15:54:50 RRSAgent has joined #webapps 15:54:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-irc 15:54:57 RRSAgent, make log Public 15:55:13 Chair: Art_Barstow, Charles_McCathieNevile 15:55:30 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2011#Agenda_Monday.2C_October_31 15:55:39 Meeting: WebApps f2f Meeeting 15:56:41 adrianba has joined #webapps 15:57:36 RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM has now started 15:57:37 + +1.408.988.aaaa 15:58:26 davida has joined #webapps 15:58:36 JonathanJ has joined #webapps 15:58:40 chaals has joined #webapps 15:58:49 dom has joined #webapps 15:59:10 richt has joined #webapps 15:59:32 RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight 15:59:43 Kai has joined #webapps 15:59:55 pererik has joined #webapps 16:00:24 Zakim, what's the code? 16:00:24 the conference code is 2011 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Ms2ger 16:00:59 +??P10 16:01:19 anne has joined #webapps 16:01:21 hey chaals 16:01:25 long time 16:01:25 Hai :) 16:01:25 rrsagent, pointer? 16:01:25 See http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-irc#T16-01-25-2 16:01:25 aizu has joined #webapps 16:01:58 anne, look over your shoulder, perhaps? :) 16:02:09 weinig has joined #webapps 16:02:15 maybe if you're a woman and working here 16:02:20 at the Marriott that is 16:02:32 nice way to hide yourself! 16:02:34 Scribe: Art 16:02:52 forty4 has joined #webapps 16:03:29 Present: Art 16:03:55 Just you? :) 16:04:39 Present+ Charles 16:04:40 Present+ chaals 16:04:41 shanec has joined #webapps 16:04:41 Present+ Dom 16:04:44 Present+ Cameron 16:04:50 Present+JonathanJ 16:04:51 Present+ Laszlo_Gombos 16:05:06 present+ Eliot Graff 16:05:09 Present+ Sam Weinig 16:05:19 Present+ Jacob Rossi 16:05:20 present+ 16:05:21 Present+ anne 16:05:27 krisk has joined #webapps 16:05:35 +present 16:05:46 Soonho has joined #webapps 16:05:50 Scribe: Josh_Soref 16:05:54 Present+ Josh_Soref 16:06:01 Present+ pererik 16:06:03 +[IPcaller] 16:06:04 Present+ Kris Krueger 16:06:04 -[IPcaller] 16:06:04 +[IPcaller] 16:06:37 zakim, this is webapps 16:06:37 chaals, this was already RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM 16:06:38 ok, chaals; that matches RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM 16:06:49 Agenda - http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2011 16:06:51 ArtB: the way we've run these big tpac meetings is to try to get as much flexibility to the topics in the meeting room 16:07:10 ... we have a very large list of identified topics that we (i and the group) have identified 16:07:14 Zakim: [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay 16:07:17 I think 16:07:22 shepazu has joined #webapps 16:07:26 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay 16:07:26 +Olli_Pettay; got it 16:07:28 s/I think// 16:07:28 hayato has joined #webapps 16:07:33 R_Berkoff has joined #webapps 16:07:34 ... given this, we can use some time to determine what to talk about tomorrow 16:07:47 ... it's hard for me to determine how much time the things i've allocated for today will take 16:08:03 ... it's possible we'll have holes, and we can either take breaks or pull in topics from tomorrow 16:08:12 magnus has joined #webapps 16:08:18 ... we want to be flexible and be able to hash out big issues 16:08:20 present+ magnus 16:08:24 SungOk_You has joined #webapps 16:08:30 ... let's start by looking at potential topics for tomorrow 16:08:48 ... is there a lot of interest on talking about these things, and if so, when do we want to talk about them 16:08:56 sangwhan has joined #webapps 16:09:03 ... what we did last year was count how many people are interested (show of hands) 16:09:07 ... testing - 11 16:09:13 present+ shepazu 16:09:21 ... joint meetings w/ other WGs 16:09:30 ... -- that people want to shoehorn 16:09:40 JonathanJ has joined #webapps 16:09:40 ... Joint Meetings - 0 16:09:54 Present+ SungOk_You 16:09:56 bryan has joined #webapps 16:10:06 ... XBL2 ... has been a deliverable for 5 years or so... there was a thread, "is it dead?" 16:10:15 ... XBL2 - 12 16:10:18 s/12/13/ 16:10:25 cyril has joined #webapps 16:10:27 Present+ Dowan 16:10:35 mav has joined #webapps 16:10:36 ... DOM Mutations ... 16:10:46 [ not dominique mutations -- laughter ] 16:10:46 present+ Bryan_Sullivan 16:10:48 dom.clone() 16:10:56 SamKim has joined #webapps 16:11:05 ArtB: ... and there's the admn ... 16:11:14 ... DOM Mutations - 11 16:11:15 dcooney has joined #webapps 16:11:30 Present+ Jonathan_Jeon 16:11:52 ... XHR1 ... there was a notion (by anne ) should we give up on XHR1 and just spec XHR2 16:11:58 ... do we want a time slot for that? 16:12:13 [ no one expresses interest ] 16:12:25 anne: not even me, i think we can just do it in a few minutes 16:12:34 ArtB: let's do it during the pubstatus time slot today 16:12:38 ... XHR1 - 0 16:12:38 Present+ Marcos, Robin 16:12:40 wayne_carr has joined #webapps 16:12:51 ... DOM Parsing and Serialization 16:13:01 ArtB: do we want to formally add it to webapps when we recharter? 16:13:26 heycam: is there a slot for DOM4? 16:14:01 [ DOM4 would be in generic chartering ] 16:14:03 ... DOM Parsing and Serialization - 0 16:14:14 ArtB: is aryeh here? 16:14:25 wangsi-wei has joined #webapps 16:14:28 ... HTML Editing API - 0 16:14:35 [ to be done in chartering ] 16:14:45 ArtB: is Ian F here? 16:14:56 ... Storage Quota - 0 16:15:18 ... API Design ... 16:15:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1666.html -> Storage quota API 16:15:30 ... -- Robin had put together a rough outline 16:15:50 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps/raw-file/b941da0491a8/api-design/Overview.html 16:16:09 ... API Design - 16 16:16:32 ... Stream API proposal (from Microsoft, that Adrian sent to the list) 16:16:45 plh has joined #webapps 16:16:49 ... -- and File API 16:16:54 ... Stream API and File API - 10 16:16:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0577.html? 16:17:37 ... Index DB - 5 16:17:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html plh 16:17:58 Proposal for discussion of server-sent events extension for connectionless push support: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0577.html 16:18:06 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', Ms2ger. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:18:19 /me thanks Ms2ger 16:18:24 darobin has joined #webapps 16:18:30 s!/me thanks Ms2ger !! 16:18:51 ArtB: proposal by bryan to add a slot for server sent event extensions 16:18:58 ... Server Sent Event Extensions - 4 16:19:11 bernd has joined #webapps 16:19:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:19:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html chaals 16:20:10 bernd has left #webapps 16:20:20 s/Zakim: [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay// 16:20:32 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:20:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 16:21:33 Marcos has joined #webapps 16:22:15 [ Scribe takes a break while ArtB resequences things on screen unsaved in Wiki TPAC2011 ] 16:22:46 s|/me thanks Ms2ger || 16:22:50 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:22:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 16:23:06 s|!/me thanks Ms2ger !!|| 16:23:09 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:23:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 16:23:11 s/s!!!// 16:23:31 dcooney has joined #webapps 16:23:32 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:23:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 16:24:11 s/me thanks Ms2ger// 16:24:12 s/me thanks Ms2ger// 16:24:20 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:24:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 16:24:52 s|!/ !!|| 16:24:59 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:24:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 16:25:15 s/s|||// 16:25:19 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:25:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 16:25:21 dino has joined #webapps 16:26:01 aizu has joined #webapps 16:26:47 nvbalaji has joined #webapps 16:26:55 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:26:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 16:27:55 s|/|| 16:27:59 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:27:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 16:28:09 jdaggett_ has joined #webapps 16:28:12 [ ArtB commits Schedule to Wiki -- http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2011#Agenda_Monday.2C_October_31 ] 16:28:26 anne: I need to leave, but we should talk about CORS 16:28:47 ArtB: CORS has been important... so important that a WG has been made for it 16:29:03 Topic: Spec status and plans 16:29:12 ... Web Application Security Working Group 16:30:41 [ Scribe takes a break while anne outlines the history of the creation of that group with a dose of skepticism ] 16:31:56 Josh: There are a couple of community groups created to edit a spec, so maybe stuff gets done in community groups and webapps gets used to handle formal publishing for it. 16:32:06 s/Josh/Josh_Soref/ 16:32:36 MoZ has joined #webapps 16:34:20 [ ArtB reviews pub status ] 16:34:34 ArtB: do we need to add an Errata to DOM Core? 16:35:01 [ Chatter about Element Traversal and DOM4 ] 16:35:06 +nvbalaji 16:35:37 DRAFT ACTION: Barstow work with Doug 16:35:41 http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/ 16:35:48 ^ same thing 16:36:13 AvK/Shepazu: Element traversal to point towards DOM4 as where the future work gets done (e.g. errata) 16:37:07 ACTION: Art to talk to Doug about the traversal from Element Traversal to DOM4 16:37:08 Created ACTION-628 - Talk to Doug about the traversal from Element Traversal to DOM4 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-07]. 16:37:18 Eric: File APIs and Directory 16:37:28 ... there are some bigger and smaller changes coming 16:37:40 ... implementation status is not up to date 16:37:53 ... chrome only, but it's more implemented 16:38:09 ArtB: can any other implementers speak about Writer and Directories and systems? 16:38:20 chaals: we have an implementation because we internally use it 16:38:27 ... we want to get it done 16:38:30 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 16:38:33 ... right now we ship our own 16:38:36 Isn't it still unclear whether we need the whole Directories stuff 16:38:36 ... we expect it to change 16:38:43 (ah, sicking is talking) 16:39:06 jonas: we have plans 16:39:17 macie: apple has plans 16:39:26 Present+ Jonas Sicking 16:39:35 anne: I think apple's position is more in line with the last two 16:39:42 adrianba has joined #webapps 16:39:42 s/Jonas Sicking/Jonas_Sicking/ 16:40:18 Josh_Soref: I'm not macie, Sam Weinig 16:40:18 eric: File Saver ... 16:40:30 s/macie/weinig/ 16:40:36 dglazkov has joined #webapps 16:40:38 s/Josh_Soref: I'm not macie, Sam Weinig// 16:40:45 Josh_Soref: it's ok 16:40:52 s/Josh_Soref: it's ok// 16:41:06 ArtB: From Origin header ... 16:41:16 ... what's the implementation status? 16:41:26 anne: I don't think anyone has implemented it 16:41:31 ArtB: Progress Events ... 16:41:45 anne: I think the main thing blocking implementations is Constructor 16:42:00 ... I guess WebKit has that 16:42:16 noriya has joined #webapps 16:42:31 anne: it's fairly simple (just properties/methods) since dispatch is covered in other specs 16:42:49 slightlyoff has joined #webapps 16:42:51 jonas: we haven't started on constructors, since it's non trivial 16:42:59 ... probably somewhat soon, but next year 16:43:03 anne: similar for us 16:43:09 ... it's easier but not a priority 16:43:12 ArtB: Selectors 16:43:48 morrita has joined #webapps 16:43:59 ... it's blocked by WebIDL 16:44:05 Josh_Soref: is WebIDL going to be a topic 16:44:23 ArtB: there's a slot available and heycam is sitting next to you :) 16:44:28 ArtB: Sever Sent Events 16:44:35 s/Sever/Server/ 16:44:49 ... when I left Boston, we were down to 0 bugs 16:44:55 anne: it doesn't cover Cross Origin 16:45:16 ... and anne-xxx-something-else 16:45:30 ... It's going to get another argument in the constructor to cover cross origin 16:45:58 sicking has joined #webapps 16:46:08 ArtB: the main thing is that changes are coming, so it doesn't make sense to go to LC 16:46:09 s/and anne-xxx-something-else// 16:46:26 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:46:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html MikeSmith 16:46:27 ArtB: WebIDL 16:46:38 ... it had LC2 16:46:58 s/to cover cross cross origin/to cover cross origin and opting in to credentials exchange/ 16:47:03 heycam: there are some non controversial issues 16:47:31 ... and then a question of whether it should be less non JS specific 16:47:33 jcantera has joined #webapps 16:47:38 ArtB: we have a slot for tomorrow at 4 16:47:46 EventSource will get the same cross-origin story as XMLHttpRequest basically 16:47:48 is what I said 16:48:02 and everyone is on board, change just needs to be made (well everyone that voiced an opinion) 16:48:09 ArtB: PostMessage 16:49:10 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:49:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 16:49:48 R_Berkoff has joined #webapps 16:49:51 ArtB: Web Workers 16:50:01 s|s/Josh_Soref: I'm not macie, Sam Weinig//|| 16:50:07 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:50:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 16:51:18 darin has joined #webapps 16:51:33 ArtB: Marcos: widgets...? 16:51:48 ... widget interface is blocked by webidl and webstorage 16:52:02 ... i think W3 Team has agreed on changes to pub reqs re:HTML5 16:52:51 ... update had been stalled ... PAG has been active recently, and there's reason to believe that the PAG will conclude relatively soon 16:52:57 kensaku has joined #webapps 16:53:07 lgombos has joined #webapps 16:53:55 [ Marcos gives a summary ] 16:54:20 dom: is there an eta for the report? 