Widgets Voice Conference -- 02 Sep 2010

<abarsto> ScribeNick: ArtB

<abarsto> Scribe: Art

<abarsto> Date: 2 September 2010

Review and tweak agenda

<abarsto> AB: the draft agenda was posted yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0662.html ). Any comments or change requests?

Announcements

<abarsto> AB: TPAC week is November 1-5. I don't expect widgets group to meet since we can use voice conferences. A request for agenda topics was submitted a few days ago ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0648.html ). For TPAC info see ( http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/ ).

<abarsto> SP: yes, use corridors for discussions

<abarsto> MC: that's OK with me

<abarsto> SP: I have a clash with WebApps' meeting

Packaging and Configuration spec

<abarsto> AB: Marcos and others at Opera have been working on the P&C test suite ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/ ). What's the status?

<abarsto> MC: we finished the I18N tests

<abarsto> ... I still have an action to notify the I18N WG

<abarsto> ... It's a bit hard to find the right tests

<abarsto> ... So I have some work to do to indentify the tests we want them to review

<abarsto> ... Can find them if look real hard

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/#unknown-assertions

<abarsto> MC: the tests are done

<abarsto> ... but I still have some work to do re linking those I18N tests into the framework

<abarsto> AB: what's the target date?

<abarsto> MC: I'm aiming for Sep 9

<abarsto> AB: thanks for this update!

<abarsto> MC: I will soon be ready to ask I18N WG for review

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/

<abarsto> MC: can find R2L and L2R if look

<abarsto> ... but not easy to find the descriptions

<abarsto> ... we can't expect them to check all 100+ test cases

<abarsto> ... but if they can review some, that would be useful

<abarsto> AB: I think it makes sense to link those tests to the framework before we ask them for review

<abarsto> MC: OK, that's what we'll do

<abarsto> AB: as a consequence of new tests, the P&C Implementation Report shows no implementation passes 100% of the tests. Is there any new data since we last discussed the IR ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ )?

<abarsto> MC: no, we don't have any other feedback for I18N besides Opera

<abarsto> ... we definitely need one more implementor

<abarsto> ACTION: barstow ask WG members and the Public for implementation data re P&C spec's I18N tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-573 - Ask WG members and the Public for implementation data re P&C spec's I18N tests [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-09-09].

<abarsto> MC: I can also ask people

<abarsto> ... even if the impl is not public, that's OK, right?

<abarsto> AB: yes, I believe that is true

Digital Signature spec

<abarsto> AB: Marcos and others at Opera have also been working on the DigSig test suite ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/test-suite/ ). What's the status?

<abarsto> MC: yes, I have created 42 test cases

<Marcos> Signer (8 assertions, 10 tests, 88% coverage)

<Marcos> Validator (13 assertions, 19 tests, 85% coverage)

<Marcos> Implementation (16 assertions, 17 tests, 75% coverage)

<abarsto> MC: this is a very hard test suite to create

<abarsto> AB: is there any new data regarding implementations ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/ )?

<abarsto> AB: I am not aware of any impl data related to DigSig

Widget Interface spec

<abarsto> AB: last week we agreed to remove openURL method from the Widget object. Consequently, the spec will next be published as a Last Call WD.

<abarsto> AB: After the LC comment period ends, assuming no major new issues are raised, we may be able to skip another CR and directly publish a PR. Normally, when a LC is published a Call for Exclusion period is started. In this case, if no new normative statements were added to the spec, it may be possible to skip the CfE. If the CfE isn't skipped, a PR cannot be published while there is an open CfE period.

<abarsto> AB: CfE period is 8 weeks

<abarsto> AB: the difference, roughly, is a PR being published in early October versus early December.

<abarsto> AB: Marcos, have any NEW Normative statements been added to the spec since the CR was published in December 2009?

<abarsto> MC: I don't think so

<abarsto> ... I think we are just removing functionality

<abarsto> ... I can do a compare

<abarsto> AB: when it comes to IP issues, I think we need to be conservative

<abarsto> MC: I already removed openURL

<abarsto> ... and removed some dependencies

<abarsto> ... but some dependencies we cannot break

<abarsto> MC: I can determine the assertion lists from the latest ED and the Dec 2009 CR

<abarsto> AB: I would like that analysis to be public e.g. public-webapps or www-archive

<abarsto> ... can you do that Marcos?

<abarsto> MC: yes, I can do that

<abarsto> AB: none of this analysis blocks publishing a new LC

<abarsto> AB: what do people think about publishing a new LCWD?

<abarsto> AB: I propose we publish a new LCWD as soon as possible which means September 7. Any objections?

<abarsto> MC: OK; I do want to make a couple of Editorial changes

<abarsto> SP: no comment; that's fine

<abarsto> AB: I support it

<abarsto> RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a new LCWD of the Widget Interface spec

<abarsto> ACTION: marcos notify ArtB when the ED of the Widget Interface spec is ready to be published as a LCWD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-574 - Notify ArtB when the ED of the Widget Interface spec is ready to be published as a LCWD [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-09-09].

<abarsto> AB: re length of comment period

<abarsto> ... we can go with the minimum of 3 weeks

<abarsto> MC: ok

<abarsto> AB: OK, so a pub date of Sept 7 means LC ends Sep 28

<abarsto> SP: who will ask for review?

<abarsto> AB: good question; I'll check the Chairs archive

<abarsto> ... last time it was BONDI but they have morphed to WAC

<abarsto> ... so we can notify WAC via David Rogers

<abarsto> ACTION: barstow notify WAC / David Rogers re new LC of Widget Interface spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-575 - Notify WAC / David Rogers re new LC of Widget Interface spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-09-09].

WebIDL

<abarsto> SP: what is the status

<abarsto> MC: Cameron is coming back as Lead Editor

<abarsto> SP: it is needed in RDFa

<abarsto> AB: Cameron is going to work for Mozilla and will start editing Web IDL again in October

WARP PAG

<abarsto> SP: I recently contacted Rigo Wenning about the WARP PAG status

<abarsto> ... and Rigo reported the telcos should resume soon

AOB

<abarsto> MC: I fixed the view-mode test suite

<abarsto> AB: yes, I saw that e-mail

<abarsto> ... thanks for the updates!

<abarsto> MC: we need to get some review of those tests

<abarsto> ... probably should ask the CSS WG

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/test-suite/#product-ua

<abarsto> ACTION: barstow work with Marcos to ask the CSS WG to review the view-mode test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-wam-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-576 - Work with Marcos to ask the CSS WG to review the view-mode test cases [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-09-09].

<abarsto> MC: make sure you mention the test cases are for wiget implementations

<abarsto> AB: next call in 2 weeks IFF there is sufficient reason

<abarsto> ... that is Sept 16

<abarsto> AB: meeting adjourned

- DRAFT -

Widgets Voice Conference

02 Sep 2010

Attendees

Contents