13:03:52 RRSAgent has joined #wam 13:03:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-irc 13:04:03 ScribeNick: ArtB 13:04:06 Scribe: Art 13:04:09 Chair: Art 13:04:16 RRSAgent, make log Public 13:04:33 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0041.html 13:04:41 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 13:04:45 Date: 2 July 2009 13:04:53 Regrets: TLR, Benoit 13:05:06 Zakim, call Mike-Mobile 13:05:06 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 13:05:08 +Mike 13:05:34 Present: Art, Marcos, Arve, Mike, Jere, Kai, David, Marcin, 13:05:52 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 13:05:59 AB: draft agenda sent on July 1 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0041.html ). Any change requests? During the AOB topic we will talk about cancelations of this weekly call due to summer holidays. 13:06:22 +abraun 13:06:31 Present+ AndyB 13:06:36 abraun has joined #wam 13:06:39 [ No change requests ] 13:06:44 Topic: Announcements 13:06:51 AB: anyone have any short announcements they want to make? 13:07:00 [ None ] 13:07:13 Topic: P&C LCWD comments 13:07:19 AB: the LCWD comment period ended on June 19. We have not addressed all of the comments submitted before the deadline. We can take some time to discuss those comments that can benefit from interactive group discussion. 13:07:38 AB: Comment tracking doc is ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-20090528/ ) 13:08:26 AB: Marcos, what is the status of the Disposition of Comments document? 13:08:35 MC: it is about 80% up to date 13:08:44 ... awaiting responses from about 20 emails 13:08:57 ... I've got all of Marcin's comments 13:09:06 ... and all of AvK's comments that I've responded to 13:09:41 AB: earlier today MC sent this email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0071.html and it contains comments he'd like to discuss on this call 13:10:17 AB: first one is from Josh http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1095.html 13:10:31 annevk has joined #wam 13:10:34 AB: what is the main isssue here Marcos? 13:10:47 MC: Josh thinks there is a prob with the l10n model 13:11:03 ... I'm not sure how serious this is 13:11:19 ... it could create a problem in some use case 13:11:57 ... I tend to think this is a problem for localizers and not a problem with the model 13:12:03 JK: I agree with you Marcos 13:12:26 ... re the assertion the prob is at the package level 13:12:36 ... I don't agree; don't want a new zip per locale 13:12:48 http://www.webwizardry.net/~timeless/w7/nokia%20communication%20centre%20-%20Use%20the%20Calendar%20view%20in%20Nokia%20Communication%20Center%20to%20manage%20your%20device%20calendar%20for%20example%20by%20creating%20editing%20or%20deleting%20calendar%20entries.png 13:12:54 ... want a package to contain as much locale info as possible 13:13:16 ... L10N testing should catch the error Josh identified 13:13:53 AB: based on this, there is the question - has Josh identified a bug in the model? 13:13:56 MC: I don't think so 13:14:09 JK: agree with Marcos 13:14:35 AB: I tend to agree with Marcos and JK's interpretation 13:15:01 AB: any disagreements with MC and JK's opinion? 13:15:03 [ None ] 13:15:25 AB: given this, what will your response be Marcos? 13:15:47 MC: want to wait for JK to respond to Josh and then see the follow up responses 13:15:57 JK: I just sent the response 13:16:17 AB: status then is to wait and see how Josh responds 13:17:09 AB: next up is this comment from Dom: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0936.html 13:17:42 AB: Marcos, what's the issue here? 13:17:59 MC: this is about the CC 13:18:05 +Dom 13:18:09 ... the spec isn't as complete as it could be 13:18:15 Present+ Dom 13:18:30 ... with respect to the CC requirements 13:18:53 ... These were originally just Authoring comments and they were reformulated as CC reqs 13:19:03 ... we just didn't do all of the work that could have been done 13:19:19 zakim, mute me 13:19:19 Dom should now be muted 