Widgets Voice Conference

05 Mar 2009


See also: IRC log


Art, Frederick, Josh, Jere, Marcos, Arve, David, Benoit
Claudio, Bryan




<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 5 March 2009

<fjh> widgets signature editors draft update

<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures

<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures

Review and tweak agenda

AB: agenda posted March 4 - is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0622.html
... the main agenda items are Open Issues. I only want to spend a few minutes on each of them to get a sense of where we are e.g. still Open, pending inputs, can be Closed. Any detailed technical discussions should occur on public-webapps mail list.
... Are there any change requests?

[ None ]


AB: I don't have any urgent announcements
... what about others?

FH: please submit comments on XML Sig 1.1 drafts

DR: I will respond to Art's BONDI 1.0 email so please look at that

<fjh> please review XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties FPWD

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25

MC: I uploaded the Window Modes spec; would like to get that on the agenda

DigSig + P&C synchronization

AB: earlier this week Frederick asked me if the DigSig + P&C specs are now in synch, based on last week's discussions?

<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures

AB: I believe the answer is yes.
... where are we on this?

MC: FH and I talked about this
... I think this is mostly now addressed
... P&C has no real depedency on DigSig

<fjh> marcos notes merged steps 4 +5, moved locating to dig sig, removed signature variable from p + c

MC: I haven't completed the P&C changes yet
... e.g. renumber some steps

<fjh> fjh notes revised text on locating to fit it within digsig but essence is same

FH: I had to revise the location text a bit but the logic is the same
... Josh asked about the sorting
... I need to think about that a bit more

JS: need to clarify diff between "9" and "009"
... we can take this discussion to the list

FH: I agree we need more rigor here

MC: I agree too
... need to address case sensitivity too

AB: can we point to some existing work?

FH: I don't think this is a big issue and agree we can discuss on the list

AB: what needs to be done then?

FH: I need to make a few changes to DigSig and MC needs to do a bit more on P&C

JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding readability

MC: I can help with that

FH: I'll take a pass at that

DR: re the ell curve issue, I have asked OMTP to provide comments by March 9 so I should have data for the WG by Mar 12

Issue-19 - Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use cases and requirements;

AB: do we now consider this issue adequately addressed to close it?
... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19>
... my gut feel here is this is now addressed and we can close it.
... any comments?

MC: the DigSig enumerates reqs it addresses
... it's a bit out of sync
... we need to sync the Reqs doc with the DigSig spec re the reqs
... so I think we can close it

AB: any other comments?

FH: not sure how much synching we need to do on the reqs
... I do think we can close this issue

RESOLUTION: we close Issue #19 as the spec now adresses the original concerns

Issue-80 - Runtime localization model for widgets

AB: are there still some pending actions and input needed?
... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/80>
... what is the plan for the next couple of weeks?

MC: I added a new example to the latest ED
... I still have some additional work on the model
... I talked with JS earlier today
... I'm still uneasy re the fwd slash "/"
... we must maintain the semantics of URI
... Need to understand if we can do it without the leading /
... and to still have the fallback model

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#fallback-behavior-example

AB: note there are related actions 298 and 299
... are there other inputs you need?

MC: by the end of the day I hope to have something to share with Jere and Josh

JK: I will review it later and send comments

AB: we need not just Editors but technical contributors too

DR: it would be helpful if MC could identify areas where Bryan can help

AB: any other comments on #80?
... we will leave that open for now

Issue-82 - potential conflict between the XHTML <access> and Widget <access> element.

AB: What, if anything, should be done?
... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82>

MC: re last Topic, Jere, please consider XML Base when you review the new inputs

JK: yes, good point and that should be reflected in the spec

MC: this can be conceived of as a virtual file system at the conceptual level

JK: don't want the spec to specify a file system

MC: agree; I was just using that as part of my mental model

<JereK> I thought it was just shuffling URLs also in impl

AB: re #82 was not discussed in Paris
... what are people thinking?

MC: I think we can close this since we are using a separate namespace

Arve: agree

AB: other comments?
... I completely agree

<timeless> "namespaces will save us ;-)"

AB: propose we close this with a resolution of "we address this by defining our own namespace"
... any objections to this proposal?

<JereK> or "believe in namespaces or not" :)

RESOLUTION: close Issue #82 - we address by defining our own namespace

Issue-83 - Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital signature.

AB: What is the status of this issue and is this against P&C spec of DigSig spec?
... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/83>
... did you create this Marcos?

MC: yes. It was raised by Mark

FH: this issues identifies an potential attack

AB: is this something we must address in v1?

MC: yes. Need a 1-liner in the DigSig spec

FH: I don't quite understand the issue though

MC: me neither

FH: we already have some security consids
... I recommend we get some more information from Mark

AB: so we need to get more info from Mark?

