- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:53:24 -0500
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the 21 January Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 4 February (the next
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered
Approved.
There will be no call on 28 January.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conference
21 Jan 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0217.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Marcin_Hanclik, Steve_Jolly, Josh_Soref, Arve,
StevenP
Regrets
Frederick_Hirsch, Marcos_Caceres, Robin_Berjon
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]WARP spec: LC comments
4. [8]WARP spec: extending access to local network resources
5. [9]URI Scheme spec: LC comments
6. [10]View Modes Media Features spec
7. [11]AOB
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 21 January 2010
<marcin> ups :)
<timeless_mbp> Zakim: who is on?
Review and tweak agenda
AB: the agenda was submitted on January 20 (
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/02
17.html ). Any change requests?
... without Robin here, we will need to make some modifications
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0217.html
Announcements
AB: does anyone have any short announcements? The only one I have is
that we will not have a call on January 27.
WARP spec: LC comments
AB: the WARP LC (
[14]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20091208/ ) comment
period ended 13 January (
[15]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-a
ccess-20091208/ ). I believe we only received 2 comments, from
Marcos and Dom.
... Marcos (Dec 21,
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/14
72.html ) and Dom (Dec 10,
[17]http://www.w3.org/mid/1260460310.3355.2561.camel@localhost ).
... we can't proceed to CR until we have done the necessary
round-tripping with the Commentors
[14] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20091208/
[15] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-
widgets-access-20091208/
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/1472.html
[17] http://www.w3.org/mid/1260460310.3355.2561.camel@localhost
<scribe> ACTION: Robin process the LC comments for the WARP LC
[recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-478 - Process the LC comments for the WARP
LC [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-01-28].
AB: everyone else in the WG is also encouraged to respond to the LC
comments
... anything else on WARP LC?
<Steven-cwi> Apologies for lateness
<scribe> ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the
PAG's mail list [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-479 - Make sure all WG members know about
the PAG's mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-01-28].
WARP spec: extending access to local network resources
AB: on January 14 StephenJ (SJ) started a thread (
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/01
73.html ) re extending the <access> element to support local network
resources.
... Arve and Stephen continued that thread today. What's the status
(I haven't yet caught up on today's e-mails)?
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0173.html
SJ: I sent my proposal
... it is a starting point
... want to consider the local net
... want developers to be able to specify them as accessible
... Arve asked some questions
... I think it makes sense to create some UCs and I'll do that
... if people have other comments, that's good too
Arve: for our impl at Opera, developers have been not understood
very well the diff between local and non-local
... and have just given permission to everything because of the
confusion
... so that is something to consider
SJ: needs to be at least one good UX to accept or reject local
access
... could be a number of networks available, especially in a mobile
network (wifi, operator net, etc.)
... there is lots of more data that may be available
Arve: I'm not sure how much we need to standardize
SJ: how much info is needed for these UCs?
AB: we don't have any template
Arve: I don't expect a whole lot of details
... if you respond to the email, that should be sufficient
SJ: ok, no problem
<scribe> ACTION: jolly submit a UC for the local network access
proposal [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-480 - Submit a UC for the local network
access proposal [on Stephen Jolly - due 2010-01-28].
AB: is there anything else on this topic for today?
[ No ]
URI Scheme spec: LC comments
AB: the LC comment tracker (
[22]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-u
ri-20091008/doc/ ) indicates 7 of the 9 comments are still in the
"tocheck" status.
... my take on Larry Masinter's 18-Dec-2009 reply (
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/14
55.html ) is the two main issues are: 1) he doesn't think we have
showed "Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility" per RFC4395; and 2)
"The description of the mapping must be complete", in particular
authority. Links to the authority thread are included in the draft
agenda.
... without Robin, I'm not sure it makes sense to do a deep dive on
this
... when we get Robin on a call, we will need to discuss these
issues
[22] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-
widgets-uri-20091008/doc/
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/1455.html
MH: think we should first discuss on the mail list
AB: yes, I agree we should discuss as much as possible on the mail
list
... One thing LM asks for is a Use Case that clearly demonstrates
"New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet
community, beyond that available with already registered URI
schemes." RFC4395 [24]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395 ]. LM
asserts the thismessage scheme [ RFC2557
[25]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557 ] should be reused or
modified to meet our requirements.
... I fully agree that if some existing scheme meets 100% of our
reqs, we should re use it
... but that doesn't appear to be the case with any of the schemes
we looked at
... we have some a wiki page of schemes we have evaluated (
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme ). Perhaps
it would be helpful to analyze this again (RB did last June
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/09
72.html ) but there was no reply by LM.
[24] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395
[25] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009AprJun/0972.html
<Steven-cwi> OK
AB: I think this is an area where getting some advice and guidance
from the Team would be helpful
... anything else on this topic for today?
[ No ]
View Modes Media Features spec
AB: Marcin on Jan 14 sent questions to the list
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/01
70.html
... and there has been no response, correct?
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2010JanMar/0170.html
MH: right, no response yet
... I have added the comments from VF (as agreed previously)
... I have some questions to discuss
... re interactivity, I proposed a solution in the ED
... mini says content is not interactive
... need to know if that affects HTMLInputElement
... I assume answers in the ED
... but some of my answers may be controversial
AB: Arve, any follow-up from you on this?
Arve: re mini, in what way would that affect HTMLInputElement?
MH: disabled atrribute
Arve: no, this would not affect that attribute
... in mini mode one can still have a distinction between enabled
and disabled
MH: does this need to be specified?
Arve: no; take a look at print media type in CSS and see what
happens there
MH: so, you think we should handle this like print media?
Arve: we probably shouldn't reference HTML at all
MH: OK, I'll look at that; this could affect the User Experience
... then we can discuss over email
AB: what's the issue with the opacity property?
MH: not sure how this applies for some of the modes
... need to explain this e.g. with body element?
Arve: no, I don't think we should do that
... don't want to tie this to body element
MH: we have 4 view modes now
... transparency depends on UA
... widget developer may not be able to detect if viewport is
transparent or not
... don't necessarily want to add more properties and exponentially
increase the property/view mode table
<arve> I'm back in, but speaking is difficult
<arve> landline = flat battery
MH: want to continue opacity discussion
... want author to require opaque viewport but now that can't be
done - it is up to the UA
... In my email I said "I would like to have the widget behave like
fullscreen or mini, but the transparency could depend on the
content"
<arve> [We should do that by making opacity attribute separate from
view mode]
MH: yes, I'm fine with that
... but not sure where that would be specified
<arve> [config.xml, probably]
MH: config.xml? CSS?
... ok, config.xml
AB: let's please continue this discussion on the mail list
<arve> CSS is for adjust certain aspects of presentation in web-type
documents, while this is about the window type the widget is to be
rendered in
AB: anything else on the VM-MF spec for today?
MH: I'm a bit behind on the VM-I spec but will try to get something
done by the next call
... they are closely related
AB: ok; understood
AOB
AB: Next call: No call on January 27; next call is Feb 4.
... anything else for today?
JS: regrets for Feb 4
AB: meeting adjourned
<Steven-cwi> Jan 28th you meant?
AB: oops - I meant no call on Jan 28! - next call is Feb 4
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the PAG's
mail list [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: jolly submit a UC for the local network access
proposal [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Robin process the LC comments for the WARP LC
[recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 14:54:32 UTC