13:19:40 AB: so one way fwd is to move all of the CC reqs to a separate spec 13:19:54 ... naturally that would be considered a substantial change 13:20:02 MC: yes, that's true 13:20:26 ... Dom suggested some additions 13:21:13 AB: we could just add the 3 Dom indicates and any others if we find them 13:21:17 MC: yes, agree 13:21:48 AB: we could view these as bugs i.e. these 3 are missing 13:22:04 MC: yes, because the UA will need to address some of these 13:23:00 ... the CC reqs are not called out in the steps for processing 13:23:43 [possible implementation of conformance checker for widgets: http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/widget ] 13:23:47 q+ 13:24:21 AB: we could add the missing CC and then during Candidate, if CC implementor feedback dictates a sep spec we can do that 13:24:25 ack me 13:24:36 AB: Dom, what are your thoughts on this? 13:24:57 Dom: these comments are based on the work we did on the CC Checker 13:25:25 ... It would be be good if there is more detail on the CC checker 13:25:50 ... it probably would be best to move the CC reqs to a separate doc 13:26:02 ... but I don't think it would be a high priority work item 13:26:57 AB: so if we just added the 3 reqs you mentioned would that be sufficient to address your concern? 13:27:55 Dom: It would be fine yes; I would just be concerned for the pace of development of the Widgets specs that other bugs might be found at a later stage for conformance checkers, and would slow down the work for a low priority work item 13:28:13 AB: is anyone aware of any other CC services? 13:28:26 MC: Mike mentioned another person/group that is interested 13:28:36 I wrote a widget validator sometime ago (it's offline) http://git.webvm.net/?p=wgtvalidator 13:28:43 zakim, mute me 13:28:43 Dom should now be muted 13:28:43 AB: do you know how far that has gone? 13:28:53 MC: no, the email trail died 13:29:27 AB: does anyone object to us addressing Dom's CC comments by just addding the 3 missing CC reqs? 13:29:36 [ No objections ] 13:30:31 AB: next is June 17 comments from Dom: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1021.html 13:30:44 AB: Marcos, what are the main issues here? 13:30:53 MC: I've addresed most of these already 13:31:28 ... need to go thru the spec and look for conformance reqs 13:31:47 ... need to clarify rule for identifying media image 13:32:00 [I think they are mostly editorial] 13:33:41 ... most of these comments are Editorial 13:34:07 ... it will be a lot of work to go through all of the assertions 13:34:19 ... Dom used a tool to get the assertions 13:34:56 "simplify the analysis of 13:34:56 > conformance requirements for building test suites, and identify possible 13:34:56 > ambiguities as to what is affected when the conformance requirements is 13:34:56 > not respected;" 13:35:00 ... A question I have is whether or not I need to edit the spec such that the assertion extraction tool "will be happy" 13:35:56 AB: what do others think about this? 13:35:59 [it's rather an effort toward making the spec more testable] 13:36:20 MC: the advantage is the spec will be better; the disadvantage is the spec will take longer 13:36:29 zakim, unmute me 13:36:29 Dom should no longer be muted 13:36:55 MC: I would be interested in getting a sense from Dom about how much work this would be? 13:37:12 Dom: it's hard to tell; most of the assertions were in OK shape 13:37:25 ... I don't think it is critical 13:37:33 ... but it would be helpful 13:37:46 ... you need to understand your schedule constraints 13:38:13 AB: I agree it would be helpful but I don't think it is a high priority given our schedule 13:38:22 what about just checking on http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/plan.html and updating the spec when and if possible 13:38:51 zakim, mute me 13:38:51 Dom should now be muted 13:38:54 AB: my recommendation is this work could be done during the Candidate phase 13:39:03 [that's fine with me fwiw] 13:39:05 MC: yes, I agree; it would add some clarification 13:39:13 +1 13:39:19 ... and I would agree to do the work during the Candidate phase 13:39:28 AB: any objections? 