IRC log of wam on 2010-11-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

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