MC: yes

FH: I don't understand the real threat scenario

MC: me neither

JS: same with me

FH: I suggest this be closed unless we have new information and ask Mark to provide more information

DR: or could leave it open until Mark responds

AB: we'll leave it open for now and I'll take an action to ping Mark for more information on the threat scenario

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about the real threat scenario re Issue #83 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#action01]

Widget requirement #37 (URI scheme etc) - see e-mail from Thomas:

AB: Thomas submitted some comments against Req #37 and I don't believe we have yet responded
... <http://www.w3.org/mid/9DD110C1-D860-40C9-B688-2E08F4D86D20@w3.org>
... perhaps we should take the discussion to public-webapps and drop it from today's agenda. OK?
... any comments?

Open Actions

AB: last week we created about 20 Actions and about 15 are still open.
... To continue to make good progress on our specs we need to address these actions ASAP
... Please review the actions and address any assigned to you.
... Also do indeed feel free to submit inputs to address others' actions
... Widget Actions are: <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8>
... Let me know if you want agenda time for any of these Actions

June f2f meeting

AB: re location, we now have three proposals: Oslo/Opera, Edinburgh/OMTP and London/Vodafone. That's certainly sufficient to close the call for hosts.
... re the dates, June 2-4 are preferable.
... it will of course be impossible to satisfy everyone's #1 priority

DR: June 2-4 conflicts with OMTP meeting

AB: we should also be as Green as we can as well as to try to minimize travel costs and simplify logistics for everyone, including those attending from other continents

<fjh> that first week of june is not good for me

AB: are there any other conflicts with June 2-4?
... are there any conflicts with June 9-11?

<abraun> there are always places in North America. I can think of one place with lots of hotels ;)

DR: not from OMTP's side

MC: that's OK with Opera

AB: anyone else
... it looks like June 9-11 then is best
... any comments about the location?

<timeless> abraun: there's already SJ later in the year

<timeless> so i think the us is out for this meeting

DR: We are happy to cede with Dan's offer to host in London
... I think London is probably the most cost effective

JS: housing in London can be very expensive
... I assume Edinburgh would be cheaper
... I expect to pay for this trip out of my own pocket

<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures

Arve: lodging in London is not cheaper than Oslo

DR: London is an inexpensive hub to get to
... i think airfare costs will dominate the overall cost of travel

MC: we can live with London
... but want to host the next meeting

AB: any other comments?

JS: I need to check another calendar

AB: I will make a decision in a week or so
... the leading candidate is London June 9-11

JS: I just checked, no conflicts that week

TPAC meeting in November

AB: Charles asked everyone to submit comments about the W3C's proposed TPAC meeting in November
... see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2009JanMar/0044.html>
... I think the general consensus is: a) it's too early to make a firm commitment; b) we support the idea of an all-WG meeting; c) if there are sufficient topics to discuss then we should meet that week.
... Does that seem like a fair characterization? Does anyone have any other comments?

<Marcos> ?

<arve> did everyone, or just us get dropped from the call?

<timeless> just you

<arve> our call appears to be up, but we can't hear

AB: Charles and I need to report to the Team by the end of next week
... again that November TPAC meetingn is in Silicon Valley

JS: if Moz has a meeting I can piggy-back then that would increase my probability of attending

FH: XML Security is tentatively planning to meet at TPAC on Thursday Friday, so to avoid overlap can Widgets meet Mon and Tue

AB: I think the most we can report to the Team is "Yes, we tenatively have agreement to meet during TPAC"

Window Modes

<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html

AB: this is Excellent Marcos!

MC: give the credit to Arve :)

AB: so this captures last week's strawman?

MC: yes

Arve: it also includes some interfaces

MC: the APIs will be moved to the A&E spec
... it will only contain the defn of the modes and the Media Queries

BS: this is a good start

AB: anything else on this topic Marcos?

MC: we will work on this over the next few weeks and get it ready for a FPWD

AB: so a FPWD in the beginning of April?

MC: yes, that would be ideal

Editorial Tasks

DR: I asked OMTP members if they can contribute
... we have an offer from Bryan and ATT
... they want to know specifics

AB: that's a good idea
... I want to first talk to the editors

DR: OK. I will also see if I can get more support

AB: any other comments on this topic?

Anything Else

DR: I just responded to Art's BONDI Release Candidate e-mail
... we have extended the comment period to March 23
... the comments should all be public

JS: I tried to submit feedback and I ran into problems with OMTP's web site
... it would be really good if the comments could be sent to a mail list

DR: if you send me the comments that would be good

JS: OK; will do but not this week

AB: is the URI of the public comment archive available?

DR: yes Nick sent it to public-webapps
... depending on the comments we will determine our next step
... the next OMTP meeting is the following week

AB: thanks for the update David
... anythign else?
... Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about the real threat scenario re Issue #83 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/03/05 15:00:14 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/FHI/FH/
Succeeded: s/Marcoss/Mark/
Succeeded: s/would close this/suggest this be closed unless we have new information/
Succeeded: s/we are tentatively meeting that week Wend to Friday/XML Security is tentatively planning to meet at TPAC on Thursday Friday, so to avoid overlap can Widgets meet Mon and Tue/
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Present: Art Frederick Josh Jere Marcos Arve David Benoit
Regrets: Claudio Bryan
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0622.html
Found Date: 05 Mar 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: ask barstow mark

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]