08:13:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
08:13:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-irc
08:13:15 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
08:13:17 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
08:13:21 <ArtB> Chair: Art
08:13:29 <ArtB> Meeting Widgets F2F Meeting
08:13:38 <ArtB> Date: 26 Feb 2009
08:13:50 <ArtB> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda
08:13:59 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
08:14:34 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
08:14:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html ArtB
08:15:02 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets F2F Meeting
08:15:53 <ArtB> Present: Art, Claudio, Ivan, Mohammed, Rainer, David, Arve, Marcos, Benoit
08:18:33 <MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike
08:18:33 <Zakim> sorry, MikeSmith, I don't know what conference this is
08:18:49 <ArtB> zakim, this will be widgets
08:18:49 <Zakim> ok, ArtB; I see IA_WebApps(Widgets F2F)3:30AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
08:19:44 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets F2F)3:30AM has now started
08:19:52 <Zakim> + +68028aaaa
08:20:22 <Zakim> + +45.29.aabb
08:24:23 <arve> arve has joined #wam
08:24:26 <ArtB> zakim, who?
08:24:26 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ArtB.
08:24:37 <ArtB> zakim, who
08:24:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who', ArtB
08:24:40 <arve> zakim, who is here
08:24:40 <Zakim> arve, you need to end that query with '?'
08:24:43 <arve> zakim, who is here?
08:24:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see +68028aaaa, +45.29.aabb
08:24:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see arve, RRSAgent, Marcos, Zakim, ArtB, MikeSmith, heycam, chaals, shepazu, trackbot, timeless, timelyx
08:24:46 <ArtB> zaki, who is here?
08:24:56 <ArtB> zakim, who is here?
08:24:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see +68028aaaa, +45.29.aabb
08:24:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see arve, RRSAgent, Marcos, Zakim, ArtB, MikeSmith, heycam, chaals, shepazu, trackbot, timeless, timelyx
08:25:02 <MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike
08:25:02 <Zakim> ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
08:25:03 <Zakim> +Mike
08:25:20 <ArtB> Present +Mike
08:25:28 <ArtB> Topic: Agenda Review
08:25:34 <ArtB> AB: last day
08:25:38 <Mohammed> Mohammed has joined #wam
08:26:00 <ArtB> ... and 13:30 Scott Wilson some other Widget implementors will join us for for an hour or two
08:26:13 <ArtB> ... Topics remaining:
08:26:16 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
08:26:19 <ArtB> ... 1. A&E spec
08:26:38 <ArtB> Present+ Doug
08:26:43 <timelE61i> timelE61i has joined #wam
08:26:54 <ArtB> Present +Josh
08:27:11 <ArtB> ... 2. AOB
08:27:34 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
08:27:34 <ArtB> AB: from my perspective, we are done with P&C for this meeting
08:27:44 <ArtB> ... is that consistent with everyone else?
08:28:24 <ArtB> [ No additional P&C topics suggested ]
08:28:45 <ArtB> AB: I presume no more DigSig discussions, right?
08:28:58 <claudio> claudio has joined #wam
08:28:59 <drogersuk> drogersuk has joined #wam
08:29:03 <ArtB> MC: no, done with DigSig
08:29:13 <ivandm> ivandm has joined #wam
08:31:06 <ArtB> [ Short discussion about when people need to leave today to catch their planes ... ]
08:31:08 <drogers> drogers has joined #wam
08:31:37 <claudio> claudio has joined #wam
08:31:41 <Marcos> Marcos has joined #wam
08:32:06 <ArtB> AB: we will plan to complete WG discussions by 13:30
08:33:23 <drogersuk> drogersuk has joined #wam
08:34:12 <ArtB> Topic: Widget API Set/GetPreferences vs. HTML5 Key/Value Pairs Storage
08:34:39 <ArtB> AB: head of the thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0290.html
08:35:04 <ArtB> AB: where do we stand on this Marcos?
08:35:13 <Zakim> - +68028aaaa
08:36:04 <ArtB> Arve: I do not support removing preferences interface
08:36:06 <Zakim> + +68028aacc
08:36:13 <ArtB> MC: want to keep preferences API
08:36:34 <ArtB> ... but say storage is guaranteed
08:36:47 <ArtB> ... I don't want to explicitly say HTML5 storage is mandatory
08:37:05 <ArtB> ... Also don't want to replicate HTML5's storage API
08:37:19 <ArtB> ... It still may change
08:37:48 <ArtB> ... We also now have a <preference> element that can be used
08:38:11 <ArtB> CV: please elaborate on the concern about read-only prefs
08:38:18 <ArtB> MC: we want read-only prefs
08:38:37 <ArtB> CV: what is the rationale for read-only?