13:39:41 ... we have support from Kai and Dom 13:39:54 [ No objections to doing this work during the Candidate phase ] 13:40:28 ACTION: marcos During the P+C Candidate phase, make editorial changes to make assertions extractable 13:40:28 Created ACTION-376 - During the P+C Candidate phase, make editorial changes to make assertions extractable [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-07-09]. 13:41:26 AB: next comment is from Krzy: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1166.html 13:41:49 ... I do want to note that this set of comments was submitted on June 22 which is after the deadline 13:41:57 MC: I asked him to submit comments 13:42:26 ... I don't know how people feel about the lateness of these comments 13:42:46 AB: any comments on the date of these comments? 13:43:21 DR: I think it sets a dangerous precedence if we were to take these late comments into consideration 13:43:30 ... I can't speak to the comments themselves 13:43:43 AB: any other feedback on the timing of these comments? 13:44:39 AB: my recommendation is we make these low priority and not address them until after all of the LCWD comments submitted by June 19 are addressed 13:44:41 zakim, who's on the call? 13:44:41 On the phone I see Arve/Marcos, ??P1, David_Rogers, +49.208.40.aabb, ??P3, Art_Barstow, Mike, abraun, Dom (muted) 13:44:45 I agree 13:44:52 MC: so does this mean do _not_ put them in the DoC doc? 13:44:54 AB: yes 13:45:19 AB: any objections to this way of handling Krzy's comments? 13:45:21 [ None ] 13:45:27 [I feel uncomfortable about it, but I'm not a member of the group] 13:46:17 AB: next up is some comments from Kai 13:46:35 MC: these comments were sent to me privately 13:47:42 ... they were NOT sent to public-webapps on June 19 13:48:03 ... Do we include these comments as part of our LCWD review cycle? 13:48:18 AB: what do other people think? 13:48:35 I agree with art 13:48:39 AB: I think we just sent a precedent that we should follow 13:48:44 [I think it makes no sense to reject good comments] 13:49:01 ... and that would mean we should not consider these until after LCWD 13:49:16 DR: agree with Art; we need to have some discipline and respect the deadlines 13:49:23 I also agree with dom by the way 13:49:28 [not including them in the DoC reduces the value of the DoC] 13:49:39 MC: no problem; we can address them after LC 13:50:30 AB: to be consistent, we should NOT include Kai's comments in the DoC 13:50:40 MC: yes, I agree; I will not add them 13:51:07 AB: any objections to not addressing Kai's comments during this LCWD review cycle? 13:51:13 [ No objections ] 13:52:10 AB: next up is a 2nd comment from Kai that is also dated June 19 13:52:19 ... was this also private email to you Marcos? 13:52:35 MC: yes; this email was also sent to me privately by Kai on June 19 13:52:47 ... so we should ingore this too for this LCWD review cycle 13:53:15 AB: OK; do not add this 2nd comment of Kai's to the DoC 13:53:29 zakim, who's noisy? 13:53:40 dom, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arve/Marcos (38%), abraun (18%) 13:53:44 zakim, mute abraun 13:53:44 abraun should now be muted 13:54:46 MC: I have 8 emails that I have not yet responded to 13:55:05 ... I plan to respond to all of them by Friday July 3 13:55:23 AB: what can we do to help you? 13:55:43 MC: the main concern I had was how to handle Dom's comments 13:55:53 ... apart from that, it's mostly Editorial stuff 13:56:11 ... not sure there is much other WG members can do 13:56:22 ... I asked Jere for some help on L10N and he has responded 13:56:39 ... I still have about 20 emails that I waiting for responses 13:56:47 ... apart from that, I think we are pretty good 13:57:30 AB: I am happy to ping/bother people that have not responded to you 13:57:50 MC: it's only been a few days so we need to give people at least a week 13:58:07 ... I can give people about