13:01:50 RRSAgent has joined #wam 13:01:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-irc 13:01:57 RRSAgent, make log public 13:02:09 Scribe: Art, Steven 13:02:11 ScribeNick: ArtB 13:02:12 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1226.html 13:02:14 Chair: Art, Steven 13:02:16 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 13:02:17 Regrets: Frederick 13:02:32 woops 13:02:47 Present: Art, StevenP, Josh 13:03:58 zakim, passcode? 13:03:58 the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Marcos 13:04:09 + +1.479.524.aaaa 13:04:31 Present+ Marcos 13:04:46 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 13:05:06 AB: draft agenda was sent to the list yesterday . We will include Marcos' proposal for Issue-116 when discussing TWI spec and move Announcements to AOB. Any other change requests? 13:05:31 Topic: Packaging and Configuration spec and Issue-117 13:05:38 AB: Issue-117 "In Widget P&C Spec, need to clarify in the spec that dir attribute does not apply to attributes that are IRIs, Numeric, Keywords, etc. The dir attribute only affects human readable strings." 13:06:07 AB: Marcos' proposed resolution is captured in 13:06:19 AB: I have two questions: are these clarifications really needed and is the proposed solution purely editorial? 13:06:46 MC: they are editorial 13:07:04 ... if implemented without this proposal, the problem would be obvious 13:07:40 ... and the proposed resolution would not affect an implementation 13:08:08 ... think the spec is clear direction would not affect data like URIs 13:08:21 ... I do think, however, it would be good to clarify the spec 13:09:17 ... think e-mail needs to be considered 13:09:34 ... i.e. if it is a displayable string or a keyword 13:10:06 JS: by email do you mean content or the email address? 13:10:13 MC: the spec just says it is a string 13:11:12 ... could make it as a keyword and thus dir doesn't apply 13:11:55 AB: think we need to give people to respond to this proposed resolution 13:11:56 q+ 13:12:04 ... it was only proposed two days ago 13:12:12 SP: should we ask the I18N WG? 13:12:17 MC: yes, good idea 13:12:29 ... wanted to first get feedback from WebApps 13:12:40 ... if there is agreement there, we can then ask I18N WG to review 13:13:03 ACTION: Marcos submit proposed resolution to Issue-117 to I18N for comments 13:13:03 Created ACTION-563 - Submit proposed resolution to Issue-117 to I18N for comments [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-07-08]. 13:13:19 I'm fine with the proposed resolution 13:13:40 AB: we also need to make sure people in WebApps have a chance to comment on MC's proposal 13:14:07 Topic: TWI spec and Issue-116 13:14:13 AB: yesterday Marcos submitted a proposal to address Issue-116 13:14:24 AB: the previous plan of record was to address this issue "Need to flesh out the security considerations for the openURL method in the Widget Interface spec" by creating non-normative guidelines. This new proposal would remove the openURL method from the spec. 13:15:04 AB: this proposed resolution is also quite new so the WG hasn't had much of a chance to reply 13:15:29 zakim, code 13:15:29 I don't understand 'code', fjh 13:15:32 zakim, code? 13:15:32 the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), fjh 13:15:41 MC: I still need to get feedback from Opera people 13:15:53 ... so far I haven't received any comments 13:16:00 ... I personally think it should be dropped 13:16:14 ... think it can do more harm than good 13:16:20 ... and that it isn't really needed 13:17:04 JS: I agree with removing this feature 13:17:12 ... I don't think we need it 13:17:14 +Frederick_Hirsch 13:17:22 Present+ Frederick 13:17:49 AB: want the WG to have at least a week to submit comments 13:18:04 AB: I presume that if this method is removed, we need to drop back to LCWD 13:18:08 ... Agreed? 13:18:10 MC: yes 13:18:43 AB: we already have 2 impls that pass our test suite, right? 13:18:45 MC: yes 13:18:53 ... and those impls would need to remove the method 13:19:24 AB: so I think we can do a so-called zero-length CR and go right to PR 13:20:04 SP: if you have done the tests and then remove the feature; if no one complains then you can move ahead fast 13:20:43 AB: PLEASE EVERYONE REPLY TO MARCOS' PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR ISSUE-116! 13:21:22 Topic: Dependencies on draft specs and publishing PRs 13:21:29 AB: during our last call, we talked about draft references in CRs and how that would affect moving the CR to Proposed Recommendation (PR). 13:21:43 AB: I copied all of the normative draft references in our CRs to an e-mail . I also forwarded some information from Ian Jacobs re the process question related to draft references: . 13:22:22 AB: ideally, a spec shall not contain any references to draft documents. However, we all acknowledge that may not be a smart/practical thing to do. OTOH, we should work to reduce/minimize dependencies on draft specs. 13:22:38 XML Security Algorithm Cross-Reference is intended to be a note, don't expect it to go to CR. The normative definitions are in other documents for this one. 13:22:51 AB: if we agree a spec is "done" in the sense that a) the CR exit criteria is met and b) we do not want to make any more changes, then I think we should move it to PR to signal to the community "this spec is done and we do not plan any more changes". 