See also: IRC log
<ArtB> Scribe: Art, Steven
<ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
<Marcos> woops
AB: draft agenda was sent to the list yesterday <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1226.html>. We will include Marcos' proposal for Issue-116 when discussing TWI spec and move Announcements to AOB. Any other change requests?
AB: Issue-117 <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/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."
... Marcos' proposed resolution is captured in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1211.html>
... I have two questions: are these clarifications really
needed and is the proposed solution purely editorial?
MC: they are editorial
... if implemented without this proposal, the problem would be
obvious
... and the proposed resolution would not affect an
implementation
... think the spec is clear direction would not affect data
like URIs
... I do think, however, it would be good to clarify the
spec
... think e-mail needs to be considered
... i.e. if it is a displayable string or a keyword
JS: by email do you mean content or the email address?
MC: the spec just says it is a
string
... could make it as a keyword and thus dir doesn't apply
AB: think we need to give people
to respond to this proposed resolution
... it was only proposed two days ago
SP: should we ask the I18N WG?
MC: yes, good idea
... wanted to first get feedback from WebApps
... if there is agreement there, we can then ask I18N WG to
review
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos submit proposed resolution to Issue-117 to I18N for comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-563 - Submit proposed resolution to Issue-117 to I18N for comments [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-07-08].
<timeless> I'm fine with the proposed resolution
AB: we also need to make sure people in WebApps have a chance to comment on MC's proposal
AB: yesterday Marcos submitted a
proposal <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1229.html>
to address Issue-116 <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116>
... 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.
... this proposed resolution is also quite new so the WG hasn't
had much of a chance to reply
MC: I still need to get feedback
from Opera people
... so far I haven't received any comments
... I personally think it should be dropped
... think it can do more harm than good
... and that it isn't really needed
JS: I agree with removing this
feature
... I don't think we need it
AB: want the WG to have at least
a week to submit comments
... I presume that if this method is removed, we need to drop
back to LCWD
... Agreed?
MC: yes
AB: we already have 2 impls that pass our test suite, right?
MC: yes
... and those impls would need to remove the method
AB: so I think we can do a so-called zero-length CR and go right to PR
SP: if you have done the tests and then remove the feature; if no one complains then you can move ahead fast
AB: PLEASE EVERYONE REPLY TO MARCOS' PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR ISSUE-116!
AB: during our last call, we
talked about draft references in CRs and how that would affect
moving the CR to Proposed Recommendation (PR).
... I copied all of the normative draft references in our CRs
to an e-mail <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jun/0073.html>.
I also forwarded some information from Ian Jacobs re the
process question related to draft references: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jun/0075.html>.
... 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.
<fjh> 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.
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".
... 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.
<fjh> 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
AB: re P&C spec, we have a CSS2.1 CR reference
<Marcos> http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/06/an_update_on_css_21.html
<Steven> Scribe: Steven
<scribe> scribenick: steven
Marcos: I'm OK for the spec to be
parked; there's no links to anything unstable in P&C
... can even park in CR if we want
... but PR is also great
... either will do
... Anyone else have a position?
Art: The spec parked in CR gives
a perception that it could change
... but in PR the message is that we're done
... since the AC has to vote
... so I think there is real value to have it in PR asap
Marcos: Adam made it clear that his spec won't change, at least the algorithm
Art: My gut feel is that we don't
want to wait for CSS 2.1
... and that we have evidence to argue to the director
... 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
... and in the PR request
... that we would remain in PR until they are ready
Steven: Do we need to have a contigency plan for if those specs change, and therefore messing with our spec, or do we just cross that bridge when we get to it?
Art: Good question; I think that it is unlikely to occur and we don't need to worry
<scribe> ACTION: Art to discuss with team and Marcos the plan to publish P&C as PR with the dependencies as is [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> 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].
Art: The next one is less
comfortable, Widget interface
... there we have more unfinished dependencies
... we could copy and paste parts of WEBIDL into the
spec,
... but we still have refs that we can't do that for
... so we may not be able to move to PR
Steven: Because the refs are not solidified enough, and might damage our spec?
Art: Yes
... Webstorage last call period ended recently, so a CR could
be published soon (this Summer)
... anybody got an idea about LC for HTML5?
[Laughter]
Marcos: Next year sometime
... last call period will last three years!
... Reviewing needs one day per page on average, so three years
for last call is about right
... considering the number of pages
Art: So we could do some analysis for Webstorage and Webidl, but we still have HTML5
Marcos: HTML5 ever reaching recommendation is going to be complicated by the complexity of the spec
Art: If it is important enough to go to PR, then we have to copy the parts of HTML5 into our spec
Marcos: I will look at removing
the reference to HTML5, we don't have any other choice
... or making it non-normative reference
Art: Good, and something similar for Webidl
Marcos: Webidl has a dependency on HTML5, so it has similar problems
Art: So we may be able to do a PR
in the next couple of months
... Next spec is DIGSIG
... the dependencies are going to CR in the fall
... anyhow we aren't going to CR until October, so we're
probably OK
... and we can move to PR at the end of the year
Marcos: We need to sort out the test suite, but that's all
Art: Next spec is viewmode
... reference to media queries, which is in CR
... don't know if that will create a problem for us
... And then widgets URI, which has a dependency on packaging;
no issues
Art: Any announcements?
... When is the next call?
... No call July 15
... No call July 22
... So maybe call July 8, if we have anything to discuss.
Otherwise I'll cancel it.
... July 8 call will be on issues 116 and 117
[ADJOURN]
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/give/gives/ Succeeded: s/GO/Go/ Succeeded: s/iccur/occur/ Succeeded: s/nect/next/ Succeeded: s/bosy/body/ Succeeded: s/AN/An/ Succeeded: s/refernce/reference/ Succeeded: s/ANy/Any/ FAILED: s/AN/An/ Succeeded: s/cell/cel/ Succeeded: s/those pecs/those specs/ Succeeded: s/WId/Wid/ Succeeded: s|s/AN/An/|| Found Scribe: Art, Steven Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Steven Inferring ScribeNick: Steven Found ScribeNick: steven Scribes: Art, Steven, Steven ScribeNicks: ArtB, Steven Default Present: Josh_Soref, Art_Barstow, Steven, +1.479.524.aaaa, Frederick_Hirsch Present: Art StevenP Josh Marcos Frederick Regrets: Frederick Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1226.html Got date from IRC log name: 01 Jul 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/07/01-wam-minutes.html People with action items: art marcos proposed resolution submit[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]