14:00:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
14:00:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-irc
14:00:24 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
14:00:49 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
14:01:01 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
14:01:01 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
14:01:01 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0680.html
14:01:01 <ArtB> Chair: Art
14:01:01 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
14:01:02 <ArtB> Regrets: Josh_Soref
14:05:23 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
14:05:23 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:05:25 <Zakim> +Steven
14:05:50 <Steven> zakim, who is on the call?
14:05:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.479.524.aaaa, Art_Barstow, Steven
14:06:00 <Steven> zakim, aaaa is Marcos
14:06:00 <Zakim> +Marcos; got it
14:07:50 <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda
14:07:57 <ArtB> AB: yesterday I sent out a draft agenda ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0680.html ). Any change requests? We will drop Issue-151 because Marcos already closed it.
14:08:15 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
14:08:20 <ArtB> AB: any short announcements?
14:08:26 <ArtB> AB: Robin is now a member of the group as an Invited Expert
14:08:44 <ArtB> Topic: Packaging and Configuration spec
14:08:49 <ArtB> AB: re interop data for the P&C spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ ), the report shows we still need a substantial amount of data to pass CR.
14:09:21 <darobin> darobin has joined #wam
14:09:38 <ArtB> MC: OBIGO gave me some data
14:09:42 <darobin> arg sorry screwed up my reminder :(
14:09:44 <ArtB> ... they did a good job
14:09:51 <ArtB> ... I've been working with them
14:09:59 <ArtB> ... we've helped each other
14:10:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:10:30 <darobin> Zakim, IPcaller is me
14:10:30 <Zakim> +darobin; got it
14:10:56 <ArtB> Present: Art, Robin, Marcos, Steven
14:10:58 <Steven> zakim, mute darobin temporarily
14:10:58 <Zakim> darobin should now be muted
14:11:14 <Zakim> darobin should now be unmuted again
14:11:31 <ArtB> ... I am also retesting with Opera 11
14:11:43 <ArtB> ... so we have data for a shipping product
14:12:19 <ArtB> AB: several of the impls are around 50%
14:12:29 <ArtB> ... is that because they haven't tested the I18N stuff?
14:12:33 <ArtB> MC: yes, that's right
14:12:57 <ArtB> AB: do you expect any additional data?
14:13:18 <ArtB> MC: the I18N tests are difficult to test
14:13:42 <ArtB> ... some of the tests are very low level that are difficult to test
14:14:03 <ArtB> ... the I18N tests are manual and as such take a lot of time to test
14:14:23 <ArtB> ... If the widget object is implemented, some of the test are easier to run
14:14:45 <ArtB> ... some of the I18N test use JS now but the tests haven't changed
14:15:02 <ArtB> ... Once we get agreement on the TWI spec, the P&C test suite can be completed
14:16:02 <ArtB> AB: should we publish a new CR while waiting for data?: 
14:16:10 <ArtB> MC: I'm OK with that
14:16:24 <ArtB> ... we have handled the LC comments
14:16:35 <ArtB> AB: so we round-tripped with all the commenters?
14:16:41 <ArtB> MC: yes, I believe so
14:16:49 <ArtB> AB: that's my understanding as well
14:17:44 <ArtB> Topic: Widget Interface spec
14:17:48 <ArtB> AB: the ED is   http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
14:18:09 <ArtB> AB: the comment loop for the LCWD is still open re I18N WG's comment ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20100907/ )
14:18:42 <ArtB> AB: where do we stand on this?
14:19:03 <Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#the-localizablestring-interface
14:19:06 <ArtB> MC: go to section 7. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/widgets-api/Overview.html?rev=1.155&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#the-localizablestring-interface
14:19:30 <ArtB> MC: I created a new LocalizedString interface
14:19:36 <ArtB> ... and it returns the language
14:19:46 <Marcos> var lang = widget.name.lang
14:20:13 <ArtB> MC: I made up a use case in the ED
14:20:21 <ArtB> ... and we can confirm that from the I18N WG
14:20:44 <ArtB> AB: so that takes care of the "what is the locale?" issue, right?
14:20:46 <ArtB> MC: yes
14:20:55 <ArtB> ... navigator.language
14:21:18 <ArtB> MC: the 2nd problem is what is the string
14:21:27 <ArtB> ... and the 3rd problem is what is the direction
14:21:48 <Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#getting-localizable-strings
14:21:51 <ArtB> MC: go to section 7.2 
14:22:34 <ArtB> ... what I discovered is that inserting unicode markers into HTML, browsers don't respect the markers
14:22:45 <Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#example-2-base-direction-is-left-to-righ
14:22:45 <ArtB> ... example in 7.2.2 
14:23:02 <Marcos> The widget's name is 'olleH'.
14:23:20 <Marcos> Should be The widget's name is 'Hello'.