08:38:48 <ArtB> MC: they can be read-only or modifiable
08:39:13 <ArtB> ... that is, it will be possible to explicitly identify a specific pref to be read-only (non-mutable)
08:39:48 <ArtB> ... We expect some prefs e.g. a key to not be modifiable
08:40:14 <ArtB> Ivan: we have getPrefs + setPrefs but you also want the prefs array
08:40:21 <ArtB> ... is that too much flexibility?
08:40:36 <ArtB> MC: no, I think this flexibility is good
08:40:45 <ArtB> ... want an object that can be iterated over
08:41:02 <ArtB> ... but can also explicitly set and get via methods
08:41:23 <ArtB> Arve: but if it looks like an array and talks like an array ...
08:41:42 <ArtB> MC: it's like a hash map
08:42:11 <ArtB> Arve: don't understand why I can't set/get the collection
08:42:21 <ArtB> ... e.g. to bulk add keys
08:43:32 <ArtB> MC: let me try to clarify my proposal
08:44:26 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
08:44:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html ArtB
08:45:17 <ArtB> AB: preferences definition: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#the-preferences-attribute
08:45:55 <ArtB> [ Marcos sketches the API for preferences; this will be pasted into IRC ... ]
08:48:16 <Marcos> interface preferences{
08:48:16 <Marcos>    void setPreference();
08:48:16 <Marcos>    string getPreference ();
08:48:17 <Marcos>     array keys;    
08:48:17 <Marcos>     void clear();
08:48:17 <Marcos>     void size;
08:48:18 <Marcos> } 
08:48:41 <ArtB> Ivan: how is delete done?
08:48:46 <ArtB> MC: set it to null
08:49:04 <timeless> void size doesn't make sense
08:49:06 <ArtB> Ivan: this could create a collision problem
08:49:17 <arve> in contrast, HTML5 storage:
08:49:18 <arve> interface Storage {
08:49:18 <arve>   readonly attribute unsigned long length;
08:49:18 <arve>   [IndexGetter] DOMString key(in unsigned long index);
08:49:18 <arve>   [NameGetter] DOMString getItem(in DOMString key);
08:49:18 <arve>   [NameSetter] void setItem(in DOMString key, in DOMString data);
08:49:20 <arve>   [NameDeleter] void removeItem(in DOMString key);
08:49:22 <arve>   void clear();
08:49:24 <arve> };
08:51:07 <ArtB> zakim, who is here?
08:51:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see +45.29.aabb, Mike, Doug_Schepers, Josh_Soref, +68028aacc
08:51:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see drogersuk, Marcos, claudio, ivandm, timelE61i, arve, RRSAgent, Zakim, ArtB, MikeSmith, heycam, chaals, shepazu, trackbot, timeless, timelyx
08:51:22 <arve> if (!localStorage.pageLoadCount)
08:51:22 <arve>     localStorage.pageLoadCount = 0;
08:51:22 <arve>   localStorage.pageLoadCount = parseInt(localStorage.pageLoadCount, 10) + 1;
08:51:22 <arve>   document.getElementById('count').textContent = localStorage.pageLoadCount;
08:51:43 <arve> preferences["catnip"] = "delicious for cats";
08:52:11 <ArtB> MC: oh, I see ...
08:53:14 <ArtB> AB: so what does this mean MC?
08:53:44 <ArtB> MC: well, my strawman isn't right; I'll need to look at what Arve posted
08:54:04 <ArtB> Arve: this is from the Storage interface
08:57:17 <ArtB> [ Marcos creates proposal #2; he will paste this into IRC momentarily ... ]
08:58:15 <ArtB> AB: so are we then building a dependency on HTML5?
08:58:23 <Marcos> interface Preferences {
08:58:24 <Marcos>   readonly attribute unsigned long length;
08:58:24 <Marcos>   [IndexGetter] DOMString key(in unsigned long index);
08:58:24 <Marcos>   [NameGetter] DOMString getItem(in DOMString key);
08:58:24 <Marcos>   [NameSetter] void setItem(in DOMString key, in DOMString data);
08:58:25 <Marcos>   [NameDeleter] void removeItem(in DOMString key);
08:58:26 <arve> preferences["cats"] = "dogs"
08:58:27 <Marcos>   void clear();
08:58:28 <Marcos> };
08:58:33 <ArtB> MC: no, not really because we are changing the name of the interface
08:58:48 <ArtB> AB: any comments on this proposal?