one week 13:58:26 ... with a plan to close DoC on July 10 13:59:09 AB: I'll follow up with you Marcos on July 6 re who needs to be pinged 13:59:41 ... when you reply, please include a July 10 deadline for a response 13:59:55 MC: time to start setting up a Trans to Candidate 14:01:11 AB: we won't have all of the data to make a decision about CR vs. WD until we have feedback from the Commentors about our responses 14:01:38 DR: I think we should be aggresive with the Commentors re deadline for responses to our comments 14:01:48 ... think 1:1 follow-ups would be good to do 14:02:24 fjh has joined #wam 14:03:00 AB: it would be best if the deadline for resonses was July 9 14:03:06 MC: yes, that's OK with me 14:03:52 AB: so ideally, on July 9 when we meet we will have responses from all of the Commentors 14:04:53 AB: Mike, do we need to wait for responses from all Commentors before we make a decision of CR vs. WD? 14:05:06 MS: not sure what the Process Doc says explicitly 14:05:24 ... but I think we need to give adequate opportunity to comment 14:05:35 MC: so you think one week isn't enough? 14:05:49 MS: one week may not be enough 14:06:02 ... I think 1 week is the minimum 14:06:08 I would like to think that one week is enough 14:06:28 AB: it makes sense to also consider the comments themselves 14:06:47 ...if we are proactively contacting people too 14:07:10 AB: thanks for that feedback Mike 14:07:30 AB: anything else? 14:07:41 MC: I could use some help with the DoC document 14:07:48 ... it is about 80-90% done 14:08:10 ... it would mean clicking some buttons when emails come in 14:08:17 AB: any volunteers? 14:08:43 AB: I can help starting July 6 14:09:09 AB: anything P+C spec today? 14:09:43 Topic: Issue raised by Francois 14:09:49 AB: in MC's response to Francois, he indicated the group should discuss one of Francois' comments ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0037.html) 14:10:06 MC: most of the questions have to do with the Widget URI scheme spec 14:10:41 ... so we are "punting" on those issues with respect P+C 14:10:50 AB: any comments on that? 14:10:52 [ None ] 14:11:14 Topic: Widget Testing wiki 14:11:21 AB: yesterday I started a widget testing wiki to consolidate pointers to testing resources ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetTesting ). This is a Group Resource and as such, everyone should contribute to its evolution and maintenance. 14:11:39 Topic: Widgets Dig Sig Testing 14:11:49 AB: Kai has started some related work but I think it would be helpful to get an enumeration of all of the testable assertions. 14:12:13 AB: can anyone commit to contributing a testable assertion list for the Widgets Digital Signature spec? 14:12:33 zakim, unmute me 14:12:33 Dom should no longer be muted 14:12:51 http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2F2006%2Fwaf%2Fwidgets%2Ftests%2FextractTestAssertions.xsl&xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2009%2FCR-widgets-digsig-20090625%2F&filter=any 14:12:56 AB: Dom, that was relatively easy because of the markup P+C used, right? 14:13:02 Dom: yes 14:13:11 ... does DigSig use the same convention? 14:13:12 MC: yes 14:13:22 (based on http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/extractTestAssertions.xsl ) 14:13:38 Zakim, mute Mike 14:13:38 Mike should now be muted 14:13:46 AB: OK, that's good; it will help us scope the set of test cases needed 14:14:03 AB: anything else on WidDigSig testing for today? 14:14:22 ... any status from you Kai? 14:14:38 Kai: I'm finding it difficult to do the testing 14:14:48 ... thought there would be some examples 14:15:38 see http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Interop 14:15:38 -> http://www.w3.org/Signature/2001/04/05-xmldsig-interop.html XML SIgnature Interop report might be a useful source of ideas? 14:15:55 should also look at 1.1 interop for new algorithms. 