13:23:22 AB: I think there is value in "parking" a spec in PR even if we know it could be while before it can move to Recommendation. There is a precedence in W3C for doing this. 13:23:51 Expect CR for XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties in the Fall 2010, per xml security roadmap http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Roadmap 13:25:03 AB: re P&C spec, we have a CSS2.1 CR reference 13:25:17 http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/06/an_update_on_css_21.html 13:26:06 Scribe: Steven 13:26:10 scribenick: steven 13:26:52 Marcos: I'm OK for the spec to be parked; there's no links to anything unstable in P&C 13:27:02 ... can even park in CR if we want 13:27:09 ... but PR is also great 13:27:18 ... either will do 13:27:40 Marcos: Anyone else have a position? 13:27:56 Art: The spec parked in CR give a perception that it could change 13:28:03 s/give/gives/ 13:28:10 ... but in PR the message is that we're done 13:28:21 ... since the AC has to vote 13:28:41 ... so I think there is real value to have it in PR asap 13:29:05 Marcos: Adam made it clear that his spec won't change, at least the algorithm 13:29:19 q+ 13:30:01 Art: My gut feel is that we don't want to wait for CSS 2.1 13:30:36 ... and that we have evidence to argue to the director 13:31:22 ... I would ask for a PR of P&C knowing that some refs are not yet in the final stage, and that we made it clear in the status 13:31:29 ... and in the PR request 13:31:38 ... that we would remain in PR until they are ready 13:32:40 Steven: Do we need to have a contigency plan for if those pecs change, and therefore messing with our spec, or do we just cross that bridge when we get to it? 13:32:55 Art: GOod question; I think that it is unlikely to iccur and we don't need to worry 13:33:01 s/GO/Go/ 13:33:28 s/iccur/occur/ 13:33:31 ACTION: Art to discuss with team and Marcos the plan to publish P&C as PR with the dependencies as is 13:33:32 Created ACTION-564 - Discuss with team and Marcos the plan to publish P&C as PR with the dependencies as is [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-07-08]. 13:34:08 Art: The nect one is less comfortable, WIdget interface 13:34:14 s/nect/next/ 13:34:17 ... there we have more unfinished dependencies 13:34:40 ... we could copy and paste parts of WEBIDL into the spec, 13:34:53 ... but we still have refs that we can't do that for 13:35:12 -Frederick_Hirsch 13:35:19 ... so we may not be able to move to PR 13:35:34 Steven: Because the refs are not solidified enough, and might damage our spec? 13:35:36 Art: Yes 13:36:08 Art: Webstorage last call period ended recently, so a CR could be published soon (this Summer) 13:36:24 ... anybosy got an idea about LC for HTML5? 13:36:26 [Laughter] 13:36:32 Marcos: Next year sometime 13:36:41 ... last call period will last three years! 13:36:50 s/bosy/body/ 13:37:18 Marcos: Reviewing needs one day per page on average, so three years for last call is about right 13:37:28 ... considering the number of pages 13:37:49 Art: So we could do some analysis for Webstorage and Webidl, but we still have HTML5 13:39:51 Marcos: HTML5 ever reaching recommendation is going to be complicated by the complexity of the spec 13:40:31 Art: If it is important enough to go to PR, then we have to copy the parts of HTML5 into our spec 13:40:55 Marcos: I will look at removing the reference to HTML5, we don't have any other choice 13:41:14 ... or making it non-normative reference 13:41:24 Art: Good, and something similar for Webidl 13:42:06 Marcos: Webidl has a dependency on HTML5, so it has similar problems 13:42:46 Art: So we may be able to do a PR in the next couple of months 13:42:53 Art: Next spec is DIGSIG 13:43:17 ... the dependencies are going to CR in the fall 13:43:49 ... anyhow we aren't going to CR until October, so we're probably OK 13:44:00 ... and we can move to PR at the end of the year 13:44:21 Marcos: We need to sort out the test suite, but that's all 13:44:36 Art: Next spec is viewmode 13:44:59 ... refernce to media queries, which is in CR 13:45:20 ... don't know if that will create a problem for us 13:45:49 ... ANd then widgets URI, which has a dependency on packaging; no issues 13:45:57 s/AN/An/ 13:46:34 s/refernce/reference/ 13:46:35 topic: AOB 13:46:54 Art: ANy announcements? 13:47:02 Art: When is the next call? 13:47:03 s/ANy/Any/ 13:47:06 s/AN/An/ 13:47:17 Art: No call July 15 13:47:26 Art: No call July 22 13:48:18 Art: So maybe call July 8, if we have anything to discuss. Otherwise I'll cancell it. 13:48:26 s/cell/cel/ 13:48:43 Art: July 8 call will be on issues 116 and 117 13:49:19 [ADJOURN] 13:49:24 -Art_Barstow 13:49:25 - +1.479.524.aaaa 13:49:26 -Steven 13:49:26 -Josh_Soref 13:49:28 Team_(wam)13:00Z has ended 13:49:30 Attendees were Josh_Soref, Art_Barstow, Steven, +1.479.524.aaaa, Frederick_Hirsch 13:49:40 rrsagent, make minutes 13:49:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-minutes.html Steven 13:51:22 s/those pecs/those specs/ 13:51:44 s/WId/Wid/ 13:52:43 s|s/AN/An/|| 13:52:51 rrsagent, make minutes 13:52:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-minutes.html Steven 15:57:23 Zakim has left #wam 16:45:28 MikeSmithX has joined #wam 16:48:21 MikeSmith has joined #wam