08:59:10 <ArtB> Arve: this is a starting point
08:59:24 <ArtB> ... prolly don't want to continue to design this API during this meeting
08:59:48 <ArtB> ... what about read-only
08:59:56 <ArtB> ... needs the stuff from the manifest
09:00:34 <ArtB> MC: could have a revert method
09:00:41 <ArtB> Arve: or restore
09:01:30 <ArtB> MC: we aren't putting a depedency on HTML5
09:01:50 <ArtB> ... but we are leaching its Storage interface, renaming it and adding some new methods
09:02:13 <ArtB> ... We may also want to change the name of the getters and setters
09:02:17 <timeless> getItem and setItem are generally magically in dom impls
09:02:22 <timeless> so changing their names is painful
09:02:24 <ArtB> Arve: not sure we want to change get/set names
09:03:04 <timeless> so, idl won't let us take an existing interface and say 'for this method, additional exceptions will happen: ...'?
09:03:50 <ArtB> Arve: I will create a new proposal for this
09:03:53 <timeless> if you were only going to change the name of the bound thing, i'd have hoped you didn't need to give it a new name, and simply say: interface Widget { ... HTML5::Storage preferences; ... }
09:04:30 <ArtB> ... by that I mean I will update the spec to match what we agree 
09:04:36 <arve> timeless: I don't want that dependency
09:04:48 <Marcos> timeless: same here 
09:05:00 <Marcos> We are assuming and SVG only widget engine
09:05:05 <Marcos> for instance 
09:05:07 <arve> and the objects stored within are not, like html5, domstrings, but Preference objects
09:06:08 <ArtB> AB: any other feedback for MC or Arve on this?
09:07:26 <annevk> annevk has joined #wam
09:07:57 <ArtB> Ivan: this looks like the right direction; I'm not so concerned about the specifics
09:08:55 <ArtB> ACTION: Marcos work with Arve to update the preferences API to reflect discussions on 26-Feb-2009
09:08:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-313 - Work with Arve to update the preferences API to reflect discussions on 26-Feb-2009 [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-03-05].
09:09:34 <ArtB> Ivan: David, what is BONDI defining for storage?
09:09:43 <ArtB> DR: I'm not sure
09:10:01 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
09:10:01 <ArtB> RH: using key/value storage and File I/O
09:10:21 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
09:10:55 <ArtB> AB: agenda for A&E http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsParisAgenda#API_and_Events_spec
09:14:00 <MikeSmith> yes
09:14:05 <MikeSmith> still here, but muted
09:14:28 <Marcos> MikeSmith: is annevk staying with you?
09:14:45 <MikeSmith> Marcos, yeah
09:15:15 <ArtB> Topic: A&E Red Block Issues
09:15:28 <ArtB> AB: do we still have a HTML5 depedency issue?
09:15:31 <ArtB> MC: no
09:17:04 <ArtB> Topic: BONDI and Widget Specs
09:17:12 <ArtB> ScribeNick: claudio
09:17:19 <MikeSmith> I'm here
09:18:16 <claudio> DR: has sent information to the list about BONDI candidate release 1.0.2
09:18:20 <claudio> DR:
09:18:58 <claudio> DR: OMTP  intention is bringing APIs into W3C 
09:19:29 <claudio> DR: just want to understand whether to target existing W3C groups or new ones
09:20:34 <claudio> AB: good overview, referencing W3C specs actually means targeting working drafts
09:21:10 <tlr> tlr has joined #wam
09:21:24 <MikeSmith> tlr, can you call in for a bit please?
09:21:49 <tlr> errm, I don't even know what's on the agenda right now?
09:21:53 <claudio> AB: BONDI may begin to implements w3c specs which are in working draft status
09:22:38 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-781
09:22:38 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
09:22:40 <Zakim> +Thomas
09:22:43 <claudio> Doug:It is not really a novelty
09:22:49 <tlr> zakim, I am thomas
09:22:49 <Zakim> ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
09:22:51 <tlr> zakim, mute me
09:22:51 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
09:23:05 <RRSAgent> I'm logging.  Sorry, nothing found for 'who is on the phone'
09:23:05 <ArtB> Present+ Thomas
09:23:11 <claudio> Doug: it is more about what constraints they are going to bring to those
09:23:50 <claudio> DR: we say we reference W3C there's any intention to diverge or fork
09:24:01 <timeless> zakim, who is here?
