promise!!

<Marcos> There is a first time for everything

<trackbot> Date: 27 May 2010

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<scribe> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

<Steven> 02Wonsuk Lee01

Review and tweak agenda

AB: I posted the draft agenda yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0849.html ). Arve asked me in IRC to add gzip discussion (

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0839.html ) and we will add that to the AOB agenda item.

MC: Arve isn't here today
... so he may not join the call

AB: if he joins us, we can discuss it
... any change reqs?

[ None ]

Announcements

AB: June 1 is the deadline for comments for 11-May-2010 LC of Digital Signatures for Widgets ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/ )

WL: I am from ETRI in Korea
... I am Editor in W3C
... in the MAWG
... also participate in DAP WG
... also interested in WebApps WG
... as well as HTML5

AB: thanks for that intro; welcome

Packaging and Configuration spec

AB: Richard Ishida submitted 5 comments I18N-related comments last week. Marcos, what is the status?
... any discussion?

MC: they are all addressed
... I took all of his suggestions
... re #20, they originaly recommended using xml:lang

AB: were all of the changes Editorial?

MC: yes
... #20 would be substantial but they said they did NOT expect us to change the spec

AB: that is consistent with my interpretation
... On May 20 Richard indicated ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0032.html ) Addison is going to respond to our request asking if the I18N WG is OK with our changes (or not). I still haven't received a response from him
... I followed up with Addison yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/0044.html ) and still no response.
... is Addison I18N WG chair?

SP: yes

AB: the P&C's PR is blocked on this
... anything you can do Steven to get Addison to reply would be very much appreciated

SP: I'll do my best

AB: have you heard anything from Addison, Marcos?

MC: no

AB: we'll have to leave this as an open action
... anything else on P&C spec for today?

[ no ]

Widget Interface (TWI) spec

AB: as we know, the PR for the TWI spec is blocked on ISSUE-116 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 ) and ACTION-550 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/550 ) re Security Considerations for the openURL method.
... any status to report on this, Marcos?

MC: I still need to follow-up

AB: is there anything you need from the rest of us?

MC: no, I don't think so
... I just need to restart the conversation
... Adam is suggesting what I think the spec already says
... so we may have general agreement
... I don't want to remove the method

AB: what about enumerating the schemes?

MC: I don't think we want to do that
... a UA can support any number of schemes
... don't want to limit UAs flexibility
... not clear where the spec boundary should be when it comes to things like the cost to a user to use a particualar scheme

AB: I tend to agree with you and thought your proposal was reasonable
... Nevertheless we do need to get consensus on the text

MC: yes, agree

AB: anything else on TWI for today?

MC: no, don't think so

View Modes Media Features spec

AB: VMMF ACTION-552 - Add requirements to spec - must be fixed before next publication ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/552 )
... the reqs are mandatory before going to Candidate
... Robin knows this and is plannign to do the editorial work
... the 3 commentors on the LC replied they are OK with our responses ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-view-mode-20100420/doc/ )
... as such, I think the spec is ready to publish as a Candidate Recommendation.

MC: I agree

AB: any other comments re VMMF and it being "CR worthy"?
... I think it is ready
... there is just one assertion re UA behavior

MC: yes, true
... there could be a set of tests per mode

AB: proposed resolution: the group agrees the VMMF spec is ready for Candidate Recommendation
... any objections?
... I support CR

MC: I support it

<wonsuk> I support it as well

SP: fine by me

WL: support it as well

RESOLUTION: the group agrees the VMMF spec is ready for Candidate Recommendation

AB: any thoughts on the length of the Candidate?

MC: I would go with the minimum
... there are already several impls that support the modes
... probably need about 20 tests

AB: I don't think a CR has a minimum period

MC: probably should say at least one month

AB: OK, so 4 weeks after the CR is published
... we need to add requirements
... the SotD needs to reflect CR
... we should also create at least a stub Implementation Report

<Marcos> MC: this is the requirement http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#display-modes

<scribe> ACTION: marcos create an Implementation Report doc for the VMMF spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-555 - Create an Implementation Report doc for the VMMF spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-06-03].

<scribe> ACTION: robin notify ArtB when the VMMF is ready for a TransReq [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-556 - Notify ArtB when the VMMF is ready for a TransReq [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-03].

<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with StevenP to schedule a Candidate call with the Director [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-557 - Work with StevenP to schedule a Candidate call with the Director [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-06-03].

AB: anything else on VMMF for today?

MC: there is a redirect problem: "I just noticed that /TR/widgets-vmmf is not redirecting to /TR/view-mode. To avoid confusion, can you please make sure it does."

GZIP and widget packaging

AB: the original thread on widget packaging and GZip started on April 28 with an email by Gregg Tavares ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0349.html ). A point of interest is a stream-able format.
... since then, Doug started some renewed discussion ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0839.html ) perhaps because of Google's announced a way to package Web Apps in Chrome browser.
... note WebApps proposed charter extension ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html#deliverables ) includes a "Widgets Embedding" deliverable that, if approved by the Director, could potentially be used to rationalize at least part of these use cases "a mechanism to allow embedding of packaged applications within other Web content, such as referencing via the HTML object element"
... without Arve here, we won't do a deep dive
... but we can talk about it

MC: if we do another format, P&C should be split up
... put the config file in a separate spec
... and packaging seperate

AB: it is an interesting idea and one we should discuss
... but I don't think it should be done before P&C goes to PR
... we should complete P&C before doing any kind of splitting

MC: Arve is suggesting separating configuration doc from the packaging mechanism

<Marcos> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026506.html

MC: some related discussions in WHATWG channels

AB: oh, this is interesting, I hadn't seen this

<Marcos> MC: this is also quite relevant to the debate http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026503.html

AB: I do like the idea of separating the config data from the packaging mechanism

<timeless_mbp> hsivonen's message is http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026503.html

AB: this is good info Marcos
... I think we should plan to add this topic to the June 3 call
... anything else on this topic for today?

AOB

AB: any other topics for today?

MC: I've done some more work with a QA colleague on the I18N tests
... we have about 1/2 of them ready
... will submit to CVS
... there is an open question about licensing
... we now have a script that adds the license

AB: is that what Rigo suggested?

MC: yes, we are following Rigo Wenning's recommendation

AB: ok; excellent
... notify me when you have checked in one of these test cases as I'd like to see how the licensing is done
... next call is June 3; there will be no call on June 10.
... depending on the nature of any comments we receive for the Digital Signature for Widgets LC, we may be in a position on June 3 to discuss publishing a Candidate of that spec
... that would give us 5/7 widget specs in Candidate

MC: perhaps we can do a combined Director's call

AB: I thought of that too

<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with StevenP on the logisitics of two CRs during the same Director's call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-558 - Work with StevenP on the logisitics of two CRs during the same Director's call [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-06-03].

AB: 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 Marcos StevenP Wonsuk_Lee Josh
Regrets: Robin
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0849.html
Found Date: 27 May 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow marcos robin stevenp with work