IRC log of wam on 2009-06-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:00:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:00:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-irc
13:00:32 [JereK]
zakim, aabb is JereK
13:00:32 [Zakim]
+JereK; got it
13:00:33 [Zakim]
+Art_Barstow
13:00:38 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
13:00:44 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
13:00:47 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
13:00:50 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
13:00:57 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conf
13:01:02 [ArtB]
Date: 4 June 2009
13:01:03 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike-Mobile
13:01:03 [Zakim]
ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
13:01:04 [Zakim]
+Mike
13:01:08 [arve]
arve has joined #wam
13:01:14 [Zakim]
+??P2
13:01:20 [ArtB]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0728.html
13:01:37 [arve]
Zakim, PP2 is me
13:01:38 [Zakim]
sorry, arve, I do not recognize a party named 'PP2'
13:02:10 [arve]
zakim, ??PP2 is me
13:02:10 [Zakim]
sorry, arve, I do not recognize a party named '??PP2'
13:02:18 [arve]
Zakim: P2 is me
13:02:22 [ArtB]
Present: Art, Robin, Thomas, Arve, Marcos, Josh, Jere, David
13:02:28 [darobin]
zakim, OMTP holds drogersuk
13:02:28 [Zakim]
+drogersuk; got it
13:02:34 [arve]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
13:02:34 [Zakim]
+arve; got it
13:02:42 [ArtB]
Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:02:50 [ArtB]
AB: I posted the agenda on June 3 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0728.html). The only change I propose is to change the order of 3.b and 3.c. Any change requests?
13:03:08 [mpriestl]
mpriestl has joined #wam
13:03:56 [ArtB]
TR: move f2f preps to end of meeting
13:04:04 [ArtB]
AB: OK; we will do that
13:04:22 [ArtB]
AB: add Mark's latest email re DigSig to the agenda
13:04:51 [ArtB]
AB: Robin, will you represent Mark on this call?
13:05:00 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
13:05:02 [darobin]
mpriestl: can you get on the call?
13:05:07 [ArtB]
RB: no, not really
13:05:16 [ArtB]
Present+ Frederick
13:05:23 [fjh]
zakim, [IPcaller] is fjh
13:05:23 [Zakim]
+fjh; got it
13:05:29 [Zakim]
+ +44.771.751.aacc
13:05:35 [ArtB]
Present+ Mark
13:05:43 [ArtB]
Topic: Announcements
13:05:50 [ArtB]
AB: I have one short announcement: for those of you following the Draft DAP WG Charter () discussions, Frederick has been designated as a Chair (along with Robin)
13:06:21 [ArtB]
DR: what is the Chair selection process?
13:06:27 [ArtB]
TR: it is mostly opaque
13:06:31 [ArtB]
... and Team driven
13:06:49 [ArtB]
DR: if you would direct me to the Proc Doc; I'm not clear on it
13:06:55 [ArtB]
TR: sure, I can do that
13:07:09 [ArtB]
... I think the only relevant text is "the Director will appoint the Chair"
13:07:19 [ArtB]
AB: any other announcements?
13:07:21 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:07:39 [ArtB]
Topic: DigSig LCWD comments by Vodafone
13:07:54 [ArtB]
AB: Mark submitted comments this morning which is 3 days too late
13:07:58 [Zakim]
+ +68028aadd
13:08:16 [ArtB]
AB: my recommendation is to postpone the handling of those comments until after the CR is published
13:08:24 [ArtB]
AB: comments on my proposal?
13:08:29 [ArtB]
MP: that is fine for VF
13:08:42 [ArtB]
... I am sorry those comments were late
13:09:10 [ArtB]
... I don't think any of the comments will affect Candidate
13:09:20 [ArtB]
... one may be a bit problematic
13:09:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.536.aaee
13:10:02 [ArtB]
AB: want to emphasize we will always accept comments
13:10:14 [ArtB]
... we do have to be careful though about moving the target date
13:10:50 [ArtB]
AB: proposed Resolution: we will handle VF's LCWD comments of June 4 during CR
13:10:55 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
13:10:57 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:11:01 [Marcos_]
Marcos_ has joined #wam
13:11:11 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: we will handle VF's LCWD comments of June 4 during CR
13:11:20 [ArtB]
Topic: Widgets Dig Sig spec: agree on candidate exit criteria:
13:11:30 [ArtB]
AB: a few days ago I proposed some text for the WidDigSig's Candidate "exit criteria" (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0700.html). Any comments about that proposal?