09:24:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see +45.29.aabb, Mike, Doug_Schepers, +68028aacc, Josh_Soref, Thomas (muted)
09:24:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see tlr, annevk, drogersuk, Marcos, claudio, ivandm, timelE61i, arve, RRSAgent, Zakim, ArtB, MikeSmith, heycam, chaals, shepazu, trackbot, timeless, timelyx
09:24:34 <claudio> MC: risk of forking is very high
09:25:41 <claudio> DR: We'll make all the efforts to avoid it either in referencing or when we'll be extending those
09:26:32 <timeless> AS-0050         Support SHALL be provided         for remotely-initiated Widget     Resource de-installation          
09:26:43 <claudio> AB: providing initial inputs and anticipating results may not work
09:26:58 <tlr> q+
09:27:23 <shepazu> q+
09:27:56 <claudio> DR: we want to of course to influence but don't whant to create inconsistecies or break any process
09:27:59 <ArtB> s/AB: providing/Arve: providing/
09:28:37 <claudio> AB: can you adjust the process to address this concerns?
09:28:37 <timeless> AS-0160          The system SHALL by                default inhibit automated          update of widget resources         over PLMN when in roaming          mode                               
09:29:17 <claudio> DR: we want to prevent fragmentations not create new ones anyhow
09:29:54 <tlr> zakim, unmute me
09:29:54 <Zakim> Thomas should no longer be muted
09:29:58 <timeless> ack tlr
09:30:13 <timeless> ack thomas
09:30:26 <claudio> AB: reducing fragmentation is good but the current situation would lead to increase rather then reduce it 
09:31:21 <claudio> TR: so you would track changes created in BONDI to W3C?
09:31:58 <claudio> DR: DR we are referencing p&c not cut and pasting pieces of that
09:33:14 <claudio> Doug: what if a working draft changes critical apsects of already implemented previous working draft?
09:34:05 <Marcos> +q to about test suite
09:34:31 <claudio> DR: we don't want to break any spec with our extensions
09:35:39 <claudio> DR:it is more a natural evolution addressing market needs
09:36:27 <MikeSmith> ack shepazu 
09:36:47 <claudio> Doug:  Will OMTP take responsibility of maintain consistency?
09:36:57 <claudio> DR: yes
09:37:05 <Zakim> - +68028aacc
09:37:30 <claudio> Doug: We don't want to create frustration in the market
09:37:43 <tlr> q+
09:37:57 <claudio> MC: the risk is that vendors won't claim conformance
09:38:07 <Benoit> Benoit has joined #wam
09:38:47 <claudio> MC: different implementation and frustrations lead to fragmentation 
09:39:00 <ivandm> I did! :)
09:39:17 <claudio> MC: developers would find incompatible interfaces and so on
09:39:21 <claudio> MC:
09:39:58 <claudio> MC: Opera has business requirements too here
09:40:17 <shepazu> q+
09:40:30 <claudio> MC: you might consider the way around come to W3C and help us speed up things from inside
09:41:16 <claudio> DR: many of us are members of OMTP and have already deployed widgets 
09:41:38 <claudio> DR: isn't it fragmentation?
09:42:30 <tlr> art, can I speak, pleasE?
09:42:53 <claudio> AB: OMTP is committing resource in a spec to which non OMTP members don't have any visibility
09:44:31 <claudio> TR:  the mainstream discussion should be inside this WG
09:45:18 <claudio> TR: we should start thinking a serious strategies against fragmentation 
09:45:48 <Marcos> tlr: the packaging spec defines all conformance checker behavior
09:46:06 <ArtB> s/AB: OMTP is/Arve: OMTP is/
09:46:06 <claudio> TR: put additional effort in test suites, validators
09:46:06 <Marcos> s/tlr:/tlr,
09:47:03 <claudio> DR: it seems to me that there is too much suspicion in the air
09:47:27 <claudio> DR: we do leave things open to public feedback
09:47:32 <abraun> abraun has joined #wam
09:48:02 <claudio> DR: we are already putting resources here and we'd put more on validators if needed
09:48:17 <tlr> q+ to ask for clarification
09:48:22 <Marcos> -q
09:49:12 <claudio> Doug: validator should help transforming docs to more conformant ones
09:50:08 <claudio> Doug: if there is a clear strategy I'm not concerned implementations are always valuable
09:50:41 <mdadas> mdadas has joined #wam
09:51:07 <claudio> AB: spec extension have to be supported although inconsistent to original specs
09:51:59 <Marcos> +q to the ultimate solution
09:52:25 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
09:52:25 <claudio> Claudio: what about w3c and OASIS liason it seems to work well
09:52:32 <ArtB> CV: can we leverage any experiences from W3C + OASIS liaison that could be applicable in this case?