16:54:32 Marcos: shortly after TPAC, it needs a bit of clean up 16:54:36 chaals: there is a draft 16:54:44 ArtB: DigSig (for Widgets) 16:54:57 ... that spec is in PR, it's blocked by XML Sec PAG 16:55:15 ... Widget URI moved back to WD in September 16:55:27 Marcos: trying to align it with File API... responding as a fake http server 16:55:36 ... hopefully it'll have fairly similar behavior 16:55:52 ... and move to LC 16:56:07 ArtB: View Mode media feature is in PR 16:56:19 ... and will move to Rec when Media Queries advances to PR 16:57:02 ... Widget Updates 16:57:31 s/update had/Warp had/ 16:57:39 s/Warp/WARP/ 16:57:46 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:57:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 16:58:29 lgombos__ has joined #webapps 16:58:39 lgombos has joined #webapps 17:00:18 [ Break until 10:30a ] 17:01:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:01:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html chaals 17:04:45 -Olli_Pettay 17:07:47 davida has joined #webapps 17:08:05 shanec has joined #webapps 17:16:23 dveditz has joined #webapps 17:17:12 ed has joined #webapps 17:19:52 richt has joined #webapps 17:21:37 cyril has joined #webapps 17:25:03 sangwhan has joined #webapps 17:25:24 a12u has joined #webapps 17:26:44 shanec has joined #webapps 17:28:21 jrossi2 has joined #webapps 17:28:30 magnus has joined #webapps 17:30:21 Kihong_Kwon has joined #webapps 17:30:49 a12u_ has joined #webapps 17:31:53 anne has joined #webapps 17:34:08 darobin has joined #webapps 17:35:11 dowan has joined #webapps 17:35:34 myakura has joined #webapps 17:41:04 dino has joined #webapps 17:41:04 shanec has joined #webapps 17:41:08 jrossi2 has joined #webapps 17:41:10 pererik has joined #webapps 17:41:12 adrianba has joined #webapps 17:41:33 abarsto has joined #webapps 17:41:34 richt has joined #webapps 17:41:35 JonathanJ has joined #webapps 17:41:35 wangsi-wei has joined #webapps 17:41:38 hayato has joined #webapps 17:41:38 sicking has joined #webapps 17:41:40 darobin has joined #webapps 17:41:47 Kai has joined #webapps 17:41:54 sangwhan has joined #webapps 17:41:54 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 17:42:00 jdaggett_ has joined #webapps 17:42:00 karl has joined #webapps 17:42:12 stakagi has joined #webapps 17:42:14 myakura has joined #webapps 17:42:21 weinig has joined #webapps 17:42:59 cyril has joined #webapps 17:43:37 10:30 17:43:59 Ruinan has joined #webapps 17:44:01 a12u_ has joined #webapps 17:44:06 dom has joined #webapps 17:45:26 Ruinan_ has joined #webapps 17:45:29 Kihong_Kwon has joined #webapps 17:48:36 shanec has joined #webapps 17:49:54 shanec has joined #webapps 17:49:55 dcooney has joined #webapps 17:50:15 a12u has joined #webapps 17:50:24 Kihong_Kwon has joined #webapps 17:50:37 ihilerio has joined #webapps 17:51:14 Present+ israelh 17:51:46 samkim has joined #webapps 17:52:52 dowan has joined #webapps 17:53:27 RRSAgent, make minutes 17:53:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html ArtB 17:55:51 rniwa has joined #webapps 17:58:28 wangsi-wei has joined #webapps 17:58:35 Ruinan has joined #webapps 18:00:19 rniwa has joined #webapps 18:01:11 hoashi has joined #webapps 18:01:27 Not 11 either, apparently 18:02:02 a12u_ has joined #webapps 18:02:03 kensaku has joined #webapps 18:02:46 jcdufourd has joined #webapps 18:03:10 khoashi has joined #webapps 18:03:17 stakagi has joined #webapps 18:04:01 Marcos has joined #webapps 18:04:12 [ We're about to resume ] 18:04:24 lgombos has joined #webapps 18:04:24 ArtB: we have 3 or 4 WGs here 18:04:33 ... ask that observers make room around the table for WG members 18:04:56 anne has joined #webapps 18:05:07 dbaron has joined #webapps 18:05:17 JohnJansen has joined #webapps 18:05:22 Rossen has joined #webapps 18:05:24 bkihara has joined #webapps 18:05:28 jongyoul has joined #webapps 18:05:43 hayato has joined #webapps 18:05:44 [ ArtB introduces ] 18:06:01 tobie has joined #webapps 18:06:13 shepazu has joined #webapps 18:06:15 [joint meeting of Web Apps, Web App Security, Web Fonts, and CSS] 18:06:19 chaals has joined #webapps 18:06:26 Topic: CORS 18:06:27 sangwhan has joined #webapps 18:06:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:06:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html chaals 18:06:34 darin has joined #webapps 18:06:46 [ ArtB introduces the groups who have dependencies on CORS ] 18:06:57 magnus has joined #webapps 18:06:57 dino has joined #webapps 18:07:06 vladimir: It started with the development of the Web Open Font Spec 18:07:13 ... when CORS was selected 18:07:27 ... but the comment was made that it isn't specific to Web Font 18:07:41 ... and it was suggested to make the Same Origin specification be made on a link specific basis 18:07:48 jcantera has joined #webapps 18:07:48 glazou has joined #webapps 18:07:55 Bert has joined #webapps 18:08:01 s/CORS was selected/same origin was selected/ 18:08:03 nvbalaji has joined #webapps 18:08:20 ... The requirement was marked as at-risk 18:08:24 ... and moved toward CSS 18:08:32 Tom has joined #webapps 18:08:34 stearns has joined #webapps 18:08:39 shan has joined #webapps 18:08:48 same-origin policy 18:08:48 wangsi-wei has joined #webapps 18:08:51 From-Origin header 18:08:53 plinss has joined #webapps 18:08:57 ernesto_jimenez has joined #webapps 18:09:02 yoiwa has joined #webapps 18:09:03 Eliot has joined #webapps 18:09:07 cslye has joined #webapps 18:09:09 weinig has joined #webapps 18:09:10 From-Origin spec: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/from-origin/raw-file/tip/Overview.html 18:09:17 ... CSS needs ot decide which to use to relax the restriction 18:09:25 jdaggett_: I'm the editor of the CSS Fonts Spec 18:09:36 ... the spec today says fonts are same-origin by default with CORS to relax it 18:09:42 ... the question is what's the mechanism 18:09:46 ... should it be From-Origin 18:09:52 Eliot has joined #webapps 18:09:53 ... and people who put a font on their server 18:10:07 ... should people use CORS to relax it? 18:10:15 ... there's a fundamental issu 18:10:22 s/issu/issue/ 18:10:22 morrita has joined #webapps 18:10:30 artb: yes 18:10:31 ... From-Origin/CORS 18:10:35 tcelik has joined #webapps 18:10:37 s/artb: yes// 18:10:38 smfr has joined #webapps 18:11:00 jdaggett_: If I say "allow all origins" (with CORS) and "from-origin same" 18:11:07 ... how do they mesh together? 18:11:12 anne: From-Origin would Win 18:11:13 greetings (CSSWG member, representative from Mozilla Foundation). 18:11:27 ... From-Origin integrates with the fetch algorithm 18:11:29 mollydotcom has joined #webapps 18:11:49 tab: From- would stop it first 18:12:06 anne: yes, CORS would just see a fault and couldn't do anything to unfault it 18:12:19 Kai has joined #webapps 18:12:21 anne: everything that fetches should be defined in terms of the fetch algoritm 18:12:32 ... that's a bug in the fonts spec, it doesn't reference the fetch algorithm 18:12:43 noriya has joined #webapps 18:12:49 clilly: could you provide text? 18:13:02 s/clilly/clilley/ 18:13:05 krisk has joined #webapps 18:13:10 DKA has joined #webapps 18:13:32 anne: the CORS specification requires specific invocation of the request algorithm 18:13:48 Gopal has joined #webapps 18:13:50 spoussa has joined #webapps 18:13:55 jdaggett_: so any spec with a same-origin restriction needs to have specific text? 18:13:56 anne: yes 18:14:08 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:14:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 18:14:30 clilley: the host language has to invoke the fetch algorithm in order to trigger it 18:14:46 anne: the specification [CORS] specifically lists the text to trigger invocation 18:14:47 s/needs ot/needs to/ 18:14:48 cyril has joined #webapps 18:14:58 hayato has joined #webapps 18:15:08 mmielke has joined #webapps 18:15:09 Soonho has joined #webapps 18:15:12 florian has joined #webapps 18:15:14 shepazu: Maybe we should have a FAQ somewhere for how to integration 18:15:22 SungOk_You has joined #webapps 18:15:23 weinig: Section 8 of CORS has this text 18:15:26 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/ 18:15:36 Marcos: do you have specs that use it? 18:15:39 http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/#cors-api-specification-advice -> advice on using CORS in other specs 18:15:40 anne: HTML and XHR 18:15:59 (should we move back to the main topic?) 18:16:00 anne: it is quite intricate 18:16:20 ... since there are credentials and other things 18:16:32 q+ tab 18:16:36 ... if you have a model that sends credentials by default 18:16:38 ArtB: let's focus back on main topic please 18:16:45 ... and you want to do something else 18:16:53 ... XHR uses a withCredentials attribute 18:17:08 ... HTMLxxx has something else 18:17:18 jdaggett_: that isn't the most important topic 18:17:25 q+ sicking 18:17:31 ack tab 18:17:48 tab: you have a paragraph that says anyone wanting to use CORS 18:17:58 ... must specifically reference the algorithm and set particular variables 18:18:06 ... what would be helpful is specific example text 18:18:17 ACTION tab to write proposed text 18:18:18 Sorry, couldn't find user - tab 18:18:53 anne: we have two specifications which do things differently because it's rather different for different environments 18:19:04 q+ marcos 18:19:23 q? 18:19:28 ack sicking 18:19:30 ack sicking 18:19:37 ack marcos 18:19:40 sicking: one of the issues specifically about fonts 18:19:42 stpeter has joined #webapps 18:19:44 MoZ has joined #webapps 18:19:54 ... is the whole thing about whether it makes sense about embedable 18:20:10 ... and there's the question about exposing the resource to the embedder 18:20:22 ... Can we skip the embedding and just make it readable to the world 18:20:42 ... Any time we've tried to expose a resource without letting the page see the resource, we've failed 18:20:54 ... e.g. with images we leaked image dimensions to the web page 18:20:58 mjs has joined #webapps 18:21:07 ... with WebGL, we accidentally leaked pixel data through a timing channel 18:21:22 ... it's possible you can leak other data from transparency 18:21:44 ... with fonts it's even more likely since you can get information from timing 18:21:56 q+ 18:22:03 q+ florian 18:22:09 q+ chrisL 18:22:14 ... can we say that fonts are inherently non private and we can share with anyone on the web? 18:22:17 q? 18:22:20 ack dbaron 18:22:22 ack florian 18:22:36 florian: the answer is that in general fonts do not contain private data 18:22:44 sriramyadavalli has joined #webapps 18:22:44 ... it seems that people believe that in some edge cases they do 18:23:01 morrita has joined #webapps 18:23:28 q+ dbaron 18:23:29 ... the font itself doesn't contain private data, but the presence does indicate that the product exists 18:23:39 q+ tabatkins 18:23:40 ... it doesn't seem necessary to restrict by default 18:23:45 clilley: i agree in general 18:23:53 ... a WOFF font can contain licensee and licensor 18:23:58 ... it's not quite private 18:24:03 ... but that's leakable 18:24:10 ... i believe that form-origin is appropriate 18:24:11 ack dbaron 18:24:12 q+ sam 18:24:19 dbaron: one other case with private data 18:24:22 ... is font-subset 18:24:26 ... which is common with EOT 18:24:35 ... and it's likely we'll get that for WOFF 18:24:35 nicksoba has joined #webapps 18:24:48 q+ 18:24:55 ... and if you subset for WOFF specifically to a page 18:24:59 ack chr 18:25:01 ... then you leak the contents of the page 18:25:07 ack tab 18:25:11 DKA has joined #webapps 18:25:17 tab: the distinction on the table 18:25:25 ... is whether an embedded resource 18:25:30 ... embedding-vs-reading 18:25:45 dbaron: the argument jonas made is that every time we tried to make that distinction, we've failed 18:25:54 tab: right, can we say "embedding means reading" 18:25:54 nicksoba_ has joined #webapps 18:25:56 q+ 18:25:58 YUMA has joined #webapps 18:26:00 q+ johnd 18:26:01 R_Berkoff has joined #webapps 18:26:02 ... because we've failed each and every time we've tried 18:26:14 q- 18:26:15 ack sam 18:26:18 weinig: leaking licensee/licensors... 18:26:28 ... while i understand that we leak some info 18:26:33 ... how would we leak licensee/licensor? 18:27:02 clilley: that only happens if you don't make the distinction between reading and embedding 18:27:13 ... there is an extension for firefox that enables that through an internal api 18:27:25 weinig: is that available to webcontent? 18:27:39 clilley: it isn't available to web content (only chrome) 18:27:44 q+ 18:27:48 weinig: you obviously could mask some things 18:27:57 ... the non visual elements are easily maskable 18:28:13 vladimir: the way i understand tab's argument 18:28:25 ... is that each time we make the distinction between embedding/reading 18:28:33 ... is that it's easier to not do it 18:28:44 ... i don't see why embedding-origin is the simple approach 18:28:49 q? 18:28:56 ack mjs 18:29:01 ack mj 18:29:08 mjs: a couple of people have claimed that reading/embedding distinctions have always failed 18:29:17 ... i bet none of you would make all images world readable 18:29:25 ... the fact is that there is still a distinction 18:29:33 ... when it's too easy, we usually consider it a security bug 18:29:36 ... and try to fix it 18:29:47 ... it's true that it's hard to maintain that distinction 18:30:01 ... i think people are wrongly trying to make the claim that there is no distinction 18:30:01 q+ chrisl 18:30:05 ack jdaggett_ 18:30:07 and also for new ones such as video 18:30:07 ack j 18:30:07 chsiao has joined #webapps 18:30:16 jdaggett_: we're not in the same case as images 18:30:19 ... this is a new resource time 18:30:22 s/time/type/ 18:30:27 ... we can define a behavior 18:30:33 ... with fonts, there are any number of ways 18:30:35 darin has joined #webapps 18:30:40 ... you can't do the type of tainting with canvas 18:30:41 arronei has joined #webapps 18:30:51 ... with fonts, you can infer character set, or metrics, or ... 18:31:00 ... trying to analyze all of the apis is too hard 18:31:05 ... back to what jonas said 18:31:14 ... if we define that all cases are readable 18:31:19 wayne_carr has joined #webapps 18:31:22 ... maybe we make it by default origin restriction 18:31:24 q? 18:31:29 ack chr 18:31:47 clilley: the claim is made that for fonts that we don't make the distinction for embedding-reading 18:31:54 dbaron: i probably made the claim too strongly 18:32:15 ack sicking 18:32:18 clilley: and i interpreted this for fonts that we shouldn't be doing it 18:32:20 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:32:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 18:32:30 sicking: for browser vendors, the pain is addressing security issues 18:32:33 nicksoba has joined #webapps 18:32:34 ... instead of working on features 18:32:41 dbaron: ... and instead of saying it always failed, should have said it either always failed or led to lots of pain trying to prevent it from failing 18:32:46 ... for images, we now have an api where we have to add this tainting thing 18:32:53 ... if we had CORS on images from the beginning 18:32:59 ... we'd probably have more mashupable 18:33:15 ... we don't because 3rd parties can't get this stuff easily 18:33:29 ... we won't expose license info for similar reasons 18:34:35 sicking: if sites can opt into with shared by default 18:34:52 s/... for images/sicking: for images/ 18:35:00 ... if people have to make a decision by adding cors headers 18:35:06 ... then they'll actively make the decision 18:35:19 ... then they'll go through a security review 18:35:37 ... if they don't have to go through a security review (putting up CORS), they won't think about it 18:35:40 q? 18:35:52 ArtB: anne are you coming up with additional constraints? 18:36:00 ... is this more UC clarification? 