See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Title: Widgets Voice Conf
Date: 13 August 2009
AB: draft agenda ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0574.html ) posted 12 August. Any change requests?
[ None ]
AB: any short announcements?
[ None ]
AB: during our last call on July
30 we said that today we would determine if there was consensus
to publish a LCWD of the A&E spec ( http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-wam-minutes.html#item03
). What is the status Marcos? Latest ED is: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
... is July 30 the latest?
MC: yes
AB: MC, you have an issue about the A+E?
MC: yes; showNotifcation
... do we want this in a new spec?
... some discussion on WHAT-WG list
... some want showNotification in its own spec
Arve: I think it should be place
in its own spec
... since it is not related to widget packaing
... would be a good separation of concerns
... not clear if it belongs in HTML5 or not
... but tend to think a sep spec is best
MH: what about getAttention?
MC: they could be merged into one spec
Arve: disagree; diff use cases
for the two
... but could specify both APIs in the same spec
MH: BONDI module UI
... handles softkeys, vibration, etc.
... think showNot and getAttention should be defined
together
BS: getAttention not
covered
... good question about where to put UI functions
... I do agree try to minimize the number of specs
MC: so BS, should these UI APIs be removed from A+E?
BS: should be consistent with
other specs
... if no other UI APis in the widget spec suite it may make
sense to put them in a sep spec
AB: I don't feel strongly about keeping them or removing these two UI APIs
Arve: I feel strongly they should be in a separate spec
MC: they prolly shouldn't have
been there to begin with
... think there should be a stand alone spec for these
UI-related APIs
AB: a concern I have is who will drive these two APIs fwd
MC: we can ask Hixie to put them back in HTML5
BS: could get DAP involved
AB: I'm hearing these APIs are of broad enough interest to separate them from the A+E spec and the widget spec suite
BS: but it is still within scope for WebApps, right?
AB: yes
... I don't want these APIs to ping back and forth with the
HTML WG
... want an Editor that is committed to driving them
MC: we took HTML5 as a basis and then started adding widget stuff on top of it
Arve: I understand one UC from Google is to use this with Worker Threads
MC: yes; so they have some different reqs
Arve: yes; non-trivial to address a broad set of reqs
<arve> s/worker threads/background workers/
<arve> [this is even more complicated]
BS: I think the UI part of DAP is related
MC: since these APIs were removed
from HTML5, a lot of the landscape has changed
... there may now be enough interest for HTML5 to take these
back
AB: one way fwd is to remove them
and ask HTML WG to take them back
... if HTML WG doesn't want them, we will need to find someone
in WebApps
... or possibly DAP WG
Arve: I don't think DAP is right, but WebApps is OK if HTML WG doesn't want them
BS: I have some concerns about
them going to HTML5
... related to timing and complexity
... not sure they will address windows reqs
... so an issue is where are the experts and the resources?
MC: yes; but HTML5 plans to go to LC in a month or two
AB: does anyone object to removing these two APIs from A+E?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: the showNotification and getAttention APIs will be removed from the A+E spec
AB: MC or Arve, can you take an Action to talk to Hixie about HTML taking these two functions?
MC: yes
<scribe> ACTION: caceres talk to Hixie and HTML WG about taking the getAttention and showNotification APIs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-389 - Talk to Hixie and HTML WG about taking the getAttention and showNotification APIs [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-08-20].
AB: are there any other issues blocking a LCWD of A+E?
MC: no
... I will remove these two APIs
Arve: I have a comment about
open
... the method is about opening a Locator not an Identifier
MC: I want to imply any URI can be loaded
Arve: all URLs are URI
... but not vice-versa
MC: look at the examples: sms: tel: feed: ...
MH: need to have
consistency
... URI, URL, IRI, ...
MC: can't use "IRI" because that is "W3C Speak"
MH: but the description needs to be consistent
MC: I can live with URL but I don't like it
AB: is there a precedence we should consider?
MC: at least 3 other widget engines use openURL
AB: my preference is to use
openURL
... can you live with it MC?
MC: yes; I'll change it
AB: why is license not included?
MC: I don't feel strongly about it
AB: seems like it should be there for completness
MC: I could add it; could also add license HREF
<Marcos> readonly attribute DOMString license;
<Marcos> readonly attribute DOMString licenseHref;
MC: the licenseHref can have some probs
Arve: could also have multiple licenses
MC: yes; not clear which would be authoritative
<arve> what about readonly attribute LicenseCollection license;
Arve: would prefer to not handle
license at all for API and Events
... could define formal grammar for licenses
AB: I don't want to go down that
rathole
... one option is to leave License out of the spec and to see
if there are any objections during the LC review period
<Marcos> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0614.html
AB: my inclination is to leave the spec as is ; OK?