09:52:45 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
09:52:55 <claudio> TR: there's an overhead in admin in this kind of liason
09:53:33 <claudio> TR: here is different, we don't want work that modify the widget spec defined in this group
09:54:05 <drogersuk> q+
09:54:49 <claudio> AB: want to mention that within two weeks BONDI is going to implement specs 
09:55:09 <claudio> AB: they will take W3C spec as they are
09:55:20 <tlr> that is extremely useful information
09:56:04 <claudio> TR: patent policy doesn't cover things which are not reccomendation
09:56:35 <claudio> TR: patent policy and process are not separable
09:57:37 <claudio> TR: if it is very valuable for everybody you can make it but
09:58:50 <claudio> Doug: this might lead to to patent related issues we should consider
09:59:10 <claudio> TR: going out of the process is dangerous
09:59:27 <drogersuk> Members make an RF commitment on joining the group however
09:59:39 <claudio> TR: it might not help the ecosystem at all at the end
10:00:43 <claudio> DR: OMTP will continue to reference spec as they evolve to final release to reduce fragmentation
10:00:49 <tlr> drogers: OMTP will reference specifications as they evolve, all the way to REC
10:01:06 <claudio> DR: will continue to commit resources here to ensure it
10:01:36 <tlr> drogersuk, if the discussions that are within the scope of this group are happening here, then there was a misperception earlier.
10:02:27 <claudio> DR: we'll keep our indipendent status 
10:03:17 <claudio> MC: two or three OMTP editors should come and help going on with the spec
10:03:18 <timeless> s/dip/dep/
10:03:37 <tlr> q+
10:04:22 <claudio> TR: when do we get editor names?
10:04:43 <ArtB> ACTION: Rogers create a proposal for OMTP members to supply Editor(s) for the Widgets specs
10:04:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-314 - Create a proposal for OMTP members to supply Editor(s) for the Widgets specs [on David Rogers - due 2009-03-05].
10:05:04 <claudio> DR: I will strongly reccommend it to OMTP and come back to you with an answer soon
10:05:26 <claudio> DR: to clarify that we don't want to diverge
10:06:19 <claudio> MC: Mark Priestlu was great but we need somebody else
10:06:44 <Marcos> s/Priestlu/Priestley
10:07:19 <claudio> DR: OMTP will continue providing resources to this meeting and do its best for prevent forking
10:07:57 <claudio> DR: forking is going off and never come back
10:08:16 <claudio> AB: but you create a divergence point anyhow
10:08:47 <annevk> (Opera's widgets implementation uses a different media type)
10:08:54 <annevk> (so it's vastly different)
10:09:03 <claudio> Doug: looking forward to hear about evolution strategies and resources form OMTP
10:09:29 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
10:15:11 <MikeSmith> Zakim, drop Mike
10:15:11 <Zakim> Mike is being disconnected
10:15:13 <Zakim> -Mike
10:31:40 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
10:31:50 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
10:31:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html ArtB
10:36:16 <Marcos> Marcos has joined #wam
10:36:30 <ArtB> Topic: Widget URI Scheme
10:36:42 <ArtB> AB: what did BONDI do about this issue?
10:37:10 <ArtB> DR: we are going to take WebApps' lead
10:37:19 <ArtB> AB: what will you tell your implementors next week?
10:37:29 <ArtB> MC: I couldn't find anything in the BONDI specs
10:37:38 <ArtB> ... file: has holes
10:38:39 <ArtB> Arve: think we need to take a few steps back
10:39:10 <ArtB> ... need a URI resolution mechanism
10:39:30 <ArtB> DR: the TAG didn't respond to MC's last email right?
10:39:52 <ArtB> MC: tag URI scheme has some pros and cons
10:40:26 <ArtB> ... see http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme#tag:_URI_scheme
10:40:59 <ArtB> ... doesn't meet all of our reqs
10:41:19 <ArtB> MC: to create a new URI scheme is objectionable by the TAG
10:42:20 <tlr> q+
10:42:25 <tlr> queue=
10:42:34 <drogersuk> q-
10:42:45 <ArtB> Arve: for: every scheme we have investigated has had at least one prob
10:43:40 <ArtB> ... i.e. no existing scheme meets all of our reqs
10:45:45 <ArtB> MC: I've asked the package API mail list "what do we need to do to make the tag: URI scheme compatible with IRIs?"
10:46:06 <ArtB> Arve: what do we need to do here?
10:46:23 <tlr> q+
10:47:02 <ArtB> ... why should we shoe-horn our requirements into some existing scheme?