18:36:10 q+ chrisl 18:36:10 anne: there's nothing that needs to be changed in CORS or Form-Origin 18:36:25 s/Form-Origin/From-Origin/ 18:36:27 ... the question is if Fonts should work like Images or XHR 18:36:37 ... and i stopped caring a long time ago 18:36:46 tab: so john, make a decision 18:36:48 ack ch 18:36:54 q+ vladimir 18:36:55 clilley: where are we in the process 18:37:09 ... are both CORS and From-Origin is in where? 18:37:17 ArtB: CORS is a joint from Sec+WebApps 18:37:23 ... F-O is in Sec only 18:37:36 ... I saw Brad walk in 18:37:50 clilley: follow up, where are the issue lists for these specs? 18:37:55 ... pointer? 18:38:00 q? 18:38:13 BradL: CoChairing Web Apps Sec WG 18:38:33 ... Web Apps Sec is co delivering it with Web Apps to drive it through 18:38:42 ... to keep IPR grants 18:38:48 ... there are some small issues 18:38:53 ... including Best Practices 18:39:05 ... additionally our tracker has some other small issues 18:39:09 ... which we may move to bugzilla 18:39:18 ... the primary issue before REC is a test suite 18:39:20 CORS: bugs: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=WebAppsWG&component=Access+Control&longdesc_type=allwordssubstr&longdesc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_statu 18:39:24 ... anne is working on it 18:39:32 ... we're new so we'll be meeting with Staff 18:39:38 Tom has joined #webapps 18:39:39 clilley: and for F-O? 18:39:49 BradL: that's not in our charter 18:39:56 q+ to ask where it is 18:40:18 ack jo 18:40:18 Josh_Soref, you wanted to ask where it is 18:40:24 q- 18:40:24 nicksoba_ has joined #webapps 18:40:27 From-Origin: http://www.w3.org/TR/from-origin/ 18:40:27 ack vla 18:40:45 vladimir: from everything i've heard so far, we seem to lean to same-origin with CORS 18:40:58 ... and my question was the same as clilley's - already answered 18:41:05 chaals: we seem to be leaning that way 18:41:16 ... How many people Same Origin by default 18:41:18 Tom has joined #webapps 18:42:01 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:42:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 18:42:12 ... Same-Origin - 25 18:42:51 ... Against Same-Origin - 8 18:43:00 q? 18:43:21 clilley: follow on question ... 18:43:43 chaals: is this a strong objection, if we resolved to use Same Origin, would you argue, or can you live with it? 18:43:54 s/F-O is in Sec only/From-Origin is in WebApps only/ 18:43:58 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:43:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 18:44:23 ... if you can't live with that decision, justify why we should continue arguing 18:44:50 Bert: for Fonts, i really like the restriction to be on a higher level than the protocol 18:44:57 ... something that isn't http 18:45:02 q+ tab 18:45:09 ... for animations 18:45:12 ack tab 18:45:13 ack tab 18:45:21 tab: i don't believe this is restricted to any protocol 18:45:46 [ jdagget points out to tab that CORS is http ] 18:46:02 [ and clilley explains that you can reference ftp resources ] 18:46:08 q+ jonas 18:46:10 Adam: that's a general problem with CORS everywhere 18:46:17 ... when we introduce other protocols 18:46:23 ... we'll demand that they support CORS 18:46:24 (Adam == Adam Barth) 18:46:29 tab: and patch ftp 18:46:35 ack jo 18:46:39 Bert: How about email? 18:46:46 anne: how do you envision? 18:46:59 Bert: anything with a url must have a 18:47:08 anne: so emails include fonts? 18:47:14 Bert: yes 18:47:19 anne: then they're same origin 18:47:25 Bert: what about bittorrent? 18:47:29 s/Adam:/Adam Barth:/ 18:47:31 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:47:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 18:47:31 q+ 18:47:49 q+ sicking 18:47:53 vladimir: if you want to make it available across origins, then you could do it? 18:48:00 q+ chris 18:48:13 ack mjs 18:48:13 fantasai has joined #webapps 18:48:14 ack mjs 18:48:21 mjs: email messages might have a same-origin problem 18:48:35 ... the main resource comes from mid: and cid: 18:48:43 s/and/and sub resources come from/ 18:48:46 ack si 18:48:56 sicking: any protocol that people are starting to more actively use 18:49:07 ... people are going to have to deal with cross origin issues 18:49:10 RRSAgent, make minutes 18:49:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html ArtB 18:49:27 ... anyone that wants to seriously start doing web deployment over other protocols will have to define how this works 18:49:38 q+ 18:49:42 Bert: the protocol is not important, it's the resource that's important 18:49:50 sicking: we've defined domains 18:50:01 ... and said that everything in a domain is owned by the same person 18:50:11 ... every other protocol will have to define something like that 18:50:14 Bert: that's a hack 18:50:16 q? 18:50:19 ack chr 18:50:28 clilley: I agree that specific protocols saying 18:50:29 Linuz has joined #webapps 18:50:37 the web is a hack. film at 11 18:50:40 ... that cids of a mid are the same as the mid 18:50:47 ... that's not the question 18:50:50 q- 18:50:53 ... is there an objection 18:51:10 mjs: if the spec says that embedding fonts in email never works, i'd have to object 18:51:16 chaals: embedding stuff in email is a real thing 18:51:22 ... it happens in Opera 18:51:27 ... we have questions around that 18:51:34 ... with images, do they automatically render? 18:51:40 ... do you run JS from another source? 18:51:48 ... the issue of clilley/Bert 18:51:58 ... is do we make a protocol agnostic work 18:52:03 ... but we live on HTTP 18:52:14 ... we don't object to people expanding things to other protocols 18:52:20 ... i agree with mjs 18:52:29 ... if we say you're not allowed to embed things except in http resources 18:52:39 ... that would be beyond what is reasonable for a spec 18:52:55 ... (this is a personal position) 18:53:01 ... clilley's question is 18:53:13 ... do we have someone who objects to that proposal 18:53:22 ... of us focusing on http 18:53:27 jihye has joined #webapps 18:53:34 ... to Bert's objection 18:53:42 ... that we have a hack, and forcing others to work with us 18:53:58 dom: people send newsletters in html 18:54:04 s/dom/daniel/ 18:54:16 ... and they rely on w3c of sending fonts in emails 18:54:34 Florian: using http 18:54:43 ... implicitly prevents other protocols from using it cross-origin 18:54:44 richt has joined #webapps 18:54:47 s/daniel/glazou 18:54:56 jdaggett_: the wording is that cross origin is not allowed 18:55:01 q+ chris, sick 18:55:26 ... unless explicitly relaxed using CORS 18:55:40 I do think it should be defined for things that are fetched within a "browsing context" which is more than HTTP 18:55:41 ack ch 18:55:43 clilley: in the context of this question 18:55:49 ... sure email is a case 18:56:04 ... it would be possible to resolve cid: in CORS 18:56:17 sicking: it's a good idea to say if it's HTTP use CORS 18:56:17 bhill2 has joined #webapps 18:56:30 ... but for other protocols, fall back to their protocol for addressing this issue 18:56:36 spoussa1 has joined #webapps 18:56:57 Florian: if you're using HTTP then use CORS 18:57:12 ... and saying if you're not HTTP then use the CORS equivalent 18:57:16 ... is going too far 18:57:23 glazou: this is a problem 18:57:26 yu1 has joined #webapps 18:57:31 ... because we don't know if there's an equivalent for other protocols 18:57:35 ... we don't know their schedules 18:57:41 ... this isn't reasonable 18:57:54 anne: what do you propose instead? 18:58:10 alexmog has joined #webapps 18:58:12 glazou: the w3c has dealt in the past 18:58:36 ... with protocols that do not belong to the web strictly 18:58:42 ... we can deal with them later 18:58:52 vladimir: i don't think this should hold us 18:59:05 jdaggett_: Florian's point is that he wants to restrict it to Only http 18:59:13 ... the wording now is 'same-origin' and leaves it at that 18:59:13 q+ florian 18:59:32 q+ zilles 18:59:34 Florian: do not speak about restrictions for not http 18:59:44 q+ anne 18:59:48 anne: there are 3 cases 18:59:51 .... same-origin 18:59:55 s/..../.../ 19:00:14 ack anne 19:00:29 ... cross origin where the api fetching has http origin 19:00:49 ... the scheme is not http and there's a cross origin for the other 19:01:04 stearns has joined #webapps 19:01:07 Florian: in the spec we're talking about 19:01:16 ack fl 19:01:20 ... we say 'for http do this, cross origin use CORS' 19:01:35 ... we leave it up in the air 19:01:42 ... for a later version or another group/spec 19:01:43 q? 19:02:07 chaals: Is there any reason to continue? 19:02:09 ack sick 19:02:27 chaals: Are there objections to 19:02:51 ... saying that we define this for the first two cases anne mentioned 19:03:05 I would object to making the decision in a synchronous manner 19:03:11 ... and for the third case, we leave it as "if you're using another protocol, you figure it out" 19:03:17 anne: i don't want us to make synchronous decisions 19:03:25 anne++ 19:03:34 chaals: i agree 19:03:41 ... but for the sake of getting out of the room 19:04:08 ... Is there anyone who can not live with Florian's suggestion? 19:04:12 [ No one ] 19:04:24 shepazu, just wanted to clarify as there's more than WebApps in this room 19:04:27 chaals: is there anyone who can not live with a policy of by default we use Same-Origin 19:04:30 ... for fonts 19:04:34 shepazu, no need for tss sounds 19:04:36 ... and you use CORS 19:04:41 [ No objection ] 19:04:57 chaals: we're out of time 19:05:07 ... thanks very much 19:05:10 [ Applause ] 19:05:18 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:05:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 19:06:12 jdaggett_ has joined #webapps 19:06:13 s|s/..../.../| 19:06:29 glazou has joined #webapps 19:06:32 weinig has joined #webapps 19:06:34 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:06:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 19:06:49 (anne, I don't feel it's useful to keep bringing up the decision policy when it's well established, and since any decision will *always* be subject to later discussion, in any group in W3C I've been in) 19:07:02 s|s/..../.../|| 19:07:04 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:07:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 19:07:24 plinss has joined #webapps 19:07:26 smfr has joined #webapps 19:07:44 dbaron has left #webapps 19:09:39 -??P10 19:09:48 fjh has joined #webapps 19:09:49 Tom_ has joined #webapps 19:10:15 dino has joined #webapps 19:13:36 spoussa has joined #webapps 19:13:53 Rossen has joined #webapps 19:14:53 Topic: animations [cont'd] 19:15:05 Sorry 19:18:33 smfr has left #webapps 19:19:11 Josh_Soref: so is the agenda for tomorrow somewhere? 19:19:24 I'd like to know when MutationObserver will be discussed 19:19:39 if it will be discussed 19:20:14 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2011 19:21:17 mmielke has joined #webapps 19:23:48 sriramyadavalli has joined #webapps 19:23:53 stearns has left #webapps 19:30:50 tantek has joined #webapps 19:35:12 igarashi has joined #webapps 19:41:27 hayato has joined #webapps 19:44:14 arronei has joined #webapps 19:52:14 plinss has left #webapps 19:52:21 cslye has joined #webapps 19:52:56 s/Topic: animations [cont'd]// 19:53:09 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:53:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 19:57:12 jrossi2 has joined #webapps 19:58:12 darin has joined #webapps 19:59:05 mjs has joined #webapps 19:59:26 smaug has joined #webapps 19:59:40 darin_ has joined #webapps 20:00:08 bhill2 has joined #webapps 20:00:08 Eliot has joined #webapps 20:00:10 rniwa has joined #webapps 20:01:37 +??P3 20:01:57 weinig has joined #webapps 20:02:02 hayato has joined #webapps 20:02:14 adrianba has joined #webapps 20:03:12 jrossi2 has joined #webapps 20:03:36 bkihara has joined #webapps 20:03:57 The Return of the Josh 20:04:06 abarsto has joined #webapps 20:05:21 skim has joined #webapps 20:05:26 bkihara has left #webapps 20:05:58 taohong has joined #webapps 20:06:59 anne has joined #webapps 20:07:04 pererik has joined #webapps 20:07:31 DKA has joined #webapps 20:07:36 ernesto_jimenez has joined #webapps 20:07:39 dom, I hear you're needed 20:08:26 spoussa has joined #webapps 20:08:56 Marcos has joined #webapps 20:09:16 krisk has joined #webapps 20:10:31 nvbalaji has joined #webapps 20:11:22 - +1.408.988.aaaa 20:12:08 wayne_carr has joined #webapps 20:12:17 +tpac 20:13:01 morrita has joined #webapps 20:13:02 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 20:13:03 present+ DanielAppelquist 20:13:03 stpeter has joined #webapps 20:13:11 dcooney has joined #webapps 20:13:15 present +mjs 20:13:18 manyoung has joined #webapps 20:13:19 Topic: Charter, re-chartering and scope 20:13:21 present +dcooney 20:13:27 RRSAgent, draft minutes 20:13:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 20:13:34 Gopal has joined #webapps 20:13:36 present +stpeter 20:13:40 dowan has joined #webapps 20:13:43 ArtB, http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.html 20:13:48 present +manyoung 20:13:52 present+ adrianba 20:13:53 present+WayneCarr 20:14:04 s/present+WayneCarr/present+ WayneCarr 20:14:09 Suresh has joined #webapps 20:14:15 s/present +stpeter/present+ stpeter/ 20:14:29 RRSAgent, draft minutes 20:14:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 20:14:30 Soonho has joined #webapps 20:14:32 Josh_Soref: thanks 20:14:35 present+ darin 20:14:39 jeff has joined #webapps 20:14:43 s/Josh_Soref: thanks// 20:14:48 present+ Soonho_Lee 20:15:02 present+ Jeff 20:15:08 Topic: Charter/Rechartering 20:15:16 ArtB: Items 20:15:18 ifette has joined #webapps 20:15:19 ... WebIntents 20:15:29 present+ ifette 20:15:32 s|s/present+WayneCarr/present+ WayneCarr| 20:15:32 ... -- where should it be, DAP/WebApps 20:15:34 RRSAgent, draft minutes 20:15:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 20:15:46 darobin has joined #webapps 20:15:49 Linuz has joined #webapps 20:16:12 chaals: Can we push Widgets to the top of the stack (TAG will start shortly) 20:16:16 chsiao has joined #webapps 20:17:11 [ Introductions ] 20:17:15 shepazu: Doug Schepers, Microsoft 20:17:21 ... er, W3C 20:17:31 magnus has joined #webapps 20:18:22 sicking has joined #webapps 20:18:31 JonathanJ has joined #webapps 20:18:45 Kihong_Kwon has joined #webapps 20:19:04 ArtB: welcome everyone 20:19:12 ... dan you wanted to say something about widgets? 20:19:20 q+ 20:19:20 q? 20:19:22 shepazu has joined #webapps 20:19:24 bryan has joined #webapps 20:19:26 ack zil 20:19:29 DanA: no... not really 20:19:30 skim_ has joined #webapps 20:19:39 ... there's a meeting on Saturday on Offline Applications 20:19:56 ... which I'm coordinating 20:20:01 ArtB: this morning we did PubStatus 20:20:21 fjh has joined #webapps 20:20:22 SungOk_You has joined #webapps 20:20:44 ... we also have on the agenda a block of time from 5-6pm tonight titled web application packaging v2 20:20:54 chaals: What i really wanted to do 20:21:05 ... it seems the widget work we charter for and did is done / about to be done 20:21:05 mav has joined #webapps 20:21:13 ... as DanA said, there is this workshop coming up 20:21:17 s/meeting/Workshop/ 20:21:21 ... we have widgets 20:21:25 ... appcache 20:21:29 ... installable widgets 20:21:35 ... offline apps 20:21:45 ... If we go to do a version 2, is that something we'd do in this group? 