MC: yes
AB: are there any objections to publishing a LCWD of the A+E spec with the agreed changes today?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: the WG agrees to publish a LCWD of the A+E with the changes agreed during the 13 Aug 2009 Voice Conf
<scribe> ACTION: Caceres notify Art when A+E LCWD is pub ready [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-390 - Notify Art when A+E LCWD is pub ready [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-08-20].
AB: first P&C topic is the question about whether or not the P&C test suite can have a dependency on the APIs and Events spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0522.html ). Marcos and Scott Wilson exchanged some emails on this. Marcos?
MC: there is a tradeoff between
having a simpler test suite for the P+C spec if the test suite
can use the A+E spec
... don't want to have to add a bunch of extra steps for simple
things
AB: I don't see a problem with
such a dependency
... what do you need Marcos, a resolution?
<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.src.html
MC: I am working with Kai on the
templates
... we now have about 80 tests
AB: are these templates all new?
MC: yes; did them very
recently
... I have been working with the MWTS on this
... there are 114 testable assertions
... we will create one or more tests for each assertion
... this helps us understand if assertions are testable or
not
<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/test-suite.xml
AB: this looks real good Marcos!
MC: I think this is going to work
quite well
... it will also help us find issues in the spec
... I want to talk about how to track bugs
... Marcin found a bug too
AB: what is the status of Kai's prior work?
<Bryan> I have to drop for another call. I sent a mail closing ACTION-357.
MC: he is updating those tests to use the new template
<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/tests/
MC: they will be moved into our CVS repository
AB: Opera has submitted three
"Bug Alerts" against the P&C Candidate and each of these
has been captured as Raised Issues ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues
). Let's go through these quickly and at a minimum determine if
there is an issue or not.
... I want to postpone process related discussions until we
have a Team Member on the call
AB: Issue #93 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/93 ). The original email is ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0452.html ).
MC: this is definitely a bug
AB: one question I have is why deprecated subtags should be ignored
<Marcos> i-hello
<Marcos> "i, hello"
<Marcos> "/i"
AB: there a bunch of subtags that
begin with "x"
... dozens were added 29 July 2009
... do you mean "x-..."?
<Marcos> x-
MC: yes, I mean "x-"
AB: I'm not convinced we have a serious bug here
MC: agree; we do have some redundancies we need to address
AB: my recommendation is to move
from RAISED to OPEN
... and during impl phase we need to get feedback from the
implementors
... OK?
MC: yes
<scribe> ACTION: barstow move Issue #93 to OPEN state [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-391 - Move Issue #93 to OPEN state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-20].
AB: anything else on #93?
[ No ]
AB: Issue #94 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/94
). The original email is (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0453.html
... you want to withdraw this one Marcos?
MC: yes
AB: so we should close this as not an issue?
MC: yes; and Josh agreed
AB: any objections to closing this?
[ None ]
<scribe> ACTION: barstow close Issue #94 - this is not an Issue - it is a Feature! [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-392 - Close Issue #94 - this is not an Issue - it is a Feature! [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-20].
AB: Issue #95 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/95 ). The original email is ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0552.html )
MC: want to reject features of
ZIP that are not universally supported
... want to remove this to allow future UAs to still work
... so its a bit of future proofing
... then a CC could warn the author about such features
AB: I agree it is a bug
... and would keep it open for now
MC: don't want the UA to be a CC
AB: I agree that isn't good
... so you indeed want to remove that quoted sentence from the
spec, right?
MC: yes
AB: my proposal is to move to Open state and ask implementors for feedback
MH: no comments now on this
AB: any objections to my proposal?
[ None ]
<scribe> ACTION: barstow move issue #95 to the Open state [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-393 - Move issue #95 to the Open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-08-20].
AB: anything else about the P+C for today?
[ No ]
AB: we still don't have a FPWD of
the View Modes spec despite the P&C CR defining the list of
modes ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-wm/
). On July 15 Robin published a ToDo list (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0218.html
).
... We also discussed this spec on July 30 ( http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-wam-minutes.html#item05
) and clarified that Marcin can edit this spec as needed.
What's the status and in particular, what remains to be done
before we can publish the FPWD?
... I think we need to make this spec a High Priority
MH: I will update the spec this week or next
AB: OK
... let us know if you need help
MH: will do
AB: anything else on View Modes spec for today?
[ None ]
AB: I don't have anything for
today
... anyone else?
[ No ]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) FAILED: s/worker threads/background workers/ Succeeded: s/openURI/open/ Succeeded: s/widget/window/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Default Present: Josh_Soref, Art_Barstow, +49.208.4.aaaa, +47.23.69.aabb, Bryan_Sullivan Present: Marcin Art Marcos Arve Bryan Josh Regrets: Frederick Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0574.html Found Date: 13 Aug 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-wam-minutes.html People with action items: 93 95 barstow caceres issue move talk[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]