See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
AB: draft agenda posted on May 4 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0445.html ). Any change requests?
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/
... 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/
<Marcos> /me tlr, right. We do another LC.
AB: Marcos submitted some
comments against the 15-Apr-2010 LCWD (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0392.html
).
... do any of the changes affect an implementation? Do we need
to publish another LCWD?
... 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
<tlr> For the record, I'm in favor of doing another LC.
FH: I think we should publish
another LC
... we need to get review of the changes
...
MC: I can live with another
LC
... we can use it to continue to work on the test suite
<fjh> additional proposed change before last call http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0499.html
AB: OK, so we will indeed publish
a new LC
... also have a comment from Andreas (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0481.html
)
FH: we need to make that
change
... but it won't affect an implementation
... we should make that clarificatin
AB: Marcos, have you looked at this comment from Andreas?
MC: yes, I think that was the intention
<fjh> ggest we change 3a from "The URI attribute ..." to be "For
<fjh> references that are not same-document references, the URI attribute..."
AB: can that change be added to the spec today?
MC: yes
AB: propose we publish a new LC
with Marcos' changes plus an edit to address Andreas'
comment
... any objections to that proposal?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: we will publish a new LC of widget-digsig with Marcos' changes plus an edit to address Andreas' comment
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
... anything else for DigSig?
FH: status should say it is a revision
MC: yes, I'll add that
<scribe> ACTION: marcos notify Art when the widget-digsig LC is ready for publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-536 - Notify Art when the widget-digsig LC is ready for publication [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-05-13].
AB: thanks guys!
FH: thanks Marcos
MC: when will LC period end
AB: if the 3-week LC starts May 11, then the comment period will end on June 1
AB: Marcos, what is the status of tests for the <span> element and dir attribute?
MC: we are waiting on closure for
the I18N WG
... still haven't heard from them
... missing about 1/2 of the tests for the override
AB: I thought we had closed the loop with them
MC: they went quiet; don't know
if that means they agree
... need to decide if the I18N tests become part of the main
test suite
AB: if we do that, we loose some
of our 100% implementations
... is that correct?
MC: yes
AB: I'm opposed to doing it then
MC: agree, the I18N tests are
separate from the core test suite
... an impl Should be able to handle the I18N stuff
... but we can't put UI reqs in the spec
AB: first step is getting closure from I18N WG
MC: we can't go to PR without 2 I18N impls
<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask I18N WG if they approve the span and dir changes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-537 - Ask I18N WG if they approve the span and dir changes [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
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
)
... Marcos and I talked about this in IRC last
... week without any resolution
... are these override values used much in HTML?
Arve: no, don't think so
Kenneth: no, not much use
MC: get them for "free" via
unicode
... the idea is to say something like: see Unicode's bidi
algorithm for more info about the overrides
AB: OK, so there is agreement something needs to be added
MC: yes, I'll address this action
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
).
... MC proposed text here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0439.html
... that text looked OK to me
MC: a question is whether or not
this becomes normative
... I also asked Adam Barth about that
AB: did Adam respond?
MC: not yet
... and TLR was wondering about Adam's feedback
<scribe> ACTION: barstow follow up with Adam Barth re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0439.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: my gut feel is to make that text non-normative
MC: TLR was inclined to make it Normative
AB: I would like that spec to remain in Candidate
<arve> no comments from me
MC: I agree
<kenneth> none from me either
AB: note, that Robin isn't
here
... are there any developments on the test suite?
MC: I am not aware of any work on the WARP test suite
AB: is some additional text
needed re the default policy (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0456.html
)
... this thread was started by Scott Wilson
... Marcos' replies provided good info
... do we need some new text about default policy?
MC: I think we should wait for
Robin's input here
... need to have more discussion especially re embedded
widgets
... embedded widgets get their origin from the Web page
... we need a spec about what happens here i.e. Web sec model
or Widget sec model
<scribe> 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 ) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: without Robin, we won't do a
deep dive today
... 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
)
... ISSUE-16 "Do widgets need their own URI scheme?" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/16
)
... what do we do with this Issue?
... should we just close it?
... we have a spec which certainly implies we need it
MC: yes, I would close it
<scribe> ACTION: barstow close Issue-16 base on the widget: URI scheme LC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-540 - Close Issue-16 base on the widget: URI scheme LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
<scribe> ACTION: barstow can tracker be rigged so that the assignee is sent an e-mial when an action is created? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: ISSUE-97 "How is ViewModes
DOM related to CSSOM?" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97
).
... we have decided to use CSSOM spec
... and not a View Modes API spec
... thus I think we can close this
MC: agree
<kenneth> im fine with closing it
<scribe> ACTION: barstow close issue-97 given the WG's decision to use CSSOM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-542 - Close issue-97 given the WG's decision to use CSSOM [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
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.
... does anyone have any input on the timelines for CSSOM?
MC: no; but think we need to
submit our use cases
... to the CSS WG
... I sent them to Robin
... He gave me some feedback
... I need to integrate that feedback and then send them to the
CSS WG
AB: ok, we will leave this open for now
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 ).
MC: I need to update some
refs
... and do some edits
... After we are done the widgets specs we can publish it as a
WG Note
... I can identify those reqs we met and those we do not
meet
AB: what do you mean by "done"
here
... do you mean LC or CR?
MC: I don't think there is anything to be gained by publishing it
AB: do we have some reqs in specs that point to the Reqs doc but aren't actually in the Reqs doc?
MC: yes, there probably are some
of those
... so in that case, a new pub would make sense
AB: I understand there are priorities but keeping specs in sync with Reqs doc would be good
MC: we do need to update the
refs
... it would be some make work
AB: it is the only spec that still includes 1.0
<kenneth> it did cause me some confusion in the beginning :-)
<scribe> ACTION: barstow review the Reqs doc and update refs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-543 - Review the Reqs doc and update refs [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
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.
... in principle this is OK but support it IFF old links point
to the new stuff
... have you done a trial?
MC: no but I know Robin is using the system
AB: I assume in the long term it
will save us time
... like bulk checkins
JS: easy to do things like directory deletes
MC: also easier to do branches
JS: slight syntax diff between Mercurial and git
<timeless_mbp> there are minor command differences between hg and git
<timeless_mbp> but conceptually they should be feature equivalent
AB: Next voice conference is May
13
... meeting adjourned
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/the removed req probably makes it easier for an implementor// Found Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Present: Art Marcos Frederick Arve Kenneth Josh Regrets: Robin Marcin Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0445.html Got date from IRC log name: 06 May 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow marcos robin[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]