20:21:53 mjs: preferably not 20:21:59 shepazu: in the early days of this group 20:22:04 ... it was a shotgun approach 20:22:16 plh has joined #webapps 20:22:18 ... i think we started focusing on apis 20:22:28 q? 20:22:29 q+ 20:22:38 ... we had the experience of only some of the people focusing on widgets work 20:22:40 q- later 20:22:45 ... it doesn't seem like a good fit 20:22:50 sicking: from mozilla's point 20:23:03 ... i think what's interesting is ... packaging 20:23:08 RRSAgent, make minutes 20:23:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html MikeSmith 20:23:12 ... if that's not in the same group, that's ok 20:23:23 shepazu: we're talking about the scope of this group, Web Apps 20:23:34 ... there may be another group working on installable web apps 20:23:44 sicking: are we talking about moving all of the widgets stuff? 20:23:57 Marcos: we wouldn't move any of the stuff here, since it's all effectively done 20:24:05 ... we could move or keep any future work 20:24:14 ... i'm happy to go wherever the discussion is 20:24:22 ... since we put in 5 years on the spec 20:24:26 s/spec/specs/ 20:24:36 ... from an ipr perspective, i'm happy with where it is 20:24:50 ... but moving it to another group would enable us to see who's interested 20:24:53 myakura has joined #webapps 20:25:01 ... so we don't just have Marcos on a mailing list emailing himself 20:25:03 Gopal has joined #webapps 20:25:10 DanA: thanks for the invite 20:25:16 ... one of the things i wanted to say 20:25:30 ... is that one of my hopes for the workshop on Saturday 20:25:42 ... is to clarify things for offline/appcache/widgets 20:25:44 stkim has joined #webapps 20:25:52 ... and for things outside w3 20:25:57 ack dk 20:25:59 SungOk_You has joined #webapps 20:26:00 ... which have prominense 20:26:12 q+ 20:26:28 taohong has joined #webapps 20:26:31 ... I don't think what will come out will be widgets2. 20:26:35 s/2./2.0/ 20:26:45 ... people do use things offline and do want to install them offline 20:26:57 ... it comes back to, i hope we have a coherent discussion on Saturday 20:27:05 ... and out of that comes a mandate for doing work in this space 20:27:13 chaals: sicking asked if this was just packaging 20:27:18 plh has joined #webapps 20:27:20 ... my answer is no 20:27:24 ... packaging is important 20:27:36 ... but a key is looking at applications and how they work 20:27:54 tantek has joined #webapps 20:27:54 ... one of the thing for widgets is to let them work in more weblike ways 20:27:58 jrossi2 has joined #webapps 20:28:03 ... we want appcache based things to work more like widgets 20:28:13 ... appcache is at its basics packaging 20:28:25 ... like Marcos, we don't really care whether it happens here, or somewhere else 20:28:34 ... there is a question, because we're at w3c 20:29:05 ... because we deal with objections/strong objections relating to chartering 20:29:12 ... if there's some clear thing we should know 20:29:16 ack ch 20:29:22 bryan: to underscore what DanA said 20:29:26 ... we have similar views 20:29:34 ... we see widgets as a base for web applications 20:29:38 ... we see some challenges 20:29:42 ack bryan 20:29:43 ... for how it works with the web 20:29:57 ... in terms of security model 20:30:06 ... it's broader than packaging 20:30:09 ... than any specific api 20:30:15 q+ doug 20:30:17 Kai has joined #webapps 20:30:19 ack doug 20:30:22 q- 20:30:25 ... it's more about how they fit into the overall web architecture 20:30:33 shepazu: i'd like to limit the scope to Web Apps Charter 20:30:50 ... I'm proposing that the next charter from Web Apps not include Widgets 20:30:51 jihye has joined #webapps 20:31:07 chaals: when PAG is done, they should move to REC 20:31:22 shepazu: do we delay the chartering of Web Apps until they're done? 20:31:28 tobie has joined #webapps 20:31:41 Marcos: we just adjust the text to say that Widgets is scope limited to the current deliverables being delivered 20:31:43 q+ 20:31:58 DanA: i'd like to wait until after the Workshop 20:32:00 ack dk 20:32:02 q? 20:32:25 [ ArtB does a time check ] 20:32:41 Topic: Charter/Web Intents 20:32:46 jgraham: Web Intents 20:32:51 ... is based on Android Intents 20:33:02 ... it allows a site to talk about how they handle actions 20:33:13 ... and allows client sites to ask about an action 20:33:21 ... and lets the user pair them 20:33:27 ... picking the service the user wants to use 20:33:35 ... It's a solution to the "nasgar problem" 20:33:40 ... -- Share with 40 items 20:33:48 s/nasgar/nascar/ 20:33:58 ... this is a short term communication ipc 20:34:05 ... it was in the scope of DAPI 20:34:19 plh: Web Intents is also in the scope of DAP 20:34:40 darobin: It was deliberately put into the DAP charter 20:34:47 RRSAgent, draft minutes 20:34:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 20:34:50 ... it wasn't listed as Web Intents 20:35:02 plh: is that WG working on it? 20:35:13 darobin: I proposed doing it in DAP because we're already chartered to do it 20:35:19 plh: what about Joint? 20:35:28 darobin: I'm always worried about joint deliverables 20:35:35 MikeSmith: what's the value of Joint? 20:35:42 ... except additional process? 20:36:06 plh: you get more patent commitments since you have commitments from members of both groups 20:36:11 sicking: in my experience 20:36:16 tantek, likely nothing about UX, just about whether to take up the technology in the WebApps WG 20:36:19 myakura_ has joined #webapps 20:36:25 ... I would see the problem of discussions getting split up across 3 mailing lists 20:36:31 s/3/2/ 20:36:37 ... unless we add a third mailing list 20:36:44 dom: getting a sub mailing list is trivial 20:36:51 ... the difficult part is getting people to subscribe to it 20:36:52 s/sub/third/ 20:37:12 q? 20:37:15 ... the other thing is that web intents relates to discovery 20:37:20 q+ james, chaals 20:37:37 junghoonmoon has joined #webapps 20:37:38 ... and DAP already has that in its charter 20:37:46 davida has joined #webapps 20:37:51 ifette: part of the important consideration 20:38:00 ... it may be in DAP's charter 20:38:10 ... being in a charter may be expedient 20:38:15 ... but it may not be the right solution 20:38:25 ... we've talked about Web Intents as a possible solution for Permissions problems 20:38:35 ... there's a lot of tie in potentially between Web Intents and other work in this WG 20:38:44 ... I think this group already has the relevant members 20:38:57 ... it's nice, I appreciate that DAP did outreach 20:39:02 MikeSmith - without UX being the focus/driver, I'd suggest not bothering with taking up any such technology in any working group. 20:39:03 q+ mark 20:39:10 q- later 20:39:13 jgraham: relating to device interaction 20:39:19 ... I agree those will happen 20:39:21 without UX being nailed first, intents is pretty much doomed 20:39:24 ... the way that the api is written 20:39:27 shanec has joined #webapps 20:39:28 stakagi has joined #webapps 20:39:28 ... is so generic 20:39:43 or we can all repeat the lessons learned by OpenID trying to solve the NASCAR problem (where UX was also neglected) 20:39:57 ... that it doesn't matter whether it ties to the device or not. 20:40:03 s/jgraham/jhawkins/ 20:40:12 s/jgraham/jhawkins/ 20:40:28 RRSAgent, draft minutes 20:40:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 20:40:29 karl has joined #webapps 20:40:35 dom: I think the fact that DAP is pushing quite heavily on service and discovery 20:40:40 ... means that we want to be involved 20:40:48 vgalindo has joined #webapps 20:40:49 MarkV: Mark V.. Comcast 20:40:59 http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/ServiceDiscoveryComparison 20:41:00 ... Part of the reason we're interested 20:41:06 s/MarkV/mav/ 20:41:12 jhawkins has joined #webapps 20:41:18 ... Comcast and Cable Labs 20:41:26 ... and Webinos have proposals 20:41:32 ... It's in the charter of DAP currently 20:41:38 ... it may be more appropriate here 20:41:42 chaals: +1 20:41:44 ... literally 20:41:50 MoZ has joined #webapps 20:41:51 ... we have a proposal for discovery 20:41:55 ... I'm speaking for Opera 20:42:05 ... a lot of the people who need to be in the discussion are in DAP 20:42:13 ... a joint deliverable has a little bit of value 20:42:18 ... a wider IPR commitment 20:42:25 ... more pain from split discussion 20:42:26 How about a CG instead? 20:42:34 ... more lists is hell 20:42:44 ... there's a proposal of merging DAP and Web Apps 20:42:54 ... it's part of our position 20:43:05 [ amusing proposal and laughter ] 20:43:12 chaals: We would lean towards 20:43:26 q+ 20:43:28 ... DAP *was* a pretty dysfunctional, pointless, stupid thing, 2 years ago 20:43:31 ... it is no longer 20:43:32 ack ch 20:43:35 jdaggett_ has joined #webapps 20:43:36 ack ma 20:43:39 ack ja 20:43:47 ack mj 20:43:51 jhawkins: Web Intents and Discovery are similar, but they are not the same 20:43:56 mjs: As a point of information 20:43:59 sriramyadavalli has joined #webapps 20:44:04 ... Apple is unlikely to ever join DAP 20:44:11 tlr has joined #webapps 20:44:16 ... because of IPR concerns and others 20:44:27 ... we are somewhat interested in Web Intents 20:44:37 ... and would try to comment if it were in Web Apps or joint in Web Apps 20:44:39 arronei has joined #webapps 20:44:47 ... we would not if it were solely in DAP 20:44:55 shepazu: I'm hearing concrete reasons to have it in both 20:45:01 ... that sort of supports having it as Joint 20:45:10 darin: Darin, Google 20:45:18 ... we work together with Apple 20:45:30 ... it's fairly important that we be in the group with Apple talking about Web Intents 20:45:35 chaals: two things 20:45:37 ... permissions 20:45:48 ... permissions as we all know is a flaming ungodly mess 20:46:01 ... it comes up in web apps 20:46:13 ... it comes up with almost everything that DAP does 20:46:25 ... DAP will fail in everything if it isn't solved 20:46:35 ... If Google and Apple are working together with everything 20:46:39 ... why does it matter? 20:46:51 ... Apple can have Google present the point 20:47:06 darin: it's much easier if things are only in one room 20:47:15 ... we are developing Web Intents with Mozilla 20:47:24 ... it would be nice if everyone was in one room 20:47:40 ... trying to maintain the conversation in different WGs is probably similar 20:47:46 shepazu: both groups do all their work in the public 20:48:00 ... web apps is a public mailing list the everyone can subscribe to 20:48:20 ifette: the same argument could be made for whatwg 20:48:50 [ shepazu and darin share the mic to talk about mailing lists / where work is ] 20:48:59 dom: what darin is saying is that if the work was only in DAP 20:49:02 sangwhan has joined #webapps 20:49:11 ... then since apple couldn't be in DAP 20:49:22 ... that it would require someone to do work to share with apple 20:49:37 sicking: any outcome where all the parties can't be at the table is a failure 20:49:42 RRSAgent, draft minutes 20:49:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 20:49:43 [ ArtB time check ] 20:49:57 ArtB: Would anyone object to a joint deliverable? 20:50:05 ifette: capital O object? 20:50:20 ... I think it would be better if it was a single list, a single WG 20:50:31 ... I don't think we'd Object, but we have a preference against 20:50:48 ... If DAP folks don't object to doing work in web apps, why don't we do the work here? 20:51:02 shepazu: to clarify, you don't want it to be a joint deliverable? 20:51:12 darin: DAP folks don't mind to do work in web apps 20:51:17 ... so why not do work in web apps? 20:51:33 chaals: just as ifette won't formally object to a Joint deliverable 20:51:39 ... we would rather that the work happen in DAP 20:51:45 ... it's not DAP saying we should merge the group 20:51:51 ... it was darobin tossing up the idea 20:52:01 darobin: i'm not even sure myself it's a good idea 20:52:15 dom: one way is to go back to DAP 20:52:30 ... maybe there are people in DAP who would want to be involved but can't join Web Apps 20:52:37 ArtB: I'd like to move on to the next topic 20:53:05 jhawkins: I've made a proposal 20:53:11 ... that we upload the docs 20:53:15 ... and get a thread started 20:53:22 ... it sounds like it's not going to be in dap specifically 20:53:25 ... it could be a joint effort 20:53:31 ... it could move to a third mailing list 20:53:34 ... after the fact 20:53:39 chaals: as a way of moving forward 20:53:41 RRSAgent, make minutes 20:53:41 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html MikeSmith 20:53:45 ... Web Apps is not chartered to do that 20:53:53 ... if DAP does the work and uses Web Apps 20:54:04 ifette: No. no 20:54:13 chaals: you want to wait until chartering? 20:54:34 shepazu: do people object to adding Web Intents to the Web Apps charter? 20:54:44 ... we can always decide on Joint later 20:54:51 ... I ask the chairs to make that call 20:55:07 ArtB: Does anyone object to adding Web Intents to the Web Apps charter? 20:55:19 Suresh: Suresh, RIM 20:55:19 q+ 20:55:27 Suresh: so, trying to understand... 20:55:34 ... what are the implications on the DAP charter? 20:55:47 shepazu: we're just talking in this WG about this charter 20:56:08 heycam: in terms of initial discussions before chartering discussions are made 20:56:13 glazou has joined #webapps 20:56:21 ... we've discussed things before the decision was made 20:56:24 a12u has joined #webapps 20:56:25 ... as we did for Editing 20:56:37 [ Time check, 5 mins to 2pm ] 20:56:50 weinig: How would it be added? 20:57:02 glazou has left #webapps 20:57:06 shepazu: how it would be added would be a deliverable, discussed on the list 20:57:21 mav: if that's concluded, i would ask that the same thing happen for discovery api 20:57:29 ... because there's a lot of overlap 20:57:34 chaals: +1 20:57:49 ... we would be upset if one happens in DAP and one happens in Web Apps 20:58:00 ... we would likely to formally object 20:58:05 s/object/Object/ 20:58:27 RESOLUTION: No objection to adding Web Intents to the Web Apps Charter 20:58:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 20:58:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 20:58:39 RRSAgent, make minutes 20:58:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html MikeSmith 20:58:52 Topic: Charter/Merge DAP into Web Apps 20:59:05 darobin: the general process of W3C 20:59:11 ... is that we put things in DAP 20:59:18 fjh_ has joined #webapps 20:59:19 ... people say it sucks 20:59:27 ... two years later, we try to move them to Web Apps 20:59:35 ... i'm not sure it's a good idea 20:59:44 ... but i just wanted to throw the idea out there 20:59:47 [ Beep ] 20:59:52 fjh_ has joined #webapps 21:00:02 ifette: There's not enmity with DAP 21:00:15 ... for the things that we work on, we want to make sure we have all the browser vendors there 21:00:19 a12u has joined #webapps 21:00:21 ... I know Microsoft joined, and that's great 21:00:28 ... but we heard Apple won't 21:00:37 ... For us, we need all the browsers to give input 21:00:42 ... if we don't get that, there's not much point 21:01:02 ArtB: Would any of the Web Apps members object to us merging DAP into Web Apps? 21:01:04 cyril has joined #webapps 21:01:12 chaals: Personal objections? 