10:47:26 <ArtB> ... that effectivley results in us creating a new spec that is subset of an existing spec (RFC)
10:47:29 <Marcos> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pkg-uri-scheme/2009Jan/0000.html
10:47:42 <ArtB> ... We have defined our design goals
10:47:59 <Marcos> ^^ me asking what we need to do
10:48:24 <ArtB> TR: what happened with the manifest discussion yesterday?
10:48:41 <ArtB> MC: we agreed to create a new spec for it but it may not be part of the Widgets spec suite
10:49:37 <ArtB> ... minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/25-wam-minutes.html
10:49:46 <ArtB> TR: what is the status and roadmap?
10:49:52 <ArtB> MC: see the minutes
10:50:31 <ArtB> TR: what about http URI scheme?
10:50:53 <ArtB> MC: we have several problems with that e.g. Origin may not make sense
10:51:18 <ArtB> TR: having a manifest may add a layer of indirection that could help
10:51:34 <ArtB> MC: doesn't solve the DOM node resolution prob
10:51:35 <Marcos> <manifest xmlns="">
10:51:35 <Marcos>    <media path="" type=""/>
10:51:35 <Marcos>    <media ext="space delimited list" type=""/>
10:51:35 <Marcos> </manifest>
10:53:34 <ArtB> TR: I suggest looking at the manifest as a level of indirection that may help
10:54:30 <ArtB> Josh: MHTML has a sec vulnerability that is not solvable
10:54:40 <ArtB> ... serviing from http: is not OK
10:55:41 <ArtB> s/serviing/serving/
10:55:56 <Marcos> Josh: certs for SSL are not the same as code signing certs for widgets
10:56:29 <ArtB> TR: is your concern Josh about cross-origin or in orgin pollution?
10:56:43 <ArtB> Josh: I'm concerned about both
10:57:27 <ArtB> ... are there any signed widgets in the wild today?
10:57:35 <ArtB> ... how long will a cert last?
10:57:52 <ArtB> MC: Konfab signs certs but I don't know how long they last
10:58:42 <arve> q+++
10:58:54 <tlr> q-
10:58:57 <tlr> queue=
10:59:32 <tlr> arve is right here
10:59:33 <Marcos> arve: as mc said, lets not talk about sigs right now
10:59:44 <tlr> the question is whether the indirection approach *can* work
10:59:56 <Marcos> arve: we will return to that, lets just deal with URI resolution in the packaging spec
11:00:05 <tlr> MHTML: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557
11:00:12 <Marcos> scribenick: marcos
11:00:28 <Marcos> scribenick: Marcos
11:00:33 <ArtB> ArtB has joined #wam
11:00:59 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
11:00:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html ArtB
11:02:06 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
11:02:24 <ArtB> MC: what design do you recommend Thomas?
11:02:55 <ArtB> TR: may have deviate from classical definition of Origin
11:03:14 <ArtB> ... realize this doesn't make the problem easier
11:03:17 <ArtB> MC: yes, agree
11:03:35 <ArtB> ... it's the tiny issues that are creating problems with us
11:03:57 <ArtB> TR: problem seems to be same origin policy
11:04:18 <ArtB> ... may be able to use synthetic origins for files taken out of the package
11:04:33 <ArtB> ... I can send a strawman to the list
11:04:47 <ArtB> ... I suspect you will have the same probs no matter what scheme you use
11:05:01 <ArtB> Arve: I don't think origin is relevant here
11:05:07 <ArtB> MC: agree
11:05:26 <ArtB> Arve: don't want to bind the resources in the package to something on disc
11:06:06 <ArtB> TR: I understand you do not want an http server in the WUA
11:06:45 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #wam
11:06:48 <ArtB> MC: we want something like file: but not broken and evil
11:07:08 <ArtB> TR: must distinguish between identity and retrieval
11:07:55 <ArtB> ... you may not a new URI scheme but a way to determine base URI for starting resource
11:08:16 <ArtB> ... and a definition of what happens to base uri if you deref something from the package
11:09:08 <ArtB> TR: if you assume base uri is a randon uri created for the running widget and the path begins with /
11:09:38 <ArtB> [ missed TR's further statement ... ]
11:10:04 <ArtB> ACTION: Thomas submit your proposed model re URI scheme to the mail list
11:10:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-315 - Submit your proposed model re URI scheme to the mail list [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-03-05].