14:23:21 <ArtB> ... look at the "Would render as" box
14:23:37 <ArtB> ... all browsers display the widget's name incorrectly
14:25:14 <ArtB> AB: so if I understand this correctly, we have a technical solution that is good but it has not been deployed/implemented by any browser. Is that correct?
14:25:18 <ArtB> MC: yes, that's correct
14:26:32 <ArtB> AB: think we need to get some feedback from the I18N WG
14:27:02 <ArtB> MC: the API does what it is supposed to do it's the browsers that don't support it properly
14:27:41 <ArtB> ... think we are going to have a coding mismatch regardless
14:28:38 <ArtB> SP: at one level, it's not our problem if browsers don't support it
14:28:52 <ArtB> ... it is our problem though, indirectly
14:29:00 <ArtB> MC: think we need to seek some guidance here
14:29:11 <ArtB> ... I think we've captured the problem 
14:29:31 <ArtB> ... #1 issue: browsers don't respect Unicode Markers
14:29:59 <ArtB> ... #2 issue: what do we do if the page is not in Unicode
14:30:13 <ArtB> RB: Unicode markers can be inserted using Entity Refs
14:30:41 <ArtB> MC: but what if the doc has multiple encodings?
14:30:51 <ArtB> RB: can't have multipe encodings
14:31:00 <ArtB> ... in a single doc
14:31:32 <ArtB> ... < more details by RB on character sets, encodings and Entity Refs ... >
14:32:44 <ArtB> AB: so I think the next step then is to ask the I18N WG to review the new ED ASAP
14:32:47 <darobin> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html
14:33:30 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow Ask the I18N WG to review the new Section 7 of the TWI spec
14:33:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-612 - Ask the I18N WG to review the new Section 7 of the TWI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-11-25].
14:33:43 <ArtB> AB: other than review, what else do we ask them?
14:33:58 <ArtB> MC: I think it is mainly the two issues above
14:34:43 <ArtB> ... think we need to have advice of implementors and developers
14:36:09 <ArtB> AB: would like to come back to P&C and promoting to CR or wait until we resolve the TWI issue?
14:36:19 <ArtB> MC: would prefer to wait until TWI is sorted out
14:36:46 <ArtB> AB: that's what we'll do
14:37:14 <ArtB> Topic: Digital Signature spec
14:37:20 <ArtB> AB: the Implementation Report for widgets digsig show no ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/ ) implementation data.
14:37:43 <ArtB> AB: anything new re implementation data?
14:37:55 <ArtB> MC: no, I don't have any additional data for widgets-digsig
14:38:10 <ArtB> Topic: Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec
14:38:18 <ArtB> AB: what's the latest on the WARP spec re implementations ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/imp-report/ )?
14:38:30 <ArtB> AB: we still have an open PAG
14:38:35 <ArtB> ... for WARP spec
14:39:05 <ArtB> RB: the PAG should probably move fwd
14:39:13 <ArtB> SP: who are we waiting for?
14:39:21 <ArtB> RB: think Rigo
14:39:42 <ArtB> ... we need to know what the PAG needs to do in specific terms
14:40:02 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow followup with the Team on the status and plan for the WARP PAG
14:40:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-613 - Followup with the Team on the status and plan for the WARP PAG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-11-25].
14:40:42 <ArtB> AB: no surprise there is no data on the implementation of WARP given the PAG is still open
14:40:53 <ArtB> Topic: URI Scheme spec
14:40:57 <ArtB> AB: the URI scheme spec is still in LC ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/ ).  What is the status and plan?
14:41:19 <ArtB> AB: anything new on this spec?
14:41:26 <ArtB> RB: nothing new to report
14:41:59 <ArtB> MC: we have implemented it in some products
14:42:07 <ArtB> ... that with WARP is very useful
14:42:12 <Steven> The PAG Charter has expired
14:42:19 <ArtB> RB: any implementation feedback?
14:42:24 <ArtB> MC: it works well
14:42:56 <ArtB> ... WARP + widget uri as origin is working
14:43:08 <ArtB> ... we don't display the widget origin
14:43:13 <ArtB> ... but it underlies things
14:43:46 <Steven> q+ to talk about the PAG
14:44:01 <Marcos> MC: we have also implemented navigation of package content... so you can browse resources inside a package
14:44:32 <ArtB> SP: re the WARP PAG, the Charter has expired
14:44:47 <ArtB> ... the Director can extend it though, so I don't think that is a problem
14:45:09 <ArtB> ... perhaps it would be helpful to have Rigo join a call 
14:45:16 <ArtB> ... e.g. to get some momentum behind it
14:45:21 <ArtB> AB: that's fine with me
14:46:08 <ArtB> RB: is we set something up, we should tell the PAG
14:46:29 <ArtB> AB: good point; we should probably re-use the PAG conference time + day of week
14:47:44 <ArtB> AB: coming back to URI spec ...