21:01:26 jcdufourd has joined #webapps 21:01:31 Personal objections - 9 21:01:44 chaals: are any of those Formal Objections? 21:02:03 uohuoh has joined #webapps 21:02:08 noriya has joined #webapps 21:02:21 [ There were two Objections likely ] 21:02:21 uohuoh has left #webapps 21:02:28 present+ spoussa 21:02:35 DKA has joined #webapps 21:02:58 Topic: Charter/Web Notifications 21:03:12 ArtB: what anne wanted to discuss was taking the deliverables from Web Notifications 21:03:23 ... and closing Web Notifications 21:03:27 shepazu: I'd like to here why 21:03:38 anne: the rationale would be that it's very hard to move it forward within the scope of Web Notifications 21:03:43 ... the editor is overworked 21:03:52 ... it's a very small group, I think 6 people 21:03:59 ... not enough to pay attention 21:04:14 ArtB: I should have noted that before the Web Notification WG was formed 21:04:35 ... some members opposed in Member Confidential way to it being added to the Web Apps WG 21:04:49 ... I remind people that they were Member Confidential 21:05:05 shepazu: speaking as staff contact, I don't think it's that easy to find editors here 21:05:13 anne: I could use chair time 21:05:24 euhrhane has joined #webapps 21:05:39 arronei has left #webapps 21:05:42 mmielke has joined #webapps 21:05:47 Marcos: can we take a poll of who would implement the spec? 21:05:57 ArtB: who is actually interested in implementing this spec? 21:06:00 chsiao has joined #webapps 21:06:04 ArtB: Google, Apple, Opera, Mozilla 21:06:56 adrianba: I didn't commit, because often we don't talk about things we're going to do, until we do them 21:07:07 ... and when we do say we're interesting, that isn't a binding commitment either 21:07:20 shepazu: i'd like to repeat that we tried before, and i don't think it will work 21:07:23 ... this time 21:07:30 chaals: Opera would be happy with it being here 21:07:34 richt has joined #webapps 21:07:34 ... but we expect it to fail again 21:08:11 ArtB: The chairs tend to think that if we made the proposal to add it to the charter 21:08:22 ... that it would fail due to a formal objection 21:08:47 chaals: we will put up the proposal to merging Web Notifications subject to Web Notifications being amenable 21:08:55 Topic: Charter/DOM Mutations 21:09:26 euh used to be called "Mutation Events" 21:09:32 q? 21:09:33 ArtB: from the perspective of the current charter 21:09:42 ... There was a deliverable of "ADMN" 21:09:59 ... there was a thread from adam klein 21:10:16 ArtB: from the charter perspective, how do we move forward 21:10:24 ... is this a new specification, or do we add to dom4? 21:10:39 anne: do we have to specify where it goes in the charter? 21:10:45 ... as long as we say we're going to do it 21:10:59 shepazu: I don't think that's a requirement 21:11:15 ... we just need to clarify that we will do that work 21:11:21 heycam: do we need a specific name in the charter? 21:11:28 dino has joined #webapps 21:11:39 chaals: we need "managing changes to the dom and how they happen" 21:12:00 s/managing/monitoring/ 21:12:06 s/the dom/the DOM/ 21:12:14 rniwa, http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.html 21:12:14 RESOLUTION: add "monitoring changes to the DOM and how they happen" to the charter" 21:12:20 Topic: Charter/XHR 21:12:25 MikeSmith: thanks 21:12:31 anne: basically everyone is focusing on XHR2 21:12:42 ... I don't think that it makes sense to maintain version 1 21:12:52 ... the effort far exceeds any imaginable benefit 21:13:00 ... no one is focused on getting it finished 21:13:10 adrianba: I agree with anne on this specific case 21:13:16 ... I'd like to avoid setting a precedent 21:13:32 ... but for this case, I think it makes sense to stop working on level 1 21:13:39 sicking: I don't have a specific preference 21:13:45 ... but I would kind of like to see it shipped 21:13:49 ... if we could do that in a short order 21:14:00 anne: Last summer, summer of 2010 21:14:06 ... I wrote the spec, I wrote the test suite 21:14:14 ... and no one followed up, none of the implementers 21:14:23 chaals: like adrianba, I think it's a bad precedent 21:14:33 ... to not ship specifications, that are already implemented and done 21:14:52 ... anne works on a lot of things, Opera would much rather he work on XHR2, than level 1 21:14:58 ... as chair, 21:15:19 ... does someone feel like we all do, and feel like finishing it? 21:15:30 Marcos: why don't we just drop the '2' from XHR spec? 21:16:24 chaals: there is an XHR1, it's probably pretty much done 21:16:33 ... I don't see much point in playing a numbers game 21:16:42 Tom_ has joined #webapps 21:16:48 [ What prevents us from it being done? ] 21:17:01 anne: lack of implementers trying to pass the test suite 21:17:19 anne: it is not done, it just requires maintenance costs 21:17:29 Marcos: why is XHR2 dependent on XHR1 21:17:36 anne: XHR2 isn't dependent on XHR1 21:17:42 Marcos: so kill it! 21:17:58 but are there other specs depending on XHR1? 21:18:05 we should probably check before taking such a decision 21:18:23 shepazu: is the test suite complete? 21:18:29 anne: the test suite is pretty much complete 21:18:35 jrossi2 has joined #webapps 21:18:37 shepazu: why aren't people passing the tests? 21:18:46 adrianba: i think there are people that are passing all the tests 21:19:04 ... i think the changes that are required to pass the tests are probably not high priorities to the vendors 21:19:10 ... since the web kind of works 21:19:22 q+ to ask if adrianba meant "pass" or "run" 21:19:59 shepazu: if we can't get two implementations to pass the test 21:20:07 ... then we remove that requirement from the charter 21:20:25 chaals: does anyone object such that they're willing to do the work 21:20:37 shepazu: i'm willing to review the work necessary 21:20:52 anne: i'd object to a watered down version of the spec 21:21:11 Marcos: i would object to having a spec with duplicate text 21:21:22 ... on the grounds of having confusion 21:21:30 shepazu: that's the situation we're in now 21:21:34 Marcos: that's a process problem 21:21:39 is this the test suite: http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/testrunner.htm ? 21:21:48 My main point is that a specification should be complete and not leave out all kinds of requirements 21:21:58 chaals: we have a deliverable 21:22:06 ... that is of risk of being taken further 21:22:07 darin, yeah, one of the copies 21:22:16 ... and having objections raised later 21:22:21 not sure if my harness works a 100%, been a while 21:22:22 anne, ok... looks like chrome and firefox fail a lot of tests 21:22:33 yeah, mostly edge cases 21:22:41 chaals: it seems clear that we don't have anyone who is going to finish the spec 21:22:51 ... with the possible exception of shepazu 21:22:54 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:22:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html fjh 21:23:06 chaals: so are we happy to make the spec... 21:23:37 ifette: "if the spec got finished, would all the browsers care, and go back, and become fully compliant? if not, then it doesn't seem worth doing" 21:23:45 sicking: it's at the point where all that needs to happen is implementation 21:24:02 dom: to implement XHR2, XHR1 needs to be done 21:24:20 mjs: I don't have a strong opinion about carrying forward 21:24:28 ... but i'd rather a strong opinion to not have it in limbo 21:24:33 adrianba: I agree with mjs 21:24:39 ... the value of completing an XHR1 21:24:49 ... that describes currently implementations with whatever vagueness is necessary 21:25:01 ... getting that to REC is when the IPR obligations kick in 21:25:07 chaals: that's important 21:25:15 ... how many organizations in this room make browsers? 21:25:19 ... because it's more than 5 21:25:30 [ Amaya ] 21:25:32 ... Nokia makes, RIM, W3C (Amaya) 21:25:40 s/makes/makes one/ 21:25:54 ... there is some value to other future vendors 21:25:57 ... there is some value 21:26:16 ... if we include XHR1 as a deliverable, not that it does not have an active editor, and may be abandoned 21:26:20 sangwhan has joined #webapps 21:26:23 ... does anyone object? 21:26:31 mjs: I'd object to keeping it in limbo 21:26:38 anne: I'd end up maintaining it 21:26:47 DKA has joined #webapps 21:26:49 shepazu: If i don't do it in 6 months, I won't do it 21:27:00 chaals: does anyone object to just dropping it? 21:27:17 bryan: does that mean XHR2 will never be finished? 21:27:39 chaals: no, it means the things that need to be done in XHR1 won't be done until we finish the XHR2 spec 21:28:00 PaulK: how much of XHR1 is just a subset of XHR2? 21:28:02 [ Everything ] 21:28:04 tcelik has joined #webapps 21:28:12 ... I don't understand this talk 21:28:22 ... the problem is you don't have implementations or people willing to do testing 21:28:31 tantek has joined #webapps 21:28:32 anne: comments still come in 21:28:41 .. for instance defining Garbage Collection 21:28:45 s/../.../ 21:28:46 Tom has joined #webapps 21:29:05 ... but since XHR1 and XHR2 define events [or similar?] differently 21:29:10 ... then editing it isn't that simple 21:29:24 ... just because there's a CR version listed on the W3C page 21:29:32 ... doesn't mean it's the latest version 21:29:39 ... the latest version is the editor's draft 21:29:49 mjs: for almost XHR's history, there have been two versions 21:29:56 ... one to spec the original behavior 21:30:02 ... and one to define the new cool features 21:30:04 tcelik has joined #webapps 21:30:11 ... everyone interested was interested in the latter 21:30:17 youenn has joined #webapps 21:30:19 ... in retrospect, maybe this was a mistake 21:30:33 chaals: mjs maintains his objection, shepazu withdrew his 21:30:51 dom: one thing to check, is to see if anyone has a normative dependency on XHR1 21:31:00 chaals: issues like that I expect to come out during chartering 21:31:12 dom: chartering is a messy process 21:31:20 s/messy/AC/ 21:31:38 ACTION chaals to make sure that the webapps process is taking to the attention of the Chairs 21:31:39 Created ACTION-629 - Make sure that the webapps process is taking to the attention of the Chairs [on Charles McCathieNevile - due 2011-11-07]. 21:31:53 RESOLUTION: Drop XHR1 from our deliverables 21:32:26 Topic: Charter/Parsing and Serialization 21:32:33 Hi 21:33:01 chaals: is there any objection to adding this to our charter? 21:33:02 Sorry, my connection is spotty 21:33:46 chaals: does anyone object? does anyone propose that we add the work? 21:34:11 chaals: does Ms2ger plan to do the work? 21:34:22 It doesn't matter to me, but I don't plan to put a lot of time in W3C-specific stuff 21:34:37 ifette_ has joined #webapps 21:34:57 davida has joined #webapps 21:35:07 The spec is in the public domain, if someone wants to push it at the W3C, that's fine with me 21:35:44 shepazu: is it our policy that we only add specs that we have editors for? 21:35:53 chaals: we don't have that policy 21:35:57 I plan to keep doing the technical editing, but it's rather low-priority for me 21:35:58 ... we tend to try to have an editor 21:36:22 Ms2ger - what do you think of placing the spec in a Community Group? w3.org/community 21:36:23 ArtB: we have some new stuff, web intents 21:36:38 ... preferably we'd have at least two vendors interested in implementing it 21:36:47 sicking: i don't think we'll have a shortage of implementations 21:36:54 ... of course that was the case with XHR1 21:36:55 tantek, don't feel like spending time on that 21:37:04 /msg anne 21:37:06 chaals: and look at how useful that was 21:37:14 s|/msg anne|| 21:37:16 Ms2ger - I sympathize. 21:37:36 ArtB: i don't object adding it 21:37:43 Tom has joined #webapps 21:37:46 chaals: my preference is not to add stuff without an editor 21:38:03 shepazu: i think this specification would be of particular interest to the SVG WG 21:38:18 ... as someone from the SVG WG, i'd like to see this in the group that works on DOM 21:38:24 Rossen has joined #webapps 21:38:27 ACTION shepazu to ask the SVG WG for editors 21:38:27 Created ACTION-630 - Ask the SVG WG for editors [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-11-07]. 21:38:44 RESOLUTION: Add Parsing and Serialization to Charter 21:38:49 Topic: Charter/Editing 21:38:58 ArtB: I know Aryeh was working on Editing 21:39:04 ... but he didn't make a commitment 21:39:15 ... do we let him continue working in the CG 21:39:24 ... do we pick it up now, pick it up later? 