11:10:34 <ArtB> TR: think about how to synthesize base URIs and how to resolve them
11:10:56 <ArtB> MC: tag uri does indeed address the synthesis issue
11:11:17 <ArtB> ... and our widget scheme defines the resolution part
11:11:58 <ArtB> TR: is it a req that an existing web app can be put in a package and it just works?
11:12:17 <ArtB> Arve: we think there is a different security model for widgets
11:12:33 <ArtB> ... in some cases the security model must be stronger
11:14:08 <Zakim> -Thomas
11:14:11 <ArtB> TR: I will write up my thoughts now and submit them to the list
11:14:45 <ArtB> MC: I think this is a massive problem and was surprised BONDI has not done anything to address it
11:15:18 <ArtB> ... we've spent two years on this
11:15:31 <ArtB> DR: we should escalate this issue then
11:15:56 <ArtB> Arve: BONDI File I/O api must address this
11:16:20 <ArtB> DR: so what do we need to do to resolve this in a timely manner?
11:16:32 <ArtB> MC: Josh would be the most ideal person to take this
11:16:49 <ArtB> ... Josh - can you take this problem and make a proposal?
11:16:56 <ArtB> ... I don't have the time to take this
11:17:14 <ArtB> ... I think you Josh has the proper background to tackle this issue
11:18:12 <ArtB> Josh: I don't think I can make a time commitment right now
11:18:22 <ArtB> ... Do you want a requirements list?
11:18:26 <ArtB> MC: yes
11:19:10 <ArtB> ACTION: Barstow send Josh the relevant pointers to facilitate his creating requirements for URI scheme
11:19:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-316 - Send Josh the relevant pointers to facilitate his creating requirements for URI scheme [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-03-05].
11:19:23 <ArtB> AB: who from BONDI can help?
11:19:39 <ArtB> DR: I'll take this back to OMTP
11:20:35 <ArtB> ACTION: Rogers determine a contact in BONDI that can help the WG work on a solution to the widget scheme
11:20:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-317 - Determine a contact in BONDI that can help the WG work on a solution to the widget scheme [on David Rogers - due 2009-03-05].
11:21:21 <ArtB> MC: the TAG has responded to all of our emails and created a new mail list for related discussions
11:21:33 <tlr> marcos, what's that mailing list?
11:21:49 <ArtB> ... However, I'm not sure we have clearly documented our related requirements well enough to make our case to the TAG
11:22:33 <ArtB> AB: package list is:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pkg-uri-scheme/
11:23:40 <Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r6.-addressing-scheme http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r37.-resolve-addressing-scheme-to-uri-scheme
11:23:46 <Marcos> Timeless see ^^
11:24:00 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
11:24:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html ArtB
11:24:15 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
11:24:26 <tlr> ugh
11:24:37 <tlr> R37 specifies a solution, not a requirement
11:29:46 <arve> arve has joined #wam
11:56:31 <timelE61i> timelE61i has joined #wam
12:08:55 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
12:15:30 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-781
12:15:30 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
12:15:31 <Zakim> +Thomas
12:20:05 <Zakim> - +45.29.aabb
12:28:55 <Marcos> Marcos has joined #wam
12:29:21 <ArtB> ArtB has joined #wam
12:29:30 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:29:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html ArtB
12:29:53 <ArtB> Topic: Schedules
12:29:59 <ArtB> AB: P&C spec ...
12:30:08 <ArtB> MC: I will try to get a new WD by March 9
12:30:27 <ArtB> AB: will that be a new LC doc?
12:30:33 <ArtB> MC: yes
12:30:55 <ArtB> Arve: what is the expecation re open issue?
12:31:06 <ArtB> MC: I expect all open issues to be addressed
12:31:38 <claudio> claudio has joined #wam
12:32:23 <ArtB> BS: so what is the theoretical earliest Candidate?
12:32:52 <ArtB> AB: after we repond and resolve all comments from LC #2, we can then set a CR date
12:33:10 <ArtB> AB: any other comments about P&C?
12:33:13 <ArtB> [ None ]
12:33:20 <ArtB> AB: A&E spec ...
12:33:54 <ArtB> Arve: trying to get a new WD published when we publish LC #2 of the P&C
12:34:06 <ArtB> AB: any comments on Arve's proposal?
12:34:15 <ArtB> AB: that's a very good target
12:34:33 <ArtB> ... but what would that mean for the widget scheme
12:34:48 <ArtB> AB: is the widget URI scheme a separate spec?
12:34:51 <ArtB> MC: yes
12:35:10 <ArtB> AB: who is the editor of that spec?
12:35:13 <ArtB> MC: Josh
12:35:20 <ArtB> AB: did he agree to that?