14:47:51 <ArtB> ... what needs to be done?
14:48:02 <ArtB> RB: need a URI expert to take a look
14:48:14 <Steven> (Spec link?)
14:48:16 <ArtB> ... perhaps someone from Opera can help?
14:48:30 <ArtB> AB: URI ED is:   http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
14:48:47 <ArtB> RB: I'm having trouble understanding some of the comments
14:49:02 <ArtB> ... last comment was from Julian
14:49:25 <darobin> Just define the widget *URI* syntax in terms of RFC 3986 (URI), not RFC 3987 (IRI).
14:49:27 <darobin> Then, state how to map strings that contain non-URI characters to URI syntax (such as UTF-8-encode-then-percent-escape).
14:49:29 <darobin> (This is something that might change when IRIbis is done, but as far as I understand, this is how it works right now).
14:49:33 <darobin> http://www.w3.org/mid/4BC70C29.7000709@gmx.de
14:49:45 <darobin> that's the sort of stuff that confuses me :)
14:50:02 <darobin> (especially the last bit)
14:50:07 <ArtB> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/526
14:51:07 <ArtB> AB: so then from a resource perspective, to move the URI scheme spec fwd, it appears we need some additional help
14:51:22 <ArtB> RB: yes, it would be good to get some help
14:51:48 <ArtB> AB: can Opera help here Marcos/
14:52:02 <ArtB> MC: yes, I can help
14:52:14 <ArtB> AB: that would be great
14:52:31 <ArtB> SP: re Julian's email ...
14:52:42 <ArtB> ... IRIs over the wire get converted to URIs
14:52:50 <ArtB> ... there is an encoding from IRI to URI
14:53:18 <ArtB> RB: for our case, the URI doesn't go over the wire
14:53:46 <ArtB> ... these widget: URIs do not get typed into a browser, for example
14:53:53 <ArtB> SP: so how is it used?
14:54:04 <ArtB> RB: in an ideal world it isn't used
14:54:16 <ArtB> ... but it does need to be in the DOM
14:54:35 <ArtB> ... and only valid within a widget package
14:55:14 <ArtB> RB: thinks like network encoding just don't apply to our use case
14:55:29 <ArtB> ... the IETF requirements are strict
14:55:39 <ArtB> ... and don't necessarily apply in our scenario
14:56:22 <ArtB> AB: the A&I database includes Actions for the URI spec
14:56:37 <ArtB> Topic: view-mode Media Feature spec
14:56:42 <ArtB> AB: any implementation data for VMMF ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/imp-report/ )?
14:57:06 <ArtB> MC: I don't think anyone implements it yet
14:57:23 <ArtB> ... we still implement the old stuff i.e. we don't use the new names
14:57:49 <ArtB> AB: any commitments from other implementers?
14:58:04 <ArtB> MC: no
14:59:44 <ArtB> Topic: Updates spec
14:59:50 <ArtB> AB: Richard has recently updated the Updates spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ). How close is this spec to being feature complete and hence ready for LC?
15:00:19 <ArtB> MC: I think it is pretty close to being feature complete
15:00:38 <ArtB> ... I think we need to get some review
15:01:13 <Marcos> "On receiving an HTTP 410 Gone response, the user agent must terminate the widget update and remove the installed widget."
15:01:52 <ArtB> MC: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/#acquiring-an-update-description-document 
15:02:03 <ArtB> ... think there is some work that needs to be done
15:03:22 <ArtB> AB: do you expect a CfC for LC this year?
15:03:40 <ArtB> MC: not clear yet
15:04:03 <Zakim> -Steven
15:04:48 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
15:04:56 <ArtB> AB: re next call: TBD base on agenda topics (definitely no meeting on Nov 25).
15:05:21 <ArtB> RB: makes sense re TBD for Dec 2
15:05:24 <ArtB> MC: agree
15:06:00 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
15:06:08 <Zakim> -darobin
15:06:12 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
15:06:23 <Zakim> -Marcos
15:06:23 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:06:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html ArtB
15:06:25 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
15:06:29 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.479.524.aaaa, Art_Barstow, Steven, Marcos, darobin
15:06:44 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
15:06:50 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:06:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html ArtB
15:09:46 <Marcos> darobin: I think I figured out how to do the i18n thing... unescape(escape(widget.name))
15:11:53 <ArtB> zakim, bye
15:11:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wam
15:24:01 <Steven> Steven has left #wam
15:29:15 <anne> anne has joined #wam
16:20:14 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #wam
17:27:15 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
17:27:15 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-actions.rdf :
17:27:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow Ask the I18N WG to review the new Section 7 of the TWI spec [1]
17:27:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-irc#T14-33-30
17:27:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow followup with the Team on the status and plan for the WARP PAG [2]
17:27:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-irc#T14-40-02