21:39:54 ryosuke: i'd like to see it in the charter 21:40:12 ArtB: aryeh felt that having it in a CG to do work forward 21:40:28 ... but he didn't object to this WG finalizing it 21:40:38 chaals: in the absence of someone driving it in Web Apps 21:40:43 ... I think it would be a bad idea 21:40:48 ... especially without the resources 21:41:11 Josh_Soref: How is this any different from the previous charter item? 21:41:18 #whatwg: AryehGregor "Microsoft Corp. has joined the HTML Editing APIs Community Group" 21:42:01 chaals: I am proposing that we reject Editing APIs under similar circumstances 21:42:05 ... given that there is a CG 21:42:26 ... I feel we should let them alone given they already have a CG and we aren't likely to add much 21:42:43 ryosuke: there's a difference in complexity 21:42:58 ... Editing is much more complicated 21:43:13 ... I think it will take a couple of years before it's ready 21:43:31 adrianba: Microsoft just joined the CG with the intent of helping it there 21:43:48 chaals: does anyone propose that we move editing into the WG? 21:43:58 RESOLUTION: We will not move Editing into this WG 21:44:10 ArtB: MikeSmith asked me to add IME 21:44:18 ... and I had a generic item related to work mode 21:45:26 MikeSmith: I was hoping ifette was going to be here 21:45:30 Topic: Charter/IME 21:45:52 MikeSmith: if you type on a computer in Japanese/Chinese, and to some extent Koreans 21:45:56 s/Koreans/Korean/ 21:46:20 ... You type in Latin, and then you press a (compose) key to convert the text into a final character 21:46:35 ... There are times when you're using a web application that you want the web application to be aware that you're using an IME 21:46:46 q+ 21:46:48 ... The use case is when you want to do completion 21:46:54 q- Suresh 21:46:57 q- Josh_Soref 21:47:15 ... The IME is a platform level application running alongside the browser 21:47:24 ... The browser would need to have access to the system IME 21:47:29 ... and expose it to web applications 21:47:37 ... web applications do not have access today to the system IME 21:47:41 RRSAgent, draft minutes 21:47:41 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Ms2ger 21:47:58 q- jrossi 21:47:59 q+ Josh_Soref to note that IMEs are incredibly buggy, crash prone and such exposure is a security hazard 21:48:12 MikeSmith: it's very hard to explain this to people unfamiliar with IMEs 21:48:34 ... a video showing this demoing web suggested autocomplete 21:48:42 ... it's pretty simple, but it isn't self explanatory 21:48:46 … IME spec: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.html 21:49:00 chaals: given two google editors 21:49:07 ... is google proposing that it go into web apps? 21:49:16 ryosuke: yes, we'd like it to be in this WG 21:49:42 ... if you're using Google Docs, then a web browser doesn't know that you're editing 21:49:46 ... and thus can't enable IME 21:49:57 q? 21:50:00 q+ 21:50:04 ack Josh_Soref 21:50:04 Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that IMEs are incredibly buggy, crash prone and such exposure is a security hazard 21:50:14 ... Google would like to simplify this so that IME can be turned on and off 21:50:35 Josh_Soref: IME are incredibly buggy, crash prone, and such exposure is a security hazard 21:50:37 Josh_Soref: I'd like to note that I've worked on Mozilla for >10 yrs, one thing I looked at was crashes 21:50:42 ... got lots from X11 IME 21:50:54 ... more recently I worked at Nokia on Maemo, we had an IME, not shipped, but we had it 21:50:58 ... it also wasn't particualrly wonderful 21:51:04 q? 21:51:10 ... more recently we had some great crashes frmo a web based IME in windows, from mozilla 21:51:18 ... the IME is actually cloud based 21:51:28 ... when their cloud went down, everyone using that IME started crashing 21:51:38 ... any time we expose system level things to the web, it hasn't had experience with bad inputs 21:51:44 ... nobody thinks you'll get bad input, and that'sb ad 21:51:49 q+ to say that the IMEs are already exposed -- as Niwa-san noted 21:51:49 s/sb ad/s bad/ 21:52:12 mjs: one thing i'd like to see more clearly explained 21:52:17 ... is the specific use cases for this api 21:52:24 q+ Niwa-san 21:52:27 ... I don't have the experience that Josh_Soref does 21:52:34 q- later 21:52:39 ... but i don't know there's much need 21:52:43 ... it sounds like there's a work around 21:52:53 ... the main downside is that it's inconvenient, or a hack 21:53:08 ack mjs 21:53:10 ... that doesn't seem like a big deal 21:53:21 ifette: i think there's a lot of reasons for adding the IME api 21:53:25 ... if you look at google instant 21:53:26 ack Niwa-san 21:53:28 q- 21:53:30 ... having access to the list 21:53:36 q+ Josh_Soref to talk about passwords in Mameo5 21:53:48 ... having access to state makes it better 21:53:55 ... gives a chance to give better results 21:53:57 ... better services 21:54:07 manyoung has joined #webapps 21:54:13 mjs: I think it would be good if someone could give a list of use cases where someone could do things you couldn't do today 21:54:26 ... from skimming the document, i couldn't figure out what you could do 21:54:30 ... that you couldn't do otherwise 21:54:38 chaals: is that an objection? 21:54:45 ... an objection until you get further information? 21:54:54 jeff has joined #webapps 21:54:58 mjs: i think it would be better for the WG to have more information 21:55:19 ryosuke: could we add the item to the charter 21:55:36 chaals: we could add the item, we could talk about it before or after, we could add it next time 21:55:47 ArtB: can someone take an ACTION to address mjs 21:56:02 ifette: we can certainly come up with that list of use cases 21:56:19 a12u has joined #webapps 21:56:27 ifette: I can make sure we to get someone from our organization to provide this use case 21:56:33 Tom has joined #webapps 21:56:40 ... If we're going to kill editing, we're going to need to get access 21:56:46 shepazu: we're not going to kill editing 21:56:54 ack me 21:56:54 Josh_Soref, you wanted to talk about passwords in Mameo5 21:56:58 q? 21:57:12 Josh_Soref: the other thing is that for Maemo 5 there was a time when the input method would warn everything you type into the xterm 21:57:17 ... including when you typed ssh passwords 21:57:24 ... whatever random letters you type into the browser 21:57:34 ... the solution was that IMEs were turned off entirely 21:58:05 ... having access as a web page to things that I might type, e.g. if I'm on a form, all the completion things in the forsm -- I think Opera did a good job with the wand -- otherwise all your form information and CC numebrs would automatically be filled in 21:58:20 ifette: we all agree there are potential security considerations to take into account 21:58:25 s/numebrs/numbers/ 21:58:35 ... we have a team from the tokyo office 21:58:49 ... it's important for affected usrers 21:58:57 q? 21:58:58 s/usrers/users/ 21:59:08 Will has joined #webapps 21:59:11 shepazu: this isn't a place for technical feedback 21:59:15 +1 to having IME 21:59:18 sicking: that's fine 21:59:22 q? 21:59:40 chaals: is there an objection to adding this to the charter? 21:59:58 sicking: before we were talking about seeing use cases before the charter 22:00:07 chaals: you could cut it out during chartering 22:00:17 sicking: i'd like to see use cases before committing to it 22:00:24 ... if the use cases are editing and canvas 22:00:34 ArtB: i think the charter is good until spring 22:00:42 ... historically it takes a long time to get our charter added 22:00:46 s/added/updated/ 22:00:52 ... there's a 4 week AC review 22:01:03 ... we need several weeks for WG discussion 22:01:11 ... the earliest to the AC would be Jan or Feb 22:01:20 chaals: is there any objection to not putting this in the charter now 22:01:23 James has joined #webapps 22:01:29 DKA has joined #webapps 22:01:32 ... given we would put it before the WG before the end of the year 22:01:36 Ruinan has joined #webapps 22:01:39 shepazu, adding a link to http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/ from http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/charter/ would be useful 22:01:45 ... with an action on chairs to put it before the group 22:01:48 ... ? 22:01:56 shepazu: i'd rather it be in the Charter proposal 22:02:01 ... given that it could be cut later 22:02:03 mjs: i'd object 22:02:31 mjs: i'd like to be informed enough about this 22:02:40 ... it seems like that wouldn't take a lot of time 22:03:02 adrianba: I agree with mjs 22:03:11 ifette: there's so much time to object 22:03:19 ... if you look over the use cases 22:03:26 ... there's plenty of time to object 22:03:35 ... I could list use cases 22:03:53 ... there is a large class of users who are not well served by a number of sites 22:04:05 ... everyone who is objecting 22:04:33 a12u has joined #webapps 22:04:35 ... yes, we could have done a better job of preparing our case 22:04:45 ... but the objectors aren't affected 22:05:00 mjs: i believe people should be required to present their case 22:05:00 sangwhan_ has joined #webapps 22:05:12 Gopal has joined #webapps 22:05:45 chaals: like mjs, i object the implications 22:05:48 yes 22:05:55 s/mjs/weinig/ 22:05:57 s/yes// 22:06:12 chaals: if you're willing to do the legwork 22:06:18 ... it seems like we have 2 1/2 objections 22:06:25 ... so it seems like you should do the legwork 22:06:50 chaals: the concrete path forward is that we expect you to further motivate this proposal 22:06:56 ... if you're prepared to put in the legwork 22:07:02 ... around mid december 22:07:13 ... so you give us material 22:07:19 chaals: i'll take an action for Dec 1 22:07:19 stakagi has joined #webapps 22:07:24 [ No Objections ] 22:07:35 sangwhan has joined #webapps 22:07:45 ACTION ifette to talk to people at google to get more support for the proposal 22:07:45 Created ACTION-631 - Talk to people at google to get more support for the proposal [on Ian Fette - due 2011-11-07]. 22:07:57 smaug has joined #webapps 22:08:00 ACTION chaals to put IME in Charter on the discussion for Dec 1 22:08:01 Created ACTION-632 - Put IME in Charter on the discussion for Dec 1 [on Charles McCathieNevile - due 2011-11-07]. 22:08:21 RRSAgent, make minutes 22:08:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html ArtB 22:08:25 -??P3 22:09:49 sangwhan_ has joined #webapps 22:09:54 Kihong_Kwon has joined #webapps 22:10:19 SungOk_You has joined #webapps 22:12:03 a1zu has joined #webapps 22:12:58 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 22:13:35 ifette_ has joined #webapps 22:14:37 sangwhan has joined #webapps 22:16:35 a1zu has joined #webapps 22:16:37 mjs has joined #webapps 22:17:39 James has joined #webapps 22:19:39 shanec has joined #webapps 22:19:49 weinig has joined #webapps 22:20:32 hayato has joined #webapps 22:22:15 a1zu has joined #webapps 22:22:21 Marcos has joined #webapps 22:24:56 napoleon has joined #webapps 22:26:09 mjs has joined #webapps 22:30:32 sejinpark has joined #webapps 22:30:34 shepazu has joined #webapps 22:30:56 mjs has joined #webapps 22:32:01 smaug has joined #webapps 22:32:14 richardschwerdt-1 has joined #webapps 22:40:09 tlr has joined #webapps 22:43:17 sriramyadavalli has joined #webapps 22:43:23 Scribe: chaals 22:43:46 ACTION: barstow should XHR1 be published as a WG Note? 22:43:46 Created ACTION-633 - Should XHR1 be published as a WG Note? [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-07]. 22:44:05 dcooney has joined #webapps 22:44:11 Topic: Websockets 22:44:48 sicking has joined #webapps 22:44:51 AB: We're late, and may cut into the next item. Peter will update on protocol and IETF side, we'll look at other topics, testing, future directions... 22:45:06 PSA: Co-director of applications at IETF 22:45:27 ... [quick explanation of IETF structure] 22:46:09 ... HyBi WG is a group in my area. Between IETF/W3C we have had IETF doing protocols, W3C doing APIs. (generally) 22:46:13 krisk has joined #webapps 22:46:37 ... Hybi has been formalising web socket protocol, Hixie - Ifette - Alexey... 22:46:48 jihye has joined #webapps 22:46:49 ... and extensions, sub-protocols, and so on 22:47:10 ... Current status is sockets protocol has been approved after last call, is in queue to be published as RFC. 22:47:21 spoussa has joined #webapps 22:47:26 dowan has joined #webapps 22:47:33 ... Think we ha good coordination with W3C on the API. 22:47:58 ... Think we want to try to coordinate better from IETF. 22:48:11 ... Extensions - multiplexing, compression, are topics people have talked about. 22:48:52 ... will come forward in the next few months. Also looking at sub-protocols - I come from Jabber/XMPP, and we want to have a sub-protocol to replace long polling, there are others. 22:49:23 ... Once the API is finished I think we will get a lot of experience in the next few years, I foresee a cleanup version. 22:49:30 IF: Maybe a few months... 22:49:37 dowan has joined #webapps 22:49:43 PSA: Maybe. I think we will need one at some point, anyway. 22:49:46 jrossi2 has joined #webapps 22:49:56 dcooney has joined #webapps 22:50:25 AB: Last call for WS API ended about a week ago 22:50:50 rniwa has joined #webapps 22:51:18 IH: 2 bugs closed, only 2 left. 22:51:18 mmielke has joined #webapps 22:51:24 Rossen has joined #webapps 22:51:26 howard has joined #webapps 22:51:32 AB: First looks like editorial 22:51:35 IH: Yep. 22:51:57 AB: 14474 been discussed quite a bit, no? 22:52:13 sriramyadavalli has joined #webapps 22:53:07 ... we could talk about it today. Julian submitted a comment, not exactly an objection. Some URL processing got deleted from spec, added to API - hixie can elaborate on that. We need to figure out whether it pushes us back to last call, along with closing the outstanding bug. 22:53:11 manyoung has joined #webapps 22:53:59 JS: Sounds like MS is agreeing with 14474 - curious if google has opinion. 22:54:42 IF: If browser sends close frame, and server has meesages in flight before it closes - do those messages get delivered? 22:55:21 ... want to avoid half-duplex connections in protocol - one side can send but not receive. THe protocol doesn't address what happens here. Either answer would be OK (dump the messages or deliver them) 22:55:22 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 22:55:34 JS: And messages in buffer etc... 22:55:39 Marcos has joined #webapps 22:55:41 manyoung has left #webapps 22:55:46 manyoung has joined #webapps 22:55:50 IF: Right. We just need to agree on what we decide. 22:55:51 jcdufourd has joined #webapps 22:56:25 KIhong_Kwon has joined #webapps 22:56:38 ??: COmments are in the bug, agree we should just decide one way - don't have two versions. 22:56:41 IF: Agree. 22:57:02 ??: We are in violent agreement. 22:57:19 AB: Hixie, do you have what you need to close it? 22:57:28 ... would that necessitate a last call? 22:57:36 IF: Think it is a clarification not a change. 22:57:42 ABate: agreed 22:57:45 morrita has joined #webapps 22:57:59 ArtB: outstanding issue is comment from JR: 22:58:20 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0244.html 22:58:58 stpeter has joined #webapps 22:59:09 Julian's comment was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0084.html ? 22:59:32 [Robin waltzes in 30 minutes late] 22:59:56 AB: Is this some kind of showstopper? Is the change substantive enough to go back to last call? 23:00:11 nvbalaji has joined #webapps 23:00:32 tantek has joined #webapps 23:00:49 MoZ has joined #webapps 23:01:09 IF: Original text was algorithmic parsing of URI. Got taken out of processing, but added into API spec. Question is whether a clear description of how to parse a URL is substantive 23:01:21 MJS: SOunds like a good change, sounds substantive. 23:01:28 s/SOunds/Sounds/ 23:01:47 IF: Didn't change behaviour, it is like a clarification of parsing a URI 23:01:49 Julian's message was "I just noted that as of yesterday, the API spec contains the custom URI 23:02:04 ... parsing algorithm that we removed from the protocol spec a long time ago." 23:02:19 ... doesn't change the browser, just trying to be clear on corner cases. Intent is to specify what browsers do, not change anything. 23:02:41 MJS: reads "substantive change" from process... 23:02:54 ... personally it sounds like a good change. 23:03:45 stkim has joined #webapps 23:03:49 jihye has joined #webapps 23:03:52 CMN: Would you have expected to parse a URI differently? If not I don't think it is a substantive change. 23:04:04 MJS: If you change the text, you might introduce a change. 