13:11:36 [fjh]
q+
13:12:45 [Marcos_]
+a
13:12:52 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to the proposed Exit Criteria?
13:12:56 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:13:02 [ArtB]
Topic: Widgets Dig Sig spec: Dependency on XML Sig 1.1
13:13:24 [ArtB]
AB: one issue we need to discuss before resolving to publish a DigSig CR is "how far can this spec go in the Recommendation track with a normative dependency on a WD of XML Digital Signatures 1.1?". My understanding is PR but no further. Thomas or Mike, would you please clarify?
13:13:59 [ArtB]
TR: I believe your understanding is correct
13:14:06 [ArtB]
... but I'll check
13:14:23 [MikeSmith]
q+ to say that we have not hard-and-fast rule
13:14:23 [ArtB]
... I think the doc is well hidden
13:14:55 [ArtB]
AB: XBL2 has a precedence of this
13:15:18 [ArtB]
TR: let's proceed as if this won't be an issue and we can deal with it later if we need to
13:15:24 [ArtB]
MS: +1 to TR
13:15:36 [ArtB]
AB: we then proceed as planned
13:15:43 [ArtB]
Topic: Widgets Digital Signature spec: Proposal to publish Candidate Recommendation
13:15:56 [ArtB]
AB: the WidDigSig spec is ready to be published as a Candidate Recommendation. Any objections to that?
13:16:18 [ArtB]
MC: I have concerns about the cannoicalization aspects
13:16:24 [ArtB]
... have they been resolved?
13:16:44 [ArtB]
TR: are these general issues or ones that can be dealt with during CR
13:16:45 [fjh]
q+
13:16:57 [MikeSmith]
ack MikeSmith
13:16:57 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to say that we have not hard-and-fast rule
13:17:01 [ArtB]
MC: I hear cannoicalization doesn't work
13:17:12 [ArtB]
TR: the only concern I know of is complexity
13:17:17 [arve]
gotta call back in in a minute
13:17:32 [ArtB]
... the way the spec is used tho, there is no breakage
13:17:44 [ArtB]
FH: we profiled it down
13:17:47 [fjh]
q-
13:17:53 [ArtB]
MC: so OK, it sholdn't be too bad
13:18:04 [Zakim]
-arve
13:18:18 [ArtB]
... I heard it is difficult to implement in .NET
13:18:31 [ArtB]
TR: which cannonicalization?
13:18:37 [ArtB]
MC: the one in the spec
13:18:56 [ArtB]
TR: if .NET it could be a 1.0 vs. 1.1 concern
13:18:56 [timeless_mbp]
what does that mean?
13:19:03 [ArtB]
DR: yes, I think that is true
13:19:12 [Zakim]
+ +47.23.69.aaff
13:19:16 [ArtB]
TR: doesn't matter whether we use 1.0 or 1.1
13:19:25 [fjh]
what i said about profiling is this, since the case is narrow enough
13:19:31 [tlr]
... or exclusive
13:19:34 [fjh]
sounds like a comment that needs to be on the list
13:19:45 [ArtB]
AB: my recommendation is that if this is an issue, it be raised during CR
13:19:53 [ArtB]
MC: yes, I think that is OK
13:20:15 [ArtB]
TR: this will affect interop
13:20:16 [arve_]
arve_ has joined #wam
13:20:29 [ArtB]
... it may be worthwhile to shift to Exclusive right now
13:20:46 [ArtB]
FH: I think that would be reasonable
13:20:56 [ArtB]
... I don't think we need the features of 1.1
13:21:21 [ArtB]
FH: let me check the spec ...