14:16:01 ACTION: barstow find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig Sig tests 14:16:01 Created ACTION-377 - Find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig Sig tests [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-09]. 14:16:19 MC: what kinds of probs are you haveing? 14:16:24 ... generating or verifying? 14:16:34 Kai: I'm not familiar with openssl tools 14:16:51 ... not that familiar with XML Dig Sig 1.1 14:17:03 ... not sure if I'm generating the right keys and their formats 14:17:09 there are also java tools 14:17:13 ... would like someone to just tell me what to do 14:17:29 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmldsig/report.html XML Signature Implementation report for 2nd Ed 14:17:34 AB: I will find the right experts to help you 14:17:46 perhaps you should summarize your questions and send to the xml security public list 14:17:55 (thomas roessler would definitely be a good person to contact on that) 14:17:56 MC: if there is some guidance needed in the spec, please let me know 14:18:02 (Frederick Hirsch would be another candidate) 14:18:06 ... we want it easy to author 14:18:09 public-xmlsec@w3.org 14:18:31 I'm suggesting we share questions on public xml security list - collective intelligence 14:18:44 I cannot call into the bridge, the conference is "restricted" 14:18:50 Kai: After I get "hello world" done then I can start some real work 14:19:32 AB: Kai, FH recommends you send your questions directly to XML Sec WG -> public-xmlse@w3.org 14:19:42 MC: and please cc public-webapps 14:19:46 Kai: ok; will do 14:19:57 Topic: Online Widget Checker 14:20:10 AB: Dom recently announced ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1201.html ) the availability of an alpha version of an Online Widget Checker service ( 14:20:18 http://qa-dev.w3.org:8001/widget/ ). 14:20:25 AB: Thanks very much for this Dom! I haven't used it yet; does anyone have feedback for Dom? 14:20:36 AB: Dom, what is the status and plans for this service? 14:20:41 ack me 14:21:07 Dom: waiting for some feedback before we do anything more 14:21:16 ... would like to get others to contribute to the code 14:21:47 ... it does some good things now but will require a big chunck of effort to make it really useful 14:22:19 AB: make a plea to everyone to: 14:22:25 ... 1. Review the services 14:22:30 ... 2. Send comments to Dom 14:22:40 ... 3. Contribute to the code 14:23:08 AB: anything else on this service Dom? 14:23:27 Dom: could be useful with going to CR i.e. going thru the CC reqs 14:23:38 Topic: P&C Test Plan 14:23:45 AB: yesterday I noticed Dom had created a P&C Test Plan ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets/tests/plan.html ). Dom, what is the status and plan for this Test Plan? 14:24:12 Dom: I only annouced it to the MWTS WG 14:24:31 ... it is based on the extractable assertions for the CC 14:25:00 ... added some comments on some of the tests 14:25:18 ... Kai has taken an action to review the Test Plan 14:25:34 ... Marcos said he would review it too 14:26:34 ... Plan to have something "fairly reliable" next week 14:27:25 MC: want to fix the spec to make the extraction process work better 14:27:46 Dom: we are focusing on test cases now 14:28:05 ... I think our test cases will be ok even if the spec changes 14:28:20 ... but they may require some minor updating 14:28:58 zakim, mute me 14:28:58 Dom should now be muted 14:29:09 Topic: A+E spec 14:29:26 Arve: since Robin isn't here, we could take this topic to the mail list 14:29:35 AB: yes, that's fine with me 14:29:58 Topic: Test Fest proposal 14:30:06 AB: there has been some off-list discussion about a Widgets Test Fest in September. 