23:04:09 DKA has joined #webapps 23:04:18 smaug has joined #webapps 23:04:25 IF: If you did a review it seems that you would have read it in one place or the other. Doesn't seem like an actual change 23:04:42 AvK: At best it is a 3-week difference. Do we need to argue one way or another? 23:05:15 DS: Process is to get good reviw, and resolve difference of opinion. If people don't think there was harm, I don't think that the process requirement is active. 23:05:41 MJS: Last call is for people outside the WG. The fact taht people here like it doesn't matter, it gives a fair opportunity to comment for people outside the WG. 23:05:53 DS: Right. In this case it got moved from one place to another. 23:06:02 shepazu has joined #webapps 23:06:05 +1 to MJS's note 23:06:06 MJS: Sure, but it went from one organisation to another. 23:06:07 s/taht/tat/ 23:06:11 s/tat/that/ 23:06:28 ... prefer in the case of doubt that we are clear we follow the process, rather than beng sloppy. 23:06:46 ... being only a few weeks difference, it sounds like it won't change anyone's plans 23:07:02 ABate: Sounds like no consensus to move to CR, another last call is appropriate. 23:07:24 RB: Operative word is reasonable, I don;t think there is reasonable doubt it would change anyone's review. 23:07:31 Wonsuk has joined #webapps 23:07:31 DS: Think ths call is up to the chairs 23:07:43 s/don;t/don't/ 23:07:47 s/ths/this/ 23:07:54 RRSAgent, draft minutes 23:07:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 23:08:05 James has joined #webapps 23:08:42 CMN: Anyone object moving through to CR, and claiming the change is not actually one that would materially affect a review? 23:08:46 [no objection] 23:09:02 RESOLUTION: We don't need to return to Last Call. 23:09:25 ACTION: barstow start a CfC to publish a CR of WebSockets API (after Hixie closes 14474) 23:09:26 Created ACTION-634 - Start a CfC to publish a CR of WebSockets API (after Hixie closes 14474) [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-07]. 23:09:34 ABate: Shipping implementation of WS we also submitted some test cases. To test, you need a websocket server - we have a temporary server hosted. 23:10:09 ... getting that hosted by W3C and letting others build test that run on the server side seems essential. Can W3C / systems team figure out how we deliver that? 23:10:36 ACTION: barstow work with Chaals and the Team re infrastructure to test WebSockets API 23:10:37 Created ACTION-635 - Work with Chaals and the Team re infrastructure to test WebSockets API [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-07]. 23:10:40 s/deliver that/we get the server hosted by W3C/ 23:11:05 homata has joined #webapps 23:11:06 IF: You mean a server you could run internally? 23:11:21 ... we have a python thing you could install and run. 23:11:51 ABate: No firm criteria, people want to test the browser without having to run something locally, would be helpful if it could be hosted as well as people having to set up their own. 23:12:35 ... Our current server is open source but we don't care much. Key thing is being able to support a server within W3C that people can write tests for. 23:12:52 JG: Absolute requirement that we can run it internally. 23:13:31 ... Also running on W3C server is fine. Think the security makes this a reasonably hard problem to solve because it has to be secure - pywebsocket is known not to be secure. 23:13:42 DS: We'd have to check with systems team of course, I can ask them... 23:14:00 tobie has joined #webapps 23:14:35 DHM: Asked systems team. Main thing is to have something that we don't have a lot of maintenance for. I was imagining running a node.js server with sockets, limiting the maintenance required. That could fly, but we need a concrete thing to run and to check. 23:15:01 stpeter has left #webapps 23:15:04 ABate: So how do we move forward? We're not sur what we could propose, you're not sure what will be proposed... 23:15:27 DHM: Need something open source, ideally something with maintenance process... 23:15:42 ABate: Not sure we have that right now in a way that allows 3rd party submissions... 23:15:54 uh, websocket CR o_O 23:16:29 CMN: If someone has something, let's look at it and see whether it works for us. 23:16:40 DS: Yeah, explain how to run it. 23:16:53 KK: Right. People will test this - so if it isn't being run it isn't any good. 23:17:15 IF: Yes, we need something we can run locally, but don't object to something running hosted. 23:17:26 ... if we can run it, presumably it could be run externally too. 23:17:40 JG: If running it externally turns out to be difficult, we could do without that. 23:17:58 IF: Think we could figure that problem out. Let's try to make it happen. 23:18:23 JG: Right. make a decision on a framework so people can write tests sooner rather than later. 23:18:50 IF: Don't hear disagreement, but not sure we will resolve right now which framework we'll use. Someone needs to come up with a submission. 23:19:35 ACTION: Kris to propose a framework for running testing. 23:19:35 Created ACTION-636 - Propose a framework for running testing. [on Kris Krueger - due 2011-11-07]. 23:19:49 AB: Adrian, do you want to talk about future direction? 23:19:55 ABate: not really. 23:20:21 PSA: Seen proposed extensions for multiplexing and compression, heard number of people say this would be useful, so expect to see those but nothing concrete here. 23:20:36 SW: Do you imagine it would be a non-backwards-compatibile change? 23:21:05 sangwhan has joined #webapps 23:21:23 IF: Imagine an extension that is negotiated - non-multiplexing client could talk to a multi-plexing server, althugh the server might refuse to answer as policy rather than protocol 23:21:31 SW: Server could serve both ways? 23:21:58 IF: Yes. Client sends handshake with capability, server can accept a connection that works, or reject it, without changing the base protocol. 23:22:04 tlr has joined #webapps 23:22:04 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 23:22:20 Topic: DOM3 Events, DOM4 23:22:54 Scribe: JonathanJ 23:22:56 Scribe: Josh_Soref 23:23:01 ArtB: Status of DOM3 Events 23:23:05 -tpac 23:23:06 RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM has ended 23:23:08 Attendees were +1.408.988.aaaa, Olli_Pettay, tpac 23:23:09 ... a CFC for Candidate was made 3 weeks ago 23:23:38 ... and ended 23:23:49 ... with Ms2ger Objecting 23:24:03 RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM has now started 23:24:04 +tpac 23:24:49 ArtB: Ms2ger had 3 objections in his email 23:24:52 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011OctDec/0108.html 23:25:02 smaug_ has joined #webapps 23:25:37 shepazu: ... 23:25:41 adrianba has joined #webapps 23:25:43 ... 1. issue 123 23:26:07 ... - by anne 23:26:14 AB: here is the IRC log from Oct 25 (Art, Doug and Olli): http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20111025 23:26:15 q+ 23:26:32 s/123/123, which contradicts DOM4's statement that no new feature strings should be minted/ 23:26:40 RRSAgent, draft minutes 23:26:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 23:27:20 shepazu: svg uses feature strings 23:27:36 mjs: there's the whole substantial discussion about feature strings being a good or bad idea 23:27:45 ... as far as the DOM spec's view of feature strings 23:27:54 ... it only supports a fixed, non extensible set of strings 23:28:18 ... if another spec wants to say that it modifies what that spec says 23:28:21 ... it could 23:28:43 shepazu: one could argue that what DOM4 says is violating what DOM3 says 23:28:56 jrossi2: I agree that this i 23:29:07 s/this i/this is/ 23:29:14 ... strange 23:29:26 ... i gave personal feedback against removing this from the platform 23:29:35 anne: among most people, feature strings seem to be a bad idea 23:29:46 ... you can claim to support a feature by claiming to support a feature 23:29:52 ... but not actually support a feature 23:30:00 ... a feature can be composed of multiple parts 23:30:10 q+ 23:30:15 ... and you can only implement some of them 23:30:30 ... whereas feature detection is robust against this 23:30:43 chaals: I agree that feature strings as used by DOM are a failure 23:30:55 ... i'm not so sure that the DOM spec should throw out the ability to define them 23:30:58 dcooney has joined #webapps 23:30:59 there is no robust feature detection for events 23:31:15 [ scribe lost the correct wording and used robust instead ] 23:31:32 ... and even if DOM throws these functions out and washes its hands of it 23:31:40 ... it doesn't ... 23:32:05 ... "you MUST not" is a whole nother ball of wax 23:32:17 anne: as a group, we agree that we shouldn't do this 23:32:28 ... but, where else would we put it 23:32:38 [ scribe is not catching full text, sorry ] 23:32:50 shepazu: i don't think we made this RESOLUTION 23:33:02 ... as editor of the DOM3 spec, I don't think I was informed of this 23:33:12 Marcos: let's do it now! 23:33:20 shepazu: we don't make decisions in ... [cut off] 23:33:33 shepazu: one of the reasons that they haven't been successful in the past 23:33:42 ... is that they weren't fine grained 23:33:47 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 23:33:49 anne: so you have to make them more complex? 23:34:01 shepazu: i didn't say complex, i said precise 23:34:11 q+ 23:34:16 mjs: if we make them sufficiently precise, you might as well use feature detection 23:34:38 jgraham: what's the technical reason for this 23:34:59 jgraham: there is no good way to feature detect events 23:35:02 anne: if event objects are forced to be exposed by webidl 23:35:13 q- 23:35:19 mjs: it's better if events .... 23:35:24 that is event objects, not event types 23:35:28 burn the witch! 23:35:29 ... it's better to burn feature strings to the ground 23:35:48 weinig: historically, in our implementation, we have not been very good at keeping feature strings matching our implementation 23:36:08 alexr: i want to second that 23:36:18 s/alexr/slightlyoff/ 23:36:27 shepazu: i'm not going to fight the issue 23:36:30 ... we can remove them 23:36:43 ... jrossi2 : you have the implementation of this 23:36:51 jrossi2: I don't know that it harms the implementation 23:36:56 ... the extended implementation 23:37:08 ... we've seen some compat issues, in terms of consumers 23:37:15 ... i think jQuery uses it 23:37:34 anne: i do not, and never have proposed, support removing older elements 23:37:45 [ the dom4 spec just freezes the old list ] 23:37:56 adrianba has joined #webapps 23:38:11 mjs: to get out of this philosophical issue of whether dom4 can tell what other specs say 23:38:22 ... we could define the functions to return true for a specific list of strings 23:38:41 ... [ which effectively removes any relation of the feature to the function ] 23:38:54 jrossi2: it could be marked as AT-RISK 23:39:00 ... and discussed on the list 23:39:08 anne: it seems easier to remove 23:39:17 shepazu: no, that would require another LC 23:39:35 mjs: you can remove features marked as AT-RISK without going back to LC 23:39:52 mjs: it sounds like there's sufficient resistance to this feature 23:40:07 ... to prevent this group from formally going to CR 23:40:25 ... because the group doesn't support the feature 23:40:44 -tpac 23:40:46 RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM has ended 23:40:46 Attendees were tpac 23:41:16 shepazu: I'm fine with removing them if jacob is fine with removing them 23:41:31 jrossi2: if that's considered a substantial change which would force us to go to LC, then i'd object 23:41:37 shanec: Issue 2 23:41:59 [ shepazu reads from the objections ] 23:42:06 s/shanec/shepazu/ 23:42:07 richt has joined #webapps 23:42:11 richt has joined #webapps 23:42:13 … Issue 2 is "Second (issue 179), it ignores the consensus about using DOMException instead of custom exception types like EventException, as noted in WebIDL, [3] which I reported. [4]" 23:42:32 anne: mozilla already removed EventException 23:42:38 sicking: we have not removed it 23:42:45 ... we were planning on it 23:43:12 heycam: window.EventException does not exist in my nightly build 23:43:17 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 23:43:29 jrossi2: the new exception type was brought up prior to the LC 23:43:39 ... before the consensus of how to move forward 23:43:49 ... and we found them useful 23:43:59 ... since then the feedback that our resolution was incompatible with that 23:44:04 curmet has joined #webapps 23:44:07 Ruinan has joined #webapps 23:44:13 ... was after the LC 23:44:30 anne: that was on a call with few members 23:44:35 ... and I sent comments on them 23:44:44 ... and they were not addressed for months 23:44:49 smaugN900 has joined #webapps 23:45:00 chaals: can we stop arguing about process, unless we have a formal objection on process 23:45:07 anne: i think it matters on how we develop drafts 23:45:20 chaals: yes it matters, and in particular, the chairs allowed the editors to screw up 23:45:37 ... the question is whether there's a technical reason to fix what came out of the process 23:46:04 sicking: if the D3E spec is specifying an exception type which we don't implement 23:46:09 ... i'd object to that 23:46:15 ... i'd imagine that other implementations feel that way 23:46:27 dowan has joined #webapps 23:46:33 jrossi2: there's already some implementations implementing it 23:46:34 we did implement that exception type 23:46:41 ... there are at least 2 interoperable impls 23:46:57 but we moved to dom 4 exceptions 23:46:57 ... DOM4 is free to evolve that idea 23:47:16 sicking: i'm not convinced if 2 browsers have implemented it 23:47:23 ... what matters is what all browsers can implement 23:47:40 jrossi2: i think that web developers care about previously shipped implementations 23:47:44 mjs: if we agree to remove it later 23:47:52 ... over time 23:48:00 ... then codifying it will make it harder 23:48:09 ... because people will complain that browsers are incompatible 23:48:09 also, I thought it was agreed that D3E will use dom4 exception type. 23:48:26 heycam: given that D3E is not using WebIDL 23:48:35 ... i don't think there's a normative way to detect this 23:48:38 anne: constants 23:48:45 heycam: number 2, it's not useful 23:49:06 heycam: it's unlikely that users would .name = eventexception 23:49:16 ... i wonder if content use this 23:49:24 ... and checking that code relies on it 23:50:13 [ scribe repeats what smaugN900 said for the room ] 23:50:21 anne: there's a desire to get D3E to REC 23:50:49 ... people working on D3E want to get to things to REC and generally agree with the direction it's going 23:50:57 ... but some are concerned about time target 23:51:07 jrossi2: shepazu do you recall us changing? 