13:00:51 RRSAgent has joined #wam 13:00:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-irc 13:01:16 ScribeNick: ArtB 13:01:17 Scribe: Art 13:01:19 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0763.html 13:01:20 Chair: Art 13:01:22 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 13:01:24 RRSAgent, make log Public 13:01:49 Date: 20 May 2010 13:02:16 zakim, who is here? 13:02:16 On the phone I see +1.781.993.aaaa 13:02:17 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, darobin, Steven, Marcos, timeless_mbp, MikeSmith, ArtB, shepazu, kenneth, steve, timeless, trackbot 13:02:28 zakim, aaaa is ArtB 13:02:29 +ArtB; got it 13:02:39 +darobin 13:03:04 zakim, dial steven-617 13:03:04 ok, Steven; the call is being made 13:03:06 +Steven 13:05:12 +Josh_Soref 13:05:31 Present: Art, Robin, StevenP, Josh 13:05:38 Topic: Agenda review 13:05:45 AB: draft agenda was posted on May 19 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0763.html ). Any change requests? 13:06:35 AB: we will add P&F WG's comment about VMMF LC 13:06:40 Topic: Announcements 13:06:50 AB: deadline for comments re Digital Signatures for Widgets LCWD is June 1 13:07:04 Topic: Packaging and Configuration spec 13:07:17 AB: on April 6 I asked the I18N WG to respond to the and dir changes. On May 12 I asked them again ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0002.html ). I haven't received any response. 13:08:39 AB: do you Steven know I18N WG's status on this? 13:08:44 SP: no, but I'll find out 13:09:04 AB: let's not block on this now and move to next topic 13:09:10 Topic: Widget Interface spec 13:09:27 AB: we have one issue that is blocking moving the spec to PR 13:09:30 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 ) 13:09:51 AB: Marcos has already added some text 13:10:00 i18n discussed it yesterday; Addison is actioned to reply, and will do so soon 13:10:02 RB: think he is awaiting some response 13:10:17 AB: thanks SP 13:10:33 + +55813087aabb 13:10:42 AB: yes, there was some offlist discussion but I forwarded that discussion to public-webapps 13:10:48 Present+ Kenneth 13:11:46 AB: here is the thread I mentioned http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0570.html 13:11:57 zakim, aabb is Kenneth 13:11:57 +Kenneth; got it 13:12:19 AB: how do we make progress on this issue? 13:12:28 RB: the changes must be satisfactory to the comments 13:12:32 ... then we can move to PR 13:12:48 ACTION: marcos to follow-up with TLR and Adam Barth re ISSUE-116 13:12:49 Created ACTION-550 - Follow-up with TLR and Adam Barth re ISSUE-116 [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-05-27]. 13:13:18 RB: do we need to move P&C fwd first? 13:13:25 AB: no, I don't think so 13:13:41 Topic: Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec 13:13:50 + +1.479.524.aacc 13:13:57 AB: there was a thread about Assertion ta-?? ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0569.html ) between Scott Wilson and Marcos 13:14:13 zakim, aacc is Marcos 13:14:13 +Marcos; got it 13:14:13 Zakim, aacc is Marcos 13:14:14 sorry, darobin, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc' 13:14:14 Present+ Marcos 13:16:49 MC: I made it clear what needs to be done 13:16:56 ... I expect Scott to make the change 13:17:06 AB: ACTION-539 - what WARP should or should not say for the default security model ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/539 ) 13:17:49 RB: I responded to the thread 13:18:00 ... if people aren't happy with it, we can change it 13:18:11 MC: I don't think the model is clear enough 13:18:30 RB: the model is to deny everything 13:18:55 MC: if the WARP model applies, do not have a http origin 13:19:05 RB: but the target is local widget 13:19:16 MC: I agree that has always been the model 13:19:22 ... but that needs to be more clear 13:20:11 RB: so you want to say the model does not apply to non http origins 13:20:18 MC: yes 13:20:36 ACTION-539? 13:20:36 ACTION-539 -- Robin Berjon to 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 ) -- due 2010-05-13 -- OPEN 13:20:36 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/539 13:20:52 RB: ok, I'll take that 13:21:26 AB: ACTION-546 - WARP spec: move the requirements to the beginning of the spec to be consistent with other widget specs ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/546 ) 13:22:08 AB: I don't feel strongly here 13:22:15 RB: I'll do whatever the group wants 13:22:31 MC: it really doesn't matter 13:22:42 Kenneth: but if this is just a C&P, then go for it 13:22:50 RB: it is a simple change 13:22:56 ... just tell me where you want it 13:23:11 AB: how about using P&C as the template 13:23:14 RB: OK 13:23:39 Topic: URI Scheme spec 13:23:46 AB: ACTION-526 - define the widget *URI* syntax in terms of RFC 3986 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526 ) 13:24:18 AB: are there any concerns there Robin? 13:24:23 RB: no, I'll make that change 13:24:39 kenneth has joined #wam 13:24:39 ... I don't want to copy over the ABNF 13:24:54 ... but describing syntax in in terms of 3986 make sense 13:25:13 ... and 3987 IRI 13:25:27 AB: ACTION-549 - URI scheme spec: add the requirement(s) this spec addresses e.g. R36 "Resolve Addressing Scheme"; identifying the requirements is mandatory for Candidate ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/549 ) 13:26:21 AB: there may other reqs too 13:26:32 ACTION: Robin to add requirements to Widget URIs based on what's in the requirements document 13:26:32 Created ACTION-551 - Add requirements to Widget URIs based on what's in the requirements document [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-05-27]. 13:26:47 ... Marcos, do we have other requirements related to URI scheme? 