See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 20 May 2010
AB: draft agenda was posted on
May 19 (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0763.html
). Any change requests?
... we will add P&F WG's comment about VMMF LC
AB: deadline for comments re Digital Signatures for Widgets LCWD is June 1
AB: on April 6 I asked the I18N
WG to respond to the <span> 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.
... do you Steven know I18N WG's status on this?
SP: no, but I'll find out
AB: let's not block on this now and move to next topic
AB: we have one issue that is
blocking moving the spec to PR
... 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
)
... Marcos has already added some text
<Steven> i18n discussed it yesterday; Addison is actioned to reply, and will do so soon
RB: think he is awaiting some response
AB: thanks SP
... yes, there was some offlist discussion but I forwarded that
discussion to public-webapps
... here is the thread I mentioned
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0570.html
... how do we make progress on this issue?
RB: the changes must be
satisfactory to the comments
... then we can move to PR
<scribe> ACTION: marcos to follow-up with TLR and Adam Barth re ISSUE-116 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-550 - Follow-up with TLR and Adam Barth re ISSUE-116 [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-05-27].
RB: do we need to move P&C fwd first?
AB: no, I don't think so
AB: there was a thread about Assertion ta-?? ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0569.html ) between Scott Wilson and Marcos
MC: I made it clear what needs to
be done
... I expect Scott to make the change
AB: ACTION-539 - what WARP should or should not say for the default security model ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/539 )
RB: I responded to the
thread
... if people aren't happy with it, we can change it
MC: I don't think the model is clear enough
RB: the model is to deny everything
MC: if the WARP model applies, do not have a http origin
RB: but the target is local widget
MC: I agree that has always been
the model
... but that needs to be more clear
RB: so you want to say the model does not apply to non http origins
MC: yes
ACTION-539?
<trackbot> 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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/539
RB: ok, I'll take that
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
)
... I don't feel strongly here
RB: I'll do whatever the group wants
MC: it really doesn't matter
Kenneth: but if this is just a C&P, then go for it
RB: it is a simple change
... just tell me where you want it
AB: how about using P&C as the template
RB: OK
AB: ACTION-526 - define the
widget *URI* syntax in terms of RFC 3986 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526
)
... are there any concerns there Robin?
RB: no, I'll make that
change
... I don't want to copy over the ABNF
... but describing syntax in in terms of 3986 make sense
... and 3987 IRI
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
)
... there may other reqs too
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to add requirements to Widget URIs based on what's in the requirements document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-551 - Add requirements to Widget URIs based on what's in the requirements document [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-05-27].
AB: Marcos, do we have other requirements related to URI scheme?
MC: no, I don't think so
AB: ok, then ACTION-549 should be straight forward
AB: the LCWD comment period ended
May 18
... Review LC comments (
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-view-mode-20100420/
)
KC: I think the view modes are
mutually exclusive
... but the spec is silent on that
... think should say they are mutually exclusive
RB: that's fine by me
MC: no comment
... haven't thought about it
AB: can some UA actually do something with more than one?
RB: don't think that would make sense
KC: would expect inconsistent behavior if more than one is supported
<darobin> "Each <a>view mode</a> is defined to be exclusive of the others." ?
AB: arguments seem to be in favor
of adding the clarification
... does anyone object to that clarification?
MC: I need to think about the
consequences
... I don't have any objections at this point
AB: Robin, please go ahead and make that change
MC: would be helpful to see the hole change in context
<darobin> RB: done
AB: the 2nd comment is from MC
and he proposes a spec title change
... The 'view-mode' media feature
... comments
... any objections?
... so: The 'view-mode' Media Feature
MC: yes
RB: yes
AB: so Robin, please make that change
RB: done
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
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to add requirements to VMMF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-552 - Add requirements to VMMF [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-05-27].
AB: ACTION-530 - what is our time
expectations/constraints re CSSOM spec? ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/530
)
... any feedback on our timing requirements for CSSOM spec?
MC: I get the sense from talking
to Anne that it is a couple of years out
... it is a difficult situation
... if people really want it, they will implement regardless of
the spec status
AB: we already have some dependencies on other HTML specs
RB: implementors may be reluctant to implement it
AB: so we either live this uncertainty or do the apis ourselves
RB: a third option is to ask CSS
WG to modularize those parts we need
... worth a discussion
AB: yes, that may make sense
RB: it is a bit of a toolbox
AB: besides Marcos and Robin, are there others that would participate in the modularization discusion?
MC: I think Kenneth has expressed
interest in this area
... it would be good if Kenneth could help with the view mode
api requirements
... and the CSSOM spec
AB: can you confirm your interest in this area Kenneth?
<kenneth> yes
KC: yes, I can help
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.
<kenneth> We are actually already discussing it and have some example implementation for WebKit already
AB: it could be that "tactile" was accidentally included and this is a typo
RB: I think Marcin copied it from
somewhere else and he thought it meant "touch" devices
... but tactile is for Braille devices
... I think we should just remove it
MC: I agree
JS: agreed
AB: any objections to removing the word "tactile"?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: the word "tactile" will be removed from the VMMF spec
RB: I've made the change and will respond
AB: I can add it to the CT doc
RB: OK
<scribe> ACTION: barstow VMMF spec: add the 19-May-2010 comment from Michael Cooper to the LC comment tracking doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: the next step is discussions
about CR
... any comments about its readiness for CR?
RB: need response from P&F first
AB: ok, so then during our May 27, we should be ready to agree on publishing a Candidate
AB: any thing for today?
... next call is May 27;
... 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) Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Robin StevenP Josh Kenneth Marcos Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0763.html Found Date: 20 May 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow marcos robin[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]