See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
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.
AB: any short
... Robin is now a member of the group as an Invited Expert
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.
MC: OBIGO gave me some data
<darobin> arg sorry screwed up my reminder :(
MC: they did a good job
... I've been working with them
... we've helped each other
... I am also retesting with Opera 11
... so we have data for a shipping product
AB: several of the impls are
... is that because they haven't tested the I18N stuff?
MC: yes, that's right
AB: do you expect any additional data?
MC: the I18N tests are difficult
... some of the tests are very low level that are difficult to test
... the I18N tests are manual and as such take a lot of time to test
... If the widget object is implemented, some of the test are easier to run
... some of the I18N test use JS now but the tests haven't changed
... Once we get agreement on the TWI spec, the P&C test suite can be completed
AB: should we publish a new CR while waiting for data?:
MC: I'm OK with that
... we have handled the LC comments
AB: so we round-tripped with all the commenters?
MC: yes, I believe so
AB: that's my understanding as well
AB: the ED is http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
... 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/ )
... where do we stand on this?
MC: go to section 7.
... I created a new LocalizedString interface
... and it returns the language
<Marcos> var lang = widget.name.lang
MC: I made up a use case in the
... and we can confirm that from the I18N WG
AB: so that takes care of the "what is the locale?" issue, right?
... the 2nd problem is what is the string
... and the 3rd problem is what is the direction
MC: go to section 7.2
... what I discovered is that inserting unicode markers into HTML, browsers don't respect the markers
MC: example in 7.2.2
<Marcos> The widget's name is 'olleH'.
<Marcos> Should be The widget's name is 'Hello'.
MC: look at the "Would render as"
... all browsers display the widget's name incorrectly
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?
MC: yes, that's correct
AB: think we need to get some feedback from the I18N WG
MC: the API does what it is
supposed to do it's the browsers that don't support it
... think we are going to have a coding mismatch regardless
SP: at one level, it's not our
problem if browsers don't support it
... it is our problem though, indirectly
MC: think we need to seek some
... I think we've captured the problem
... #1 issue: browsers don't respect Unicode Markers
... #2 issue: what do we do if the page is not in Unicode
RB: Unicode markers can be inserted using Entity Refs
MC: but what if the doc has multiple encodings?
RB: can't have multipe
... in a single doc
... < more details by RB on character sets, encodings and Entity Refs ... >
AB: so I think the next step then is to ask the I18N WG to review the new ED ASAP
<scribe> ACTION: barstow Ask the I18N WG to review the new Section 7 of the TWI spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<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].
AB: other than review, what else do we ask them?
MC: I think it is mainly the two
... think we need to have advice of implementors and developers
AB: would like to come back to P&C and promoting to CR or wait until we resolve the TWI issue?
MC: would prefer to wait until TWI is sorted out
AB: that's what we'll do
AB: the Implementation Report for
widgets digsig show no ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/imp-report/
) implementation data.
... anything new re implementation data?
MC: no, I don't have any additional data for widgets-digsig
AB: what's the latest on the WARP
spec re implementations ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/imp-report/
... we still have an open PAG
... for WARP spec
RB: the PAG should probably move fwd
SP: who are we waiting for?
RB: think Rigo
... we need to know what the PAG needs to do in specific terms
<scribe> ACTION: barstow followup with the Team on the status and plan for the WARP PAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-613 - Followup with the Team on the status and plan for the WARP PAG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-11-25].
AB: no surprise there is no data on the implementation of WARP given the PAG is still open
AB: the URI scheme spec is still
in LC (
). What is the status and plan?
... anything new on this spec?
RB: nothing new to report
MC: we have implemented it in
... that with WARP is very useful
<Steven> The PAG Charter has expired
RB: any implementation feedback?
MC: it works well
... WARP + widget uri as origin is working
... we don't display the widget origin
... but it underlies things
<Marcos> MC: we have also implemented navigation of package content... so you can browse resources inside a package
SP: re the WARP PAG, the Charter
... the Director can extend it though, so I don't think that is a problem
... perhaps it would be helpful to have Rigo join a call
... e.g. to get some momentum behind it
AB: that's fine with me
RB: is we set something up, we should tell the PAG
AB: good point; we should
probably re-use the PAG conference time + day of week
... coming back to URI spec ...
... what needs to be done?
RB: need a URI expert to take a look
<Steven> (Spec link?)
RB: perhaps someone from Opera can help?
AB: URI ED is: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
RB: I'm having trouble
understanding some of the comments
... last comment was from Julian
<darobin> Just define the widget *URI* syntax in terms of RFC 3986 (URI), not RFC 3987 (IRI).
<darobin> Then, state how to map strings that contain non-URI characters to URI syntax (such as UTF-8-encode-then-percent-escape).
<darobin> (This is something that might change when IRIbis is done, but as far as I understand, this is how it works right now).
<darobin> that's the sort of stuff that confuses me :)
<darobin> (especially the last bit)
AB: so then from a resource perspective, to move the URI scheme spec fwd, it appears we need some additional help
RB: yes, it would be good to get some help
AB: can Opera help here Marcos/
MC: yes, I can help
AB: that would be great
SP: re Julian's email ...
... IRIs over the wire get converted to URIs
... there is an encoding from IRI to URI
RB: for our case, the URI doesn't
go over the wire
... these widget: URIs do not get typed into a browser, for example
SP: so how is it used?
RB: in an ideal world it isn't
... but it does need to be in the DOM
... and only valid within a widget package
... thinks like network encoding just don't apply to our use case
... the IETF requirements are strict
... and don't necessarily apply in our scenario
AB: the A&I database includes Actions for the URI spec
AB: any implementation data for VMMF ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/imp-report/ )?
MC: I don't think anyone
implements it yet
... we still implement the old stuff i.e. we don't use the new names
AB: any commitments from other implementers?
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?
MC: I think it is pretty close to
being feature complete
... I think we need to get some review
<Marcos> "On receiving an HTTP 410 Gone response, the user agent must terminate the widget update and remove the installed widget."
... think there is some work that needs to be done
AB: do you expect a CfC for LC this year?
MC: not clear yet
AB: re next call: TBD base on agenda topics (definitely no meeting on Nov 25).
RB: makes sense re TBD for Dec 2
AB: 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: +1.479.524.aaaa, Art_Barstow, Steven, Marcos, darobin Present: Art Robin Marcos Steven Regrets: Josh_Soref Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0680.html Got date from IRC log name: 18 Nov 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]