23:51:15 shepazu: i don't care at this point 23:51:27 ... it doesn't matter, it shouldn't affect anything 23:51:32 ... except possibly script libraries 23:51:32 Jacob, here is the IRC log from the call I had with Doug and Olli: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20111025 23:51:46 sicking: which browsers have shipped this, and for how long? 23:52:00 anne: only one that ... 23:52:14 weinig: I think WebKit has been shipping it for many many years 23:52:50 jrossi2: I think WebKit and IE and I thought Opera had passed the test case 23:52:55 shepazu: the final thing is WebIDL 23:53:07 ... i'd like to have heycam speak to how long before WebIDL is stable.. i.e. to REC 23:53:14 MikeSmith has joined #webapps 23:53:15 heycam: how many recommendations do you have? 23:53:24 ... to get to rec, you need test suites, and passing implementations 23:53:38 shepazu: regarding normative, instead of informative 23:53:45 ... i'd suggest we go to CR 23:53:55 ... and if WebIDL makes faster progress 23:53:57 s/recommendations do you have/requirements are there in the spec/ 23:53:57 sangwhan has joined #webapps 23:54:09 .. I don't want to make D3E gate on WebIDL 23:54:24 jgraham: regarding testing 23:54:43 ... some things have a tendency to rely on WebIDL 23:54:47 curmet has left #webapps 23:54:51 anne: how can you not define the binding to JS and still test it? 23:55:07 (I think there are still quite a few open webidl spec bugs. and more coming when it is being implemented.) 23:55:14 shepazu: i think we should try to go with what we have 23:55:19 ... and see how far we go 23:55:25 ... i think a snapshot is useful 23:55:34 ... there are plenty of test suites that do not use webidl 23:55:45 jgraham: there's not a great tradition of test suites 23:55:51 anne: those specs defined a binding 23:56:06 Marcos: i want to second just about everything that anne is saying 23:56:14 ... webidl defines a bunch of stuff 23:56:20 Presumably Anne is thinking of something like http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/ecma-script-binding.html. 23:56:24 ... it defines how to implement everything 23:56:40 ... and i can generate tests from it 23:56:47 karl has joined #webapps 23:56:49 shepazu: we have 2 passing implementations 23:56:59 ... is it less useful to have D3E actually out there 23:57:06 ... pushing forward on the keyboard model 23:57:27 ... i think it's much more useful to have a keyboard model than some actual architecture astronaut 23:57:35 Marcos: it's rhetorical 23:57:44 Marcos: what's the aim of the spec 23:58:03 shepazu: by going to CR, we can get more implementations of those features 23:58:17 Marcos: the implementers at the table, saying we don't like how it's written 23:58:21 ... we want it in WebIDL 23:58:41 noriya has joined #webapps 23:58:47 shepazu: does everyone agree that it's more important to have it in WebIDL? 23:58:53 marcos: really? 23:59:08 chaals: who thinks we should not go forward before D3E normatively references WebIDL 23:59:43 mjs: scanning over the normative idl in the spec 23:59:53 ... and non-normatively in webidl 00:00:02 ... they seem to define different behaviors 00:00:08 ... that makes me uncomfortable 00:00:21 jrossi2: that's a great bug to file 00:00:39 chaals: who thinks we should go forward with this without making webidl a normative requirement 00:01:05 chaals: jrossi2 and shepazu against, and everyone else with an opinion of waiting on webidl 00:01:14 ... which was a fairly broad collection 00:01:19 shepazu: as a point of order 00:01:59 that is ok 00:02:03 ... i believe we have 2 implementations passing most of the items 00:02:06 s/that is ok// 00:02:19 ... and i believe in short order that we will have 2 implementations for all 00:02:35 sicking: i think all of the time that when all of the vendors have said we will not go forward 00:02:38 ... that we have not gone forward 00:03:00 ... i can't think of any times when even one has said no that we've moved forward 00:03:11 mjs: in general, we don't move to CR without support 00:03:49 chaals: i think the general sense has been that we want to move forward with specs that everyone will implement 00:03:57 stakagi has joined #webapps 00:03:58 .... i think getting D3E to REC would be useful 00:04:03 .. getting another spec that isn't finished 00:04:05 ... would be bad 00:04:15 s/.. getting/... getting/ 00:04:29 chaals: i agree with mjs, i don't see a requirement that this group be consistent in its processes 00:04:47 ... i would object to any formal requirement that everything be agreed by everybody 00:04:52 ... i think it's a good rule of thumb 00:05:02 ... as chair, the job is to get consensus 00:05:15 ... and it seems we don't have a consensus to go forward without webidl 00:05:36 ... sometimes we need to acknowledge that we are not that good at achieving our goals 00:05:47 wangsi-wei has joined #webapps 00:05:54 jeff: is there a plan to get webidl as normative? 00:06:03 chaals: one of the things is waiting until WebIDL is done 00:06:15 shepazu: we have an informative WebIDL reference 00:06:28 ... it's just a matter of making it normative 00:06:37 does that mean that we give up with D3E and move to D4E? 00:06:37 ... and then waiting for WebIDL to be `done` 00:06:47 shan has joined #webapps 00:06:47 heycam: how much done do you need? 00:07:08 ... what's the comparison in times between WebIDL and D3E? 00:07:18 dom: processwise, if D3E depends on WebIDL 00:07:39 ... then D3E can't go to REC without WebIDL done 00:07:46 ... we have special rules for HTML 00:07:56 shepazu: that's not in the process documentation 00:08:00 ... it's a policy 00:08:10 ... it's somewhat of a catch-22 00:08:30 ... at what level of webidl implementations can we have to get it to move forward 00:08:31 [the policy enacts a director decision, so it's as powerful as the process document afaik ] 00:08:45 ... i'm fine with making changes to the admin exceptions 00:08:52 s/admin/event/ 00:09:03 ... i'd like a bounded requirements on the specifications 00:09:17 ... it sounds like we're going back to LC 00:09:25 anne: some of these issues were raised pretty early on 00:09:28 ... as in March 00:09:35 shepazu: that's not very early on 00:09:46 jeff: what does the dependency on webidl look like? 00:09:49 ... i didn't get an answer 00:09:54 chaals: i think the answer we got 00:10:00 ... is that if we make it dependent on webidl 00:10:13 ... we don't have an expectation that webidl is racing along to webidl 00:10:29 ... shepazu suggests there are a small number of issues before D3E can go to CR 00:10:43 ... if it is held up by WebIDL, then that could be a very long wait in CR 00:10:54 ... we may ask the Director to wave the convention 00:11:07 ... we're going to put WebIDL specs through to REC 00:11:20 ... because we need specs out there to get WebIDL done 00:11:30 ... although he generally doesn't want to use that authority 00:11:41 ... an exception has been granted for HTML5 00:11:47 anne: what's being missed by your comment 00:11:48 (so assuming webidl is stable late next year, D3E could be rec in 2014) 00:11:53 ... is that currently it doesn't define JS bindings 00:11:58 er 2013 00:12:16 anne: WebIDL defines a language and the binding from that language to javascript 00:13:13 jeff: smaugN900 's answer answers my question 00:13:25 jgraham: since WebIDL defines a semantic 00:13:49 ... and since browsers implement in terms of WebIDL 00:14:01 ... it seems like not claiming to rely on WebIDL is a lie 00:14:13 heycam: the number of most recent LC comments was 15 00:14:19 ... and most are pretty simple 00:14:26 ... the comments could be resolved in a month or two 00:14:35 mjs: so less than a year to get to CR? 00:14:45 heycam: so LC if we make normative changes 00:14:49 richardschwerdt-1 has left #webapps 00:14:58 ... and then 3 months and then CR 00:15:04 mjs: so, optimistically? 00:15:20 heycam: the big time bit is moving from CR to REC 00:15:25 ... it's getting implementations 00:15:46 sicking: are there specifications that use "all" of the features of WebIDL? 00:15:56 mjs: for each webidl feature, is there at least one spec using it? 00:16:27 Josh_Soref: is there at least one W3 spec for each WebIDL feature? 00:16:38 heycam: there is a feature which we'd probably drop that wouldn't 00:16:47 s/wouldn't/is only used outside/ 00:16:54 spoussa has joined #webapps 00:17:03 chaals: if we take the RESOLUTION that we make those changes and send it back to LC 00:17:09 a12u has joined #webapps 00:17:19 ... and send it through with the statement that D3E would be LC specifically scoped to those changes 00:17:31 sicking: does that include deprecating the EventException interface? 00:17:35 chaals: yes, all three changes 00:17:40 anne: i guess it's ok 00:17:46 ... but there are various minor comments raised 00:17:57 ... and i'm not sure how they were addressed relating to DOM4 00:18:01 .. initEvent 00:18:08 s/../.../ 00:18:32 ... there's something which is prohibited, although jackal said it might be allowed if you interpret the spec in an interesting way 00:18:39 ojan: my general experience w/ D3E 00:18:50 ... is that the push to get it to REC has generally trumped technical issues 00:19:05 ... it's hard to retroactively make it good 00:19:12 skim has joined #webapps 00:19:13 ... i'd rather consider it a sunk cost 00:19:19 ... and just look toward DOM4 00:19:34 kermit has joined #webapps 00:19:36 shepazu: are you talking about new features, or the way things are actually specified currently 00:19:48 ... i know i said i wasn't adding new features 00:19:58 ojan: not adding new features is totally ok 00:20:14 chaals: so you're supporting anne in not being certain about other little things 00:20:15 q+ 00:20:15 (DOM4Events, not just DOM4) 00:20:26 Marcos: i've also tried implementing things from D3E 00:20:32 ... and i've had to fall back to DOM4 00:20:45 ... there's good bits in the spec, but i think it's overreaching 00:20:51 ... the stuff that anne 's done in DOM4 00:21:03 ... he's make the event dispatch really clear 00:21:11 ... the mouse/keyboard stuff is great 00:21:21 ... the web is going to be underpinned by DOM4 and WebIDL 00:21:25 kermit has left #webapps 00:21:46 shanec has joined #webapps 00:21:52 chaals: if as chairs 00:21:59 if event dispatch is not clear in D3E, please file a bug 00:21:59 ... we proposed to make an LC with only the new changes 00:22:03 ... are there people who would object 00:22:15 mjs: i would object because i don't think the process supports that 00:22:18 chaals: there's precedent 00:22:25 shepazu: it doesn't disallow it 00:22:42 chaals: i don't want a question, just a technical objection 00:23:04 sicking: are there things where D3E is in direct opposition to what DOM4 says? 00:23:19 shepazu: in D3E we tried to match what implementations did 00:23:22 anne: but you didn't 00:23:36 jrossi2: the initEvent is the only other thing i've ever seen 00:23:46 anne: if you create an event, what does event.type return? 00:24:03 chaals: we should leave it undefined until DOM4 00:24:24 sicking: i don't want to run into issues doing DOM4 because it conflicts we things D3E says 00:24:34 shepazu: D3E is generally a subset of DOM4 00:24:43 anne: there are some contradictions 00:24:48 ... initEvent, things that are not defined 00:24:56 chaals: things that are not defined is not a contradiction 00:25:06 sicking: i'm not worried about undefined 00:25:29 ... just things that it does say which contradicts what it actually does say 00:25:33 Marcos: we can't just do levels/errate 00:25:37 s/errate/errata/ 00:25:45 RRSAgent, draft minutes 00:25:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 00:25:54 (I think I.ve missed what is wrong with initEvent) 00:26:24 chaals: option 1: we go forward with the spec, making the 3 changes outlined in the 3 issues 00:26:50 ... and moving forward based on that 00:26:59 Ruinan has joined #webapps 00:27:03 ... restricting the LC scope to that 00:27:14 ... there are 3 4 objections 00:27:21 s/3 4/3 ... 4/ 00:27:25 chaals: are there objections to: 00:27:35 ... we will go through and open an LC with an open scope 00:27:44 ... and with an explicit plan that we will 00:27:51 ... that any further LC will be restricted 00:28:11 ... and we expect to move forward 00:28:59 ... are there objections - One open LC and one further limited to issued raised in that LC 00:29:10 ... there is precedent to that, not in this group, but in others 00:30:10 mjs: i'm dubious, but i don't object 00:30:26 chaals: does anyone expect that they're going to keep saying "no, no, no" 00:30:34 Marcos: it's not a bad spec 00:30:40 ... it's just there's too much conflict between two specs 00:31:25 what are the conflicts 00:31:30 chaals: i'm going to table that question 00:31:36 one exception type 00:31:49 hayato has left #webapps 00:32:14 Topic: Widgets v2 00:33:18 Topic: D3E 00:33:25 AlexRussel: there is a v3/v4 tension 00:33:35 krisk has joined #webapps 00:33:56 jrossi2: there's a lot in D3E events which is not really for DOM4 00:34:16 AlexRussel: and there's a question of dropping D3E 00:34:29 ArtB: looking at the Agenda 00:34:34 ... is this the 9-11 slot? 00:34:44 shepazu: you mean when i'm @WebEvents? 00:34:52 ArtB: how about 10? 00:34:57 Topic: Widgets v2 00:35:08 ArtB: Web Application Packaging v2 00:35:15 Marcos: I don't remember proposing tihs 00:35:30 ... i'm not going to waste people's time here 00:35:36 ... given the workshop on saturday 00:35:45 ... i think that will determine if we'll have a v2 00:35:50 ... i'm happy to listen to requirements 00:36:00 ... thanks everyone 00:36:10 ArtB: any other comments? 00:36:33 Josh_Soref: i'm unhappy with the day being Saturday 00:36:55 [ Adjourned ] 00:37:02 RRSAgent: make minutes 00:37:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html Josh_Soref 00:37:26 trackbot: end telcon 00:37:26 Zakim, list attendees 00:37:26 sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is 00:37:27 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 00:37:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html trackbot 00:37:28 RRSAgent, bye 00:37:28 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-actions.rdf : 00:37:28 ACTION: Art to talk to Doug about the traversal from Element Traversal to DOM4 [1] 00:37:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-irc#T16-37-07 00:37:28 ACTION: barstow should XHR1 be published as a WG Note? [2] 00:37:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-irc#T22-43-46 00:37:28 ACTION: barstow start a CfC to publish a CR of WebSockets API (after Hixie closes 14474) [3] 00:37:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-irc#T23-09-25 00:37:28 ACTION: barstow work with Chaals and the Team re infrastructure to test WebSockets API [4] 00:37:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-irc#T23-10-36 00:37:28 ACTION: Kris to propose a framework for running testing. [5] 00:37:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-irc#T23-19-35 00:37:47 ihilerio has left #webapps