See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<darobin> on my way sir!
AB: the draft agenda was
submitted yesterday (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0878.html
). Any change requests?
... we will drop GZip if Arve doesn't join
AB: any short announcements?
AB: the LC comment period ended June 1 and no comments were submitted. As such, I think the spec is ready to be published as a Candidate Recommendation. Any comments?
SP: if there are no comments, it will raise some suspicion
AB: we published a CR last
summer
... the LCs we published since then reflected impl
feedback
... we also got review from XML Sec WG
SP: ok; include that data in the Trans Req
AB: will do
... proposed resolution: the group agrees to publish a
Candidate Recommendation of the widgets Digital Signature
spec
... any comments?
... any objections?
MC: Opera supports CR
FH: I think it supports a lot of
good improvements
... I support it
AB: hearing no objections, I will record a positive decision
RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the widgets Digital Signature spec
AB: who will prepare the CR version including an updated SotD? Perhaps we should use the WARP CR as a template for the SotD (http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-access/)
MC: I can do it but not until next week
FH: when do you expect to publish?
AB: probably not until June 22 or 24
<scribe> ACTION: macros notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - macros
<scribe> ACTION: marcos notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-559 - Notify Art when the DigSig CR SotD is updated [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-06-10].
AB: what is the date of the earliest PR? I'd say pub date + 4 weeks
MC: ok with me
AB: re the pub date, how about June 24?
SP: we want to do trans call for VMMF at same time?
AB: yes, that is correct
... anything else on DigSig?
AB: the agenda ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0878.html ) includes pointers to comments from the I18N WG. They were are marked as "Editorial". What is the status Marcos?
MC: I think I addressed them all
AB: please check and make any
editorial changes that are needed
... there was also an email from Addison Phillips the Chair of
the I18N WG (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0863.html
). In this e-mail he voiced support for the spec changes Marcos
has made. As such I think we have "closed the loop" with the
I18N WG and the spec is ready for a new publication which is a
Proposed Recommendation.
... any comments on publishing P&C as a Proposed Rec?
... Marcos, we have implementation data?
MC: yes
... and we can also have some implementation data for the I18N
stuff
AB: are we going to need a 2nd impl for the I18N features?
MC: if we can show a JS impl and
an Opera impl
... that should be sufficient
SP: if a May, then yes, 1 impl should be enough; 2 would of course be better
AB: proposed resolution: the
group agrees to publish a Proposed Recommendation of the Widget
Packaging and Configuration spec
... any objections?
... any support you want to indicate?
<darobin> +1
SP: yes, go for it
RB: support
MC: support
AB: I also support this
RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a Proposed Recommendation of the Widget Packaging and Configuration spec
AB: Marcos, please prepare the
doc for publication. You may want to look at other PRs in /TR/
e.g. CSS3 Selectors ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-css3-selectors-20091215/
)
... this will require a Director's call as well as some
additional process e.g. AC review.
... I need to read up on the Process part
SP: need a transition call
... then a vote form gets sent to the AC
... Must make sure that AC reps submit their vote
... We want to get as many votes as we can
AB: excellent advice
SP: do we want to include 3 specs in one trans call?
AB: the advice I got from PLH is to keep them to 1 hour
SP: let's first take care of the
TransReq
... and then the call
AB: OK; will do
<scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a TransReq for P&C PR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-560 - Submit a TransReq for P&C PR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-06-10].
AB: anything else on P&C for
today?
... CONGRATULATIONS TO MARCOS!
AB: last week we agreed to
publish a CR of the VMMF spec
... Jim Allan from WAI's User Agent Guidelines WG submitted an
e-mail (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0858.html
) about the VMMF spec. Marcos, Robin and I all responded. I
haven't seen a reply from Jim nor the UA WG.
... I did ask Jim to please follow-up
... I am tempted to move ahead with the TransReq to CR
RB: I agree
AB: any concerns about moving forward?
<darobin> "Please consider including a statement such as "The user agent *must* display the view-modes in a manner that meets the accessibility guidelines of UAAG20. ""
AB: hearing no concerns, I will proceed with the TransReq
RB: NB the "please CONSIDER"
part
... we did consider it
AB: the Plan of Record is to move forward
AB: during the last call we began
to discuss GZip, streaming and widget packaging, etc. (
http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#item06
) but Arve wasn't available.