13:27:10 MC: no, I don't think so 13:27:26 AB: ok, then ACTION-549 should be straight forward 13:27:51 Topic: View Modes Media Features spec: 13:28:18 AB: the LCWD comment period ended May 18 13:28:25 AB: Review LC comments ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-view-mode-20100420/ ) 13:29:45 KC: I think the view modes are mutually exclusive 13:29:53 ... but the spec is silent on that 13:30:03 ... think should say they are mutually exclusive 13:30:07 RB: that's fine by me 13:30:36 MC: no comment 13:30:41 ... haven't thought about it 13:31:22 AB: can some UA actually do something with more than one? 13:31:30 RB: don't think that would make sense 13:31:46 KC: would expect inconsistent behavior if more than one is supported 13:31:51 "Each view mode is defined to be exclusive of the others." ? 13:32:05 AB: arguments seem to be in favor of adding the clarification 13:32:14 AB: does anyone object to that clarification? 13:32:27 MC: I need to think about the consequences 13:32:34 ... I don't have any objections at this point 13:33:05 AB: Robin, please go ahead and make that change 13:33:22 MC: would be helpful to see the hole change in context 13:33:23 RB: done 13:33:50 AB: the 2nd comment is from MC and he proposes a spec title change 13:34:14 ... The 'view-mode' media feature 13:34:21 AB: comments 13:34:32 AB: any objections? 13:34:58 AB: so: The 'view-mode' Media Feature 13:35:00 MC: yes 13:35:02 RB: yes 13:35:19 AB: so Robin, please make that change 13:35:21 RB: done 13:35:55 AB: ACTION-548 - VMMF spec: add the requirement(s) this spec addresses e.g. R39 "Display Modes" ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/548 ); identifying the requirements is mandatory for Candidate 13:36:50 ACTION: Robin to add requirements to VMMF 13:36:51 Created ACTION-552 - Add requirements to VMMF [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-05-27]. 13:37:08 AB: ACTION-530 - what is our time expectations/constraints re CSSOM spec? ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/530 ) 13:38:20 AB: any feedback on our timing requirements for CSSOM spec? 13:38:33 MC: I get the sense from talking to Anne that it is a couple of years out 13:38:57 ... it is a difficult situation 13:39:15 ... if people really want it, they will implement regardless of the spec status 13:40:12 AB: we already have some dependencies on other HTML specs 13:40:44 RB: implementors may be reluctant to implement it 13:41:26 AB: so we either live this uncertainty or do the apis ourselves 13:41:44 RB: a third option is to ask CSS WG to modularize those parts we need 13:41:49 ... worth a discussion 13:42:08 AB: yes, that may make sense 13:43:21 RB: it is a bit of a toolbox 13:43:58 AB: besides Marcos and Robin, are there others that would participate in the modularization discusion? 13:44:11 MC: I think Kenneth has expressed interest in this area 13:46:12 ... it would be good if Kenneth could help with the view mode api requirements 13:46:19 ... and the CSSOM spec 13:46:35 AB: can you confirm your interest in this area Kenneth? 13:46:42 yes 13:46:44 KC: yes, I can help 13:47:11 AB: comments from WAI Protocols and Formats WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0771.html ). Note this email was after the comment deadline. 13:47:28 We are actually already discussing it and have some example implementation for WebKit already 13:48:28 AB: it could be that "tactile" was accidentally included and this is a typo 13:49:04 RB: I think Marcin copied it from somewhere else and he thought it meant "touch" devices 13:49:18 ... but tactile is for Braille devices 13:49:25 RB: I think we should just remove it 13:49:32 MC: I agree 13:49:35 JS: agreed 13:49:48 AB: any objections to removing the word "tactile"? 13:49:52 [ None ] 13:50:10 RESOLUTION: the word "tactile" will be removed from the VMMF spec 13:50:31 RB: I've made the change and will respond 13:50:47 AB: I can add it to the CT doc 13:50:48 RB: OK 13:51:22 ACTION: barstow VMMF spec: add the 19-May-2010 comment from Michael Cooper to the LC comment tracking doc 13:51:22 Created ACTION-553 - VMMF spec: add the 19-May-2010 comment from Michael Cooper to the LC comment tracking doc [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-27]. 13:51:55 AB: the next step is discussions about CR 13:52:13 ... any comments about its readiness for CR? 13:52:28 RB: need response from P&F first 13:53:05 AB: ok, so then during our May 27, we should be ready to agree on publishing a Candidate 13:53:15 Topic: AOB 13:53:24 AB: any thing for today? 13:53:44 AB: next call is May 27; 13:53:51 ... Meeting Adjourned 13:53:56 -darobin 13:54:11 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:54:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html ArtB 13:54:20 -Kenneth 13:54:48 -Steven 13:54:50 -ArtB 13:54:50 -Marcos 13:55:24 -Josh_Soref 13:55:26 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended 13:55:28 Attendees were +1.781.993.aaaa, ArtB, darobin, Steven, Josh_Soref, +55813087aabb, Kenneth, +1.479.524.aacc, Marcos 13:59:18 zakim, bye 13:59:18 Zakim has left #wam 13:59:21 rrsagent, bye 13:59:21 I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-actions.rdf : 13:59:21 ACTION: marcos to follow-up with TLR and Adam Barth re ISSUE-116 [1] 13:59:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-irc#T13-12-48 13:59:21 ACTION: Robin to add requirements to Widget URIs based on what's in the requirements document [2] 13:59:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-irc#T13-26-32 13:59:21 ACTION: Robin to add requirements to VMMF [3] 13:59:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-irc#T13-36-50 13:59:21 ACTION: barstow VMMF spec: add the 19-May-2010 comment from Michael Cooper to the LC comment tracking doc [4] 13:59:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-irc#T13-51-22