13:22:07 [ArtB]
... 6.3 requires Canon 1.1
13:22:12 [timeless_mbp]
fjh: if i want to give feedback, should i to: you and cc: wg?
13:22:23 [ArtB]
... we can change to Exclusive and that would address the concern
13:22:46 [ArtB]
... TR, is that OK with you?
13:23:00 [ArtB]
TR: Exclusive isn't strictly mandatory
13:23:11 [ArtB]
... think Exclusive is the one to take
13:23:27 [arve]
arve has joined #wam
13:23:39 [ArtB]
MP: is there a ref that could be put in IRC?
13:23:59 [ArtB]
... are we confident we'd end up with the same result?
13:24:03 [fjh]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/
13:24:21 [ArtB]
TR: the two disagree with the handling of namespaces
13:24:34 [ArtB]
... and some subset [missed details ...]
13:24:51 [ArtB]
... we don't use qnames and content
13:25:16 [ArtB]
... only 1 case there could be some diffs and it is if gratuitous namespaces are used but not needed
13:25:20 [fjh]
proposal - change required algorithm in 6.3 from Canonical XML 1.1 omits comments to
13:25:26 [fjh]
Exclusive XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments)
13:25:37 [fjh]
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#
13:25:38 [ArtB]
AB: can we agree to make this change and also agree to move directly to CR?
13:26:01 [ArtB]
TR: the question is if this would "invalidate" a review?
13:26:01 [fjh]
also add reference for Exclusive Canonicalization
13:26:07 [ArtB]
... does anyone think it would?
13:26:16 [ArtB]
RB: no
13:26:36 [ArtB]
FH: I think this is the right thing to do
13:26:51 [ArtB]
... I don't think we'll have any problems
13:27:18 [fjh]
proposal - 1. change required alg in 6.3, 2. add reference to exclusive c14n
13:27:30 [ArtB]
AB: are there any objections to FH's proposal?
13:27:37 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:27:56 [fjh]
Exclusive XML Canonicalization 1.0 (omits comments)
13:28:01 [ArtB]
AB: since we agreed to make this change, are there any objections to going to CR directly?
13:28:15 [fjh]
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#
13:28:17 [ArtB]
[ No ]
13:28:35 [ArtB]
AB: propose: RESOLUTION: the group agrees Widgets Digital Signature spec is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation
13:28:52 [fjh]
with additional changes agreed today
13:28:56 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
13:28:59 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:29:03 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: the group agrees Widgets Digital Signature spec is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation
13:29:37 [ArtB]
ACTION: hirsch notify Art when the excl c14n change has been made and the SoTD is updated for CR
13:30:15 [ArtB]
Topic: WAR spec: UCs and requirements
13:30:31 [ArtB]
AB: we've had a Call for UCs and Reqs (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0581.html) and two related action: Action 347 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/347) and Action 348 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/348).
13:31:00 [ArtB]
AB: besides not having agreement on UCs and Reqs, we also do not have consensus on the definitions of Origin nor Domain of Trust (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/#security-model).
13:31:20 [ArtB]
AB: additionally, there now seems to be an attempt to add UA behavior for the <feature> element regarding security policy e.g. Robin's proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0732.html).
13:32:01 [ArtB]
AB: lastly, I agree with concerns raised by some members of this WG about us specifying something that is going to "tie the hands" of the DAP WG's security policy work.
13:32:42 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
13:32:42 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
13:33:28 [ArtB]
AB: any status of UCs and Reqs?
13:33:30 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:33:57 [darobin]
http://www.w3.org/mid/E3625432-E1AF-42F6-9E5E-73B29EE8DB10@berjon.com
13:34:00 [ArtB]
RB: I sent a related email
13:34:41 [timeless_mbp]
arve: does http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ show "Copyright © 2009 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply." in Opera (10beta)?
13:34:55 [ArtB]
AB: I wasn't sure how the proposal would be reflected in the spec?
13:35:01 [ArtB]
RB: has anyone read it?