... we can discuss this today
Arve: the major diff between Zip
and GZip Tarball
... is the Zip has an index at the end of the file
... need to wait for the zip to get loaded
... with GZip, there is no such index
... data stored in chunks
... header contains the data needed
... For packaged resources, GZip would allow immediate
processing
... so don't have to read everything before starting to
process
... Could place config.xml at the BoFile and then process it
immediately
... could process config.xml while the rest of the zip is still
downloading
... some widgets could benefit from this
... e.g. large video or audio files in the package
... could initialize and start game without the entire resource
being available
... this is a good advantage
... Inserting this support into the current spec would just
bloat the spec
... and delay P&C
... If we are to take this on, we should separate config into
one spec and packaging into a separate spec
... It would then allow Tar + GZ to be in a separate packaging
spec
MC: if the market wants another
signing format, we can specify one
... XML Sig does work
... we understand JAR signing could work too
... on a technical level, XML Sig is OK
JS: one requirement is that it be
easy to do
... thus our use of Zip
... relying on features on that are not readily available for
on multiple platforms is not good
... e.g. ordering of files in a Zip varies
Arve: if we have good use cases, tools will follow/exist
JS: the claim that Zip can't be used for streaming I question
Arve: but end up doing more requests
JS: I think we have met our
original reqs
... there is no req for partial archives
... I think the entire archive must be validated
... concerned about partial archive validation
... e.g. some file being deleted during the streaming
... that would invalidate the signed archive
<timeless_mbp> OK
<timeless_mbp> The Game use case
<timeless_mbp> The game has a start video
<timeless_mbp> which is somehow "streamable" (it sounds like in order to make this work it needs to be interlaced, and I suspect that's either split across files or not done w/ tar)
<darobin> [The Streaming Widget Use Case: you want to embed a widget in a web page. You want that to be fast. End of UC]
<timeless_mbp> the game also has a file which it uses to verify that the game is licensed to this specific user
<timeless_mbp> the game archive has a signature which ensures that the archive isn't tampered with
<timeless_mbp> if the archive is retransmitted and someone deletes that file which was used to verify the license
<timeless_mbp> then the author is surprised
<timeless_mbp> because the author was relying on the signing of the complete package
<timeless_mbp> and the package validation to protect the archive
<timeless_mbp> --
AB: does anyone plan to push this into WebApps charter?
Arve: not sure it is important
enough at the moment
... we do need to think about market forces
... If there is going to be a round 2 of widget specs, we
should consider UCs like tar-gz
... Should consider the spec split regardless of whether the
tar-gz UC will be addressed
JS: I am not opposed to making things extensible
s/opposed as/opposed to/
Arve: re Robin and streaming embedded widgets, agree you want that to be fast
RB: don't think range requests will work
JS: not sure tar allows interleaving
Arve: yes, tar is one at a time
JS: perhaps MPEG tech could be used
RB: we need to be careful with
MPEG because of W3C Patent Policy
... think WebM support carouselling (sp?)
Arve: WebM is video container
format
... not sure it is relevant for packaging web apps
<darobin> [and I meant interleaving more than carouselling actually]
AB: want to stop this discussion
for today
... but we can resume June 17
Arve: want to propose a
resolution ...
... to repackage P&C into packaging and config spec
JS: I'm OK but not sure if our charter permits it
<Steven> I think that the *content* is chartered, so splitting should be trivial, since there is good reason
AB: so is the proposal, after P&C PR is published, you want to split P&C into two separate specs?
Arve: yes
RB: I don't want to delay REC
Arve: what about WDs?
MC: I need to evaluate the
spec
... it could be viewed as Editorial
... there could be some different ways to address the
issue
... e.g. make it clear a different packaing format could be
used
AB: I am reluctant to record a
resolution now
... I need to think about it
MC: yes, we need to think this through first
<darobin> [I would be happy with a resolution to do that right after Rec, for a no-change 1.1]
SP: if one could argue there would be no change in technical content, it would be safe
<darobin> [if we have guarantees from W3M that we can safely split, then fine]
Arve: so safe to split the spec into two?
SP: yes
<darobin> [additional consideration: if we split well enough, it's not widget-specific anymore]
AB: I agree that if we split the spec, it would not require a charter review
<darobin> [we have Simple Web Packaging, Widget Configuration, Widget: Media Type and File Extension]
AB: it could be this split would be a natural outcome of the Widget Embedding deliverable that has been proposed
<darobin> [then we just add Streamable Web Packagin]
<arve> [streaming web packages may very well be a core requirement of embedded widgets]
<darobin> [I think it ought to be]
<darobin> [without it, loading files directly will feel faster than the compressed, packaged version :)]
AB: does anyone have anything to discuss?
<darobin> http://www.w3.org/2010/api-privacy-ws/
AB: no call on June 10; next call is June 17
RB: don't forget about the Privacy Workshop!
JS: where?
RB: London
... mid July
... before DAP f2f meeting
... it is open to the Public
Arve: one must submit a Position Paper to attend
JS: how long?
RB: length isn't important - cogent ideas are
AB: meeting adjourned
RSSAgent, make minutes
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/tin/tion/ Succeeded: s/regarless/regardless/ Succeeded: s/as/to/ FAILED: s/opposed as/opposed to/ Succeeded: s/MP3/MPEG tech/ Succeeded: s/carolseling/carouselling/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Frederick Marcos StevenP Robin Arve Josh Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0878.html Got date from IRC log name: 03 Jun 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow macros marcos[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]