01:23:01 RRSAgent has joined #browserext 01:23:01 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-browserext-irc 01:23:24 Meeting: Browser Extension CG ad-hoc teleconf 01:24:09 Zakim has joined #browserext 01:26:39 mikepie has joined #browserext 01:31:03 Chair: Florian 01:33:50 Scribenick: mikepie 01:35:38 andrey-r has joined #browserext 01:36:59 topic: WebIDL conventions 01:37:56 https://gist.github.com/97fa5b3cf4599df92ee5066bde47c162 01:38:07 Scribenick: Florian 01:38:18 kmag: this link is what I plan to send 01:38:31 kmag: there's basicaly to options: 01:38:55 kmag: one use the check any permission attribute, and one that breaks it down and specifies it in words 01:39:55 The IDL looks good 01:39:59 kmag: I can walk you through this 01:40:08 mikepie: please do 01:40:32 kmag: there's a top level interface call extension-global 01:40:44 kmag: it has one property, "browser" 01:41:47 kmag: [... describes the content of the mail pasted above ...] 01:42:44 mikepie: I like this model a lot 01:42:56 mikepie: it is a clean way to extend window 01:43:11 I agree a little more details would help for anyone on mailing list 01:43:19 mikepie: it can work for dynamic capabilities, added during execution 01:44:01 kmag: that's the way it is done in webapps for the navigator property, saying this must only be exposed in certain context 01:45:16 andrey-r: more details would be good, people on the mailing list will have a hard time understanding 01:45:31 andrey-r: but I like the proposal 01:46:07 Florian: where will you send it? both lists? 01:46:16 kmag: Ok 01:46:17 both list would be good 01:46:28 mikepie: any thoughts about the events object? 01:46:45 kmag: would have to give a different name, "tabs" is a terrible name 01:47:15 kmag: Call it broadcaster or something? 01:48:16 mikepie: if we can move forward with this, I can use it in drafts 01:48:43 mikepie: might be some push back, so don't want to rush into using it 01:49:02 kmag: the only push back could be about using attributes that aren't part of the spec 01:49:11 Topic: Top level object name and protocol name 01:50:20 mikepie: can go with browser or navigator.extension, and prefer browser, but Opera was preferring the other one. 01:50:35 I am ok with both 01:50:45 kmag: for the protocol, browser-extensions:// feels too long 01:51:06 How about browser-ext:// ? 01:51:15 browser-ext:// - Yes 01:51:31 Florian: is browser:// too short for the protocol name? 01:51:51 mikepie: Microsoft people expressed concern about extension:// 01:51:58 Florian: browserext:// ? 01:52:04 kmag: Happy eitherway 01:52:24 mikepie: I think browserext:// is good 01:52:32 agree 01:52:41 Florian: and just browser for the object? 01:52:41 And browser.* for object 01:53:32 Florian: Opera proposed "nex", do we want to to follow that? 01:53:54 mikepie: it does make sense, but I prefer what we just said 01:54:04 kmag: I'd be ok for the top level object, not the protocol 01:55:05 Florian: Seem there's no objection either way, but a preference for browser, browserext:// Should we resolve on that? 01:55:41 mikepie: want to loop in Shwetank 01:55:49 Florian: resolutions during meeting are provisional anway 01:56:25 RESOLUTION: use "browser" as the top level object, and browserext:// as the protocol name 01:56:41 Florian: do we need to register that protocol? 01:56:45 mikepie: I can do that 01:56:59 ACTION: mikepie to register browserext:// 01:57:44 Topic: How to identify functions/properties/events under the objects we've identified 01:57:54 mikepie: how do we do that? should I prepare something for the next meeting 01:58:32 Florian: Set it up as a github issue, and we discuss there? 01:58:43 mikepie: Sounds good. 01:59:09 Florian: once we have that and the IDL, we can make a spec that looks like one 01:59:14 mikepie: yes 01:59:21 Topic: TPAC 01:59:30 Florian: what do we want to do there? 01:59:33 andrey-r: meet 01:59:46 Florian: I've requested a time slot 02:00:01 mikepie: First time for CGs to meet at TPAC right? 02:00:09 Florian: yes 02:00:30 mikepie: should we try and have a more complete spec to review? 02:00:37 andrey-r: yes, hard to be productive otherwise 02:01:21 mikepie: should native messaging be together? 02:01:27 Native messaging is very important topic 02:01:57 Florian: we can only book for the CG 02:02:08 andrey-r: is this going to be madness again, with stickers on the board 02:03:02 sorry 02:03:09 Florian: madness is the wednesday unconference, we should get a sane time slot 02:03:16 Florian: I'll follow up 02:03:31 ACTION: florian to check if we got the time slot requested 02:03:35 I was saying that I would prefer to meet as early as possible, but if thursday is best for most that's fine 02:05:44 Florian: Houdini shows that you can have productive meetings for high level discussions, but in our case having concrete things to discuss would indeed be better, so let's try to have a draft spec 02:09:30 Topic: next meeting 02:09:48 Florian: would be good to have topics ahead of time, please file github issues or ML threads 02:10:11 mikepie: when do we meet next 02:10:16 andrey-r: anytime 02:10:24 Florian: not next week, but anytime 02:10:33 mikepie: June 29, same time? 02:10:52 RESOLUTION: next meeting June 29, same time 02:11:56 Present: andrey-r, kmag, mikepie, Florian 02:12:05 RRSAgent, make log public 02:12:13 RRSAgent, draft minutes 02:12:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-browserext-minutes.html Florian 02:13:22 RRSAgent, bye 02:13:22 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-browserext-actions.rdf : 02:13:22 ACTION: mikepie to register browserext:// [1] 02:13:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-browserext-irc#T01-56-59 02:13:22 ACTION: florian to check if we got the time slot requested [2] 02:13:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-browserext-irc#T02-03-31