13:35:07 [ArtB]
[ No responses ]
13:35:18 [ArtB]
RB: it supports one of the options we have discussed
13:35:30 [ArtB]
... network access requires <access>
13:35:50 [timeless_mbp]
does the widget have access to the iframe?
13:35:56 [ArtB]
... but <access> does not provide access to "sensitive APIs"
13:36:31 [ArtB]
RB: Arve, any comments?
13:36:33 [timeless_mbp]
we can't hear you
13:36:51 [timeless_mbp]
tlr: were you OK or Not OK w/ the original?
13:37:31 [ArtB]
Arve: I agree with a model where a doc outside of the widget does not get any additional access rights
13:38:15 [arve]
artb's summary is right
13:38:59 [ArtB]
RB: is there consensus here?
13:39:24 [ArtB]
TR: I only had a superficial review
13:39:41 [ArtB]
... I am OK with this being added to the FPWD
13:39:53 [ArtB]
FH: I have not reviewed it
13:40:35 [ArtB]
TR: if no one has read it, we can resolve to publish it as FPWD if no objections by some date
13:40:37 [darobin_]
darobin_ has joined #wam
13:41:04 [ArtB]
RB: I haven't reflected my email into the spec
13:42:22 [ArtB]
AB: I would prefer to get RB to reflect his input into the ED, then notify the group and then we can make a decision about FPWD
13:42:28 [ArtB]
RB: I can do that tomorrow
13:42:34 [ArtB]
TR: OK with me
13:42:40 [timeless_mbp]
so basically this spec says that a widget has as much access as the browser?
13:42:59 [ArtB]
AB: next Tues we can make a decision about FPWD
13:43:25 [ArtB]
AB: any last comments about WAR spec for today?
13:43:27 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:43:48 [ArtB]
Topic: Prepare for June 9-11 f2f meeting Draft agenda: comments, priorities, etc.:
13:43:55 [ArtB]
AB: yesterday I tweaked next week's agenda (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsLondonJune2009#Agenda_Items) and will probably make additional small changes over the next few days. Any comments?
13:44:16 [ArtB]
AB: the only firm time for a subject is Tues June 9 13:00-14:30 and it will be Security Policy. Priority will be P&C, and the issues related to advancing W/V Modes, A&E, WAR, and URI specs.
13:45:50 [ArtB]
AB: any comments on agenda?
13:47:39 [ArtB]
TR: I must stop at 15:00 on Tues
13:47:53 [ArtB]
... <access> element is the highest priority
13:48:17 [ArtB]
AB: any other comments?
13:48:17 [tlr]
(and the widget uri scheme, ugh. Forgot about that one)
13:48:20 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:48:24 [fjh]
I also have firm stop at 15:00 on Tuesday
13:48:27 [ArtB]
Topic: Open Actions
13:48:33 [ArtB]
AB: please address Open actions before the f2f meeting: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8
13:48:37 [Zakim]
-Thomas
13:48:42 [timeless_mbp]
ArtB: i might be able to make it if i can get some wiggle room w/ managers, i'll pick up transportation and someone will host a room, so i'd just need a manager not to complain about my lack of physical presence
13:49:03 [ArtB]
Topic: AOB
13:49:09 [ArtB]
AB: any topics?
13:49:13 [ArtB]
... I don't have any
13:49:27 [ArtB]
AB: meeting adjourned
13:49:33 [Zakim]
- +47.23.69.aaff
13:49:35 [Zakim]
-Mike
13:49:37 [Zakim]
- +44.771.751.aacc
13:49:38 [Zakim]
-Art_Barstow
13:49:42 [Zakim]
-OMTP
13:49:44 [Zakim]
- +68028aadd
13:49:45 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
13:49:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-minutes.html ArtB
13:49:48 [Zakim]
-fjh
13:49:50 [Zakim]
-Josh_Soref
13:49:52 [Zakim]
-JereK
13:51:19 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, bye
13:51:19 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-actions.rdf :
13:51:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: hirsch notify Art when the excl c14n change has been made and the SoTD is updated for CR [1]
13:51:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-wam-irc#T13-29-37