ Josh 13:42:14 Topic: Requirements doc 13:42:24 AB: It's now over one year since the Widget Requirements doc was last published. As such it is out-of-date with our specs as captured in ACTION-534 "Widget Reqs: update to include latest versions of specs (TWI, WARP, VMMF, P&C, etc.)" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/534 ). 13:43:05 MC: I need to update some refs 13:43:11 ... and do some edits 13:43:27 ... After we are done the widgets specs we can publish it as a WG Note 13:43:41 ... I can identify those reqs we met and those we do not meet 13:44:19 AB: what do you mean by "done" here 13:44:41 ... do you mean LC or CR? 13:44:51 MC: I don't think there is anything to be gained by publishing it 13:46:09 AB: do we have some reqs in specs that point to the Reqs doc but aren't actually in the Reqs doc? 13:46:19 MC: yes, there probably are some of those 13:46:30 ... so in that case, a new pub would make sense 13:47:05 AB: I understand there are priorities but keeping specs in sync with Reqs doc would be good 13:47:15 MC: we do need to update the refs 13:47:44 ... it would be some make work 13:48:13 AB: it is the only spec that still includes 1.0 13:48:40 it did cause me some confusion in the beginning :-) 13:49:12 ACTION: barstow review the Reqs doc and update refs 13:49:12 Created ACTION-543 - Review the Reqs doc and update refs [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13]. 13:49:42 Topic: Moving from CVS to DVCS 13:49:51 AB: Marcos proposed moving the widget specs from CVS to DVCS ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0441.html ). So far the comments have been positive. 13:50:14 AB: in principle this is OK but support it IFF old links point to the new stuff 13:50:47 AB: have you done a trial? 13:50:55 MC: no but I know Robin is using the system 13:52:16 AB: I assume in the long term it will save us time 13:52:35 ... like bulk checkins 13:52:56 JS: easy to do things like directory deletes 13:53:28 MC: also easier to do branches 13:54:03 JS: slight syntax diff between Mercurial and git 13:54:06 there are minor command differences between hg and git 13:54:20 but conceptually they should be feature equivalent 13:54:35 Topic: AoB 13:54:43 AB: Next voice conference is May 13 13:55:12 AB: meeting adjourned 13:55:21 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:55:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html ArtB 13:55:27 -Marcos 13:56:19 - +055813087aabb 13:56:29 -Josh_Soref 13:58:48 -Art_Barstow 13:58:50 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended 13:58:51 Attendees were Art_Barstow, fjh, Marcos, +055813087aabb, arve, Josh_Soref 13:59:24 ArtB: should I send a request to the W3C to set up the repo? 14:00:14 zakim, bye 14:00:14 Zakim has left #wam 14:00:22 rrsagent, bye 14:00:22 I see 8 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-actions.rdf : 14:00:22 ACTION: marcos notify Art when the widget-digsig LC is ready for publication [1] 14:00:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc#T13-11-31 14:00:22 ACTION: barstow ask I18N WG if they approve the span and dir changes [2] 14:00:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc#T13-18-34 14:00:22 ACTION: barstow follow up with Adam Barth re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0439.html [3] 14:00:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc#T13-26-12 14:00:22 ACTION: robin work with Marcos on what WARP should or should not say for the default security model re AB: is some additional text needed re the default policy ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0456.html ) [4] 14:00:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc#T13-32-43 14:00:22 ACTION: barstow close Issue-16 base on the widget: URI scheme LC [5] 14:00:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc#T13-36-19 14:00:22 ACTION: barstow can tracker be rigged so that the assignee is sent an e-mial when an action is created? [6] 14:00:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc#T13-37-20 14:00:22 ACTION: barstow close issue-97 given the WG's decision to use CSSOM [7] 14:00:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc#T13-39-41 14:00:22 ACTION: barstow review the Reqs doc and update refs [8] 14:00:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-irc#T13-49-12