12:35:34 <ArtB> MC: I think yes
12:35:36 <Marcos> Timeless, is that right?
12:35:43 <ArtB> AB: OK, I'll talk to him
12:36:07 <ArtB> MC: I am willing to be the Editor IFF someone provides the input [Hint to Josh]
12:36:34 <ArtB> Arve: I don't want the scheme spec to not be widgets-specific
12:36:59 <arve> s/to not/to/
12:37:08 <ArtB> AB: anything else on the A&E spec?
12:37:46 <ArtB> AB: DigSig spec ...
12:38:43 <ArtB> BS: I recorded LC #1 publication on 16 April
12:39:23 <Benoit> Benoit has joined #wam
12:39:36 <ArtB> AB: we are planning a new WD in March, right?
12:39:41 <ArtB> MC: yes that is my expectation
12:39:55 <ArtB> AB: I will follow-up with FJH
12:40:16 <ArtB> BS: it would be best if it could be published by March 9
12:40:32 <ArtB> AB: is Orange willing to help with some of the editing or test cases?
12:40:50 <ArtB> Mohammed: I will need to get back to you on that
12:41:01 <ArtB> AB: Updates spec ...
12:41:18 <ArtB> AB: we didn't discus this spec during this meeting
12:41:44 <ArtB> AB: is Orange willing to help with the Editing and push that spec forward?
12:42:13 <ArtB> MC: after the P&C spec is published, I will start working on Updates again
12:42:27 <ArtB> AB: are any WG members willing to help with Updates spec?
12:42:30 <ArtB> [ None ]
12:42:42 <ArtB> AB: Window modes specs ...
12:43:23 <ArtB> AB: what is your understanding Marcos, regarding these two specs?
12:43:36 <ArtB> MC: one will define the modes and their behavior
12:43:51 <ArtB> ... Arve and I will co-Edit that one
12:43:55 <Zakim> -Thomas
12:44:03 <ArtB> ... provided we get appropriate management support
12:44:21 <tlr> zakim, who is on the phone?
12:44:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Josh_Soref
12:44:27 <tlr> folks, the meeting room isn't on the phone
12:44:37 <tlr> otherwise you'd have heard Josh and me go through the URI scheme discussion
12:44:39 <ArtB> MC: regarding the other spec, we need to discuss with CSS WG but I think I and/or Arve will be the Editor
12:45:22 <ArtB> ... that 2nd one is tentatively titled "widget media query extensions" 
12:45:54 <ArtB> AB: can we say anything about FPWD for these two specs?
12:46:04 <ArtB> Arve: I think these are both 3-5 pages
12:46:13 <tlr> YOU ARE NOT ON THE PHONE, JOSH IS.
12:46:17 <ArtB> AB: any volunteers to help with these two specs?
12:46:51 <ArtB> AB: can you say anything about FPWD dates for these two specs?
12:46:54 <ArtB> MC: no, not now
12:47:33 <ArtB> AB: anything else?
12:47:50 <ArtB> BS: we have no pub date for the abstract scheme spec
12:48:00 <ArtB> AB: we have no commitment for an Editor yet
12:48:49 <ArtB> AB: any volunteers to help with the abstract scheme spec?
12:48:54 <ArtB> [ None ]
12:49:23 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:49:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html ArtB
12:50:15 <ArtB> Topic: Guest Presentation
12:50:29 <ArtB> AB: propose we end the meeting now
12:50:34 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
12:50:37 <ArtB> [ None ]
12:51:12 <ArtB> AB: any objections to the discussions by Scott et al being on the public mail list?
12:51:15 <ArtB> [ None ]
12:51:29 <ArtB> AB: Meeting Adjourned
12:51:34 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:51:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html ArtB
12:52:07 <ArtB> RRSAgent, bye
12:52:07 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-actions.rdf :
12:52:07 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Marcos work with Arve to update the preferences API to reflect discussions on 26-Feb-2009 [1]
12:52:07 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-irc#T09-08-55
12:52:07 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Rogers create a proposal for OMTP members to supply Editor(s) for the Widgets specs [2]
12:52:07 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-irc#T10-04-43
12:52:07 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Thomas submit your proposed model re URI scheme to the mail list [3]
12:52:07 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-irc#T11-10-04
12:52:07 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Barstow send Josh the relevant pointers to facilitate his creating requirements for URI scheme [4]
12:52:07 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-irc#T11-19-10
12:52:07 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Rogers determine a contact in BONDI that can help the WG work on a solution to the widget scheme [5]
12:52:07 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-irc#T11-20-35