See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
AB: a draft agenda was submitted yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0051.html ). Any change requests?
AB: October 26 is the deadline
for comments re October 5 LCWD of Widget Packaging and
Configuration ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-20101005/
... TPAC: widgets group will not meet; registration after October 22 results in increased registration fee ( http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/#Registration )
AB: Addison Philips submitted a
comment against the 7-Sep-2010 LCWD (
) and it raises the issues about how a developer can determine
the locale and direction for the "span-able" properties.
... Marcos submitted a proposal to address the issues ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0033.html ).
... so far, I don't think anyone has responded to MC's proposal
MC: yes, that's correct
AB: not clear if directionality needs to be an explicit part of the API or if the spec can "punt" on that as suggested by Marcos f.ex. by following ( http://www.iamcal.com/understanding-bidirectional-text/ )
MC: I think the API needs some
type of extension
... eg. the Localizeable DOM String
... to add language
... thus getters can work
<Marcos> eg. widget.name.lang
AB: that part seems straight-forward
MC: the algorithm can be written
... don't think we should deal with that at the API level
AB: so you think the
directionality is out of scope for the API
... i.e. is handled by some layer above the API
... is that correct?
AB: anyone else have input on this issue?
SP: think we need to hear from the I18N WG
RB: yes, I agree
... don't think directionality should be part of the API
... for example, it should definitely not be settable
<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask the I18N WG to respond to Marcos' proposal for Interface locale and directionality [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-588 - Ask the I18N WG to respond to Marcos' proposal for Interface locale and directionality [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-10-14].
AB: I'm becoming increasingly concerned the bidi model in P&C is overly complicated for a Level 1 spec. Could greatly simplify everything by dropping span and just defining the "dir" attribute for the span-able elements. Any additional info that is needed can be accessed via indirection i.e. include a URI in the metadata.
MC: in Opera we haven't had any
problems implementing it
... it is quite simple to process
AB: the use cases we see for
these span-able elements is quite limited
... e.g. just to display the name of a widget in a home screen
... or the description is displayed by a widget "store"
MC: I did a whole lot of research for this
<Marcos> reseach was http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/i18n.html
AB: I realize there are use cases
for lots of embedded spans with different directions
... but for a L1 spec we want wide deployement, it seems rather complicated
... the other concern I would have here is will we get 2 impls that pass all of the span and dir test cases
... do the test cases include nested spans with direction changes?
MC: yes, they do
... would it help if I send my JS impl to the list?
AB: yes, I think it would be
... anything else on Interface spec for today?
... we'll have to go back to LC to add "lang" support
... unless we define the lang in a separate spec
MC: I think other implementers will provide data about supporting P&C bidi model
AB: that would be good information to have
AB: what's the status and plan Robin?
RB: I've been wondering if it
should include navigation
... and wondering if we coud use or resue the blob: uri scheme that is defined in the File API spec
... would be cleaner to put navigation in a separate spec
... but would be easier to add it to uri scheme
... spawning another spec has disadvantages
... Need to get feedback from implementors re navigation
MC: we should do another
... some impls don't navigate at all
... for instance, Opera doesn't navigate
AB: you mean intra-widget package is not allowed
MC: correct, that is not
... if click on a link, it starts a new browser
RB: for V1, wondering if spec should be silent on navigation
MC: think we can live with
... there are some UCs for navigation
RB: what if an iframe is included in widget's index.html?
MC: not sure
AB: without more data, hard to
know if we should say something normative, non-normative or
... Marcos, does the landscape doc touch on navigation?
MC: no, it's a bit dated and didn't look at these more sophisticated use cases
AB: can one of your ask for some feedback?
MC: yes, I can do that
AB: ok; great and I'll send in info from the Qt WRT implementation
<scribe> ACTION: marcos Ask implementors for feedback on navigation models supported [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-589 - Ask implementors for feedback on navigation models supported [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-10-14].
RB: need to know if widget: URI
... how about Opera, Marcos?
MC: we use it but don't think we expose it
RB: perhaps I should ask the list
if there is value in merging widget and blob URIs
... but if there are already impls, we don't want to break them
... Given the IANA/IETF work involved, would be good to reuse a schemem if we can
AB: it would be good to know if
other implementors support widget: scheme
... I believe (not certain) that widget URI scheme is implemented by the Qt WRT, at least the alpha release
... would be good to get implementor feedback on widget: scheme
... could use the same email as navigation request
MC: ok, I'll ask both
AB: so, registration is on hold pending more implementor feedback. Is that correct Robin?
RB: yes, we need to get more feedback
<Marcos> <a href="iframe.html">navigate to iframe</a>
<Marcos> <iframe width="200" height="200" id="iframe" src="iframe.html">
<Marcos> <p id="hello"></p>
<Marcos> var iframe = document.getElementById("iframe").src;
<Marcos> var p = document.getElementById("hello");
<Marcos> p.innerHTML = iframe;
MC: when "navigate to iframe" is clicked, the widget does Not navigate to iframe.html
AB: any topics?
... next meeting ...
... 1 or 2 weeks?
... let's go for 2 weeks which is Oct 21
... and as always, take discussion to the list
... 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 Default Present: Art_Barstow, darobin, Steven, +1.479.524.aaaa, Marcos Present: Art_Barstow Robin_Berjon Steven_Pemberton Marcos_Caceres Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0051.html Got date from IRC log name: 07 Oct 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow marcos[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]