14:30:45 DR: I can give a brief 14:30:55 s/brief/brief udpate/ 14:31:20 ... VF proposed a "test fest" but that may not be the most descriptive title 14:31:38 ... want to create test cases 14:31:48 ... want it to be coordinated by W3C 14:31:56 ... want OMTP to be involved 14:32:03 ... VF can host it 14:32:15 ... proposed dates are Sep 21 thru 23 14:32:22 ... can handle 50-55 people 14:32:33 ... want it to be under the W3C rules 14:32:57 ... want to understand more about how test suites are created in W3C 14:33:14 ... need to think about licensing since it will be collaborative effort 14:33:26 +1 14:33:33 ... Does this sound like a good idea? 14:33:41 +1 14:33:43 MC: sounds like a good idea to me 14:33:55 AB: sounds like quite a bit of support 14:33:55 +1 14:34:01 +1 14:34:15 DR: I've asked VF to send a mail to public-webapps 14:34:28 AB: that sounds good 14:34:56 ... we agreed in London we would not have any more f2f meetings until TPAC 14:35:05 ... this is NOT a WebApps WG meeting 14:35:24 DR: yes; understood; want the impl people to attend 14:35:48 AB: you will form some type of organizing committee? 14:35:54 DR: yes, that's the idea 14:36:05 q+ 14:36:23 ACTION: barstow work with Mike and Dom to determine if their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with OMTP 14:36:23 Created ACTION-378 - Work with Mike and Dom to determine if their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with OMTP [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-09]. 14:37:00 DR: OMTP supports this but it is VF that is sponsoring this initiative 14:37:02 q? 14:37:13 ack me 14:37:32 Yes this intiative is Vodafone's so I am just speaking on behalf of Christian who is not here 14:37:43 Dom: I don't think we need an organizing committee; I am awaiting more info from VF 14:38:01 I would also like to add that for licensing - I believe it should be under the W3C process 14:38:07 ... re the licensing, I am already working on this 14:38:42 > 3.) If non-W3C members / non Bondi members declare their wish to participate, they must possibly sign an extra agreement for IP exclosure (like the Turin rules for BONDI members). This is possibly an "edge case" but we should bear it in mind. My suggestion is that W3C legal take a closer look at that. 14:38:42 Essentially, those that don't participate to the Web Applications 14:38:42 Working Group should fill up and submit the Grant I linked from the test 14:38:42 cases policy: 14:38:43 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/testgrants-200409/ 14:39:05 AB: anything else on the Test Fest? 14:39:24 DR: not sure if the Turin Rules apply 14:39:30 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:39:30 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:39:51 -abraun 14:40:13 Dom: there is No Patent Policy issue re test cases but there will be some Copyright issues that will be applicable 14:40:26 Topic: AOB 14:40:33 AB: because of summer holidays, there will be NO Widgets calls on July 16, July 23 and August 6. 14:40:50 AB: any other business? 14:41:22 [ None ] 14:41:37 AB: Meeting Adjourned 14:41:38 -Dom 14:41:40 -??P1 14:41:41 -David_Rogers 14:41:41 -??P3 14:41:43 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:41:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:41:50 JK has left #wam 14:42:37 dom has left #wam 14:43:46 -Art_Barstow 14:43:47 -Arve/Marcos 14:43:49 - +49.208.40.aabb 14:43:52 -Mike 14:43:53 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended 14:43:55 Attendees were +47.23.69.aaaa, David_Rogers, Arve/Marcos, +49.208.40.aabb, Art_Barstow, Mike, abraun, Dom 14:51:08 Marcos_ has joined #wam 15:00:24 Marcos has joined #wam 15:02:10 MoZ has joined #wam 15:03:06 annevk has joined #wam 15:31:49 mhanclik has joined #wam 16:18:37 Marcin has joined #wam 16:21:47 RRSAgent, bye 16:21:47 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-actions.rdf : 16:21:47 ACTION: marcos During the P+C Candidate phase, make editorial changes to make assertions extractable [1] 16:21:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-irc#T13-40-28 16:21:47 ACTION: barstow find some examples for Kai re Widgets Dig Sig tests [2] 16:21:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-irc#T14-16-01 16:21:47 ACTION: barstow work with Mike and Dom to determine if their are any licensing issues with a Widgets Test Fest held with OMTP [3] 16:21:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/02-wam-irc#T14-36-23