See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 12 November 2009
<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)
trackbot, associate this channel with #webapps
<trackbot> Associating this channel with #webapps...
<Marcos> yikes!
AB: draft agenda submitted on Nov
11 (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0631.html
).
... One change request is to add a third topic for the VM-MF
spec "more precision on full screen" (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0541.html
).
... another change request is to talk briefly about our plans
for the P&C Candidate #2
... and we will drop 5.b since David won't be here and we'll
discuss that topic on next call if it remains open
... any other change requests?
[ None ]
AB: any short announcements? I don't have any
[ None ]
<marcin> Agenda point 5. should point to: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/
AB: during last week's f2f
meeting we discussed an <icon> issue that Magnus raised (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0445.html
). Since then, one of his colleagues expanded on their concern
via (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0567.html
).
... Marcos and I discussed this issue in IRC earlier today. The
P&C spec doesn't actually specify what a WUA will do with
the icon elements. Thus, it seems like the text about the
optional width and height attributes only applying to formats
with "intrinsic" width/height can be removed.
... what do people think about this issue?
MC: I don't think removing the
text would be problematic
... but I want to review it more thoroughly
... now, width and height processing is limited
... WUA are free to interpret w/h as they want
... thus I think we should remain silent on what the WUA does
with these two attributes
AB: Marcin, any comments?
MH: I haven't looked at it yet
AB: the action now is for people
to respond on the mail list
... Marcos, will you do that?
MC: yes, but need to check again
the proposal
... my gut feel is that we should leave this to impl
... but if we delete those two statements, I don't think it
will affect implementations
AB: agree on the "will not affect impls"
AB: LCWD#3 comments end on 19
November
... assuming we get no major comments, we will want to publish
CR#2 ASAP
MC: yes, that's correct
AB: I need to schedule a
director's call
... I started that process
... tentative dates are Nov 23-25 range
MC: those dates are OK with me
<scribe> ACTION: barstow schedule a Director's Call for P&C CR #2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-451 - Schedule a Director's Call for P&C CR #2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].
RB: we can go to CR while the CfE period is in effect but we can't go to PR until CfE ends
AB: good; I'll clarify that with
the Team
... best case is we enter CR in November
... CfE ends 28 December
... still need to determine interop plans
AB: Marcos, you wanted to give a short status on TWI test suite
MC: I've started working on
it
... but haven't uploaded test cases yet
<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/test-suite/
MC: ignore the doc's title
... but this document includes the test file template
... we can gain from the P&C experience
... should be easier to create tests
... and provide better feedback on Pass/Fail
... If people have feedback, please send it!
AB: this is excellent
... to clarify, you are OK with going to LC now but don't want
to enter CR until the test cases are completed?
MC: yes, that's correct
AB: anything else on the test suite for today?
MC: no, not for now
... there are only about 10 testable assertions in the
spec
... thus I think there will only be 30-40 test cases
... so realtively small compared to P&C test suite
AB: ok; good
AB: last week I sent a heads-up that today we would discuss whether or not the TWI spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api ) is ready to be published as a new LC (LC#2). Comments?
[ None ]
<darobin> +1
AB: proposed resolution: the
group agrees The Widgets Interface spec is ready for LCWD
publication
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: the group agrees The Widgets Interface spec is ready for LCWD publication
AB: do we want a 3-week comment
period?
... given this is LC#2, I think 3 weeks is OK
MC: ok with me
AB: any other feedback?
MH: ok with me too
AB: we will use a 3-week comment
period
... who should we ask to review this LC?
... Marcos, do you recall who we asked to review the 1st
LC?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow determine the list of reviewers for TWI LC#2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-452 - Determine the list of reviewers for TWI LC#2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].
<scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a publication request for TWI LCWD #2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-453 - Submit a publication request for TWI LCWD #2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].
<scribe> ACTION: marcos prepare TWI spec for LCWD #2 publication on Nov 24 with a comment period ending December 15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-454 - Prepare TWI spec for LCWD #2 publication on Nov 24 with a comment period ending December 15 [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-11-19].
MC: can we get it published sooner
AB: oops, that's my mistake; the
pub date will be Nov 17
... and the 3-week comment period will end Dec 8
... Thanks for catching that MC!
AB: on November 2 Magnus
submitted an email re viewmode issues (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0446.html
)
... my comment on point #1 is that the titles for the views
carry quite a bit of historical baggage
... and thus are somewhat confusing
Arve: re point #1
... this is a legacy issue
... Opera's initial impl only supported one mode
AB: would you please Arve, respond to point #1 on the mail list?
Arve: yes, will do
ACTION Arve respond to point #1 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0446.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-455 - Respond to point #1 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0446.html [on Arve Bersvendsen - due 2009-11-19].
AB: re point #2, is that in scope for VM-I spec?
MH: yes, it is
<marcin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0047.html
MH: I submitted an email about
this
... we need to discuss what the view modes mean
... in my email I deteremined quite a large number of possible
values
... I agree "all" could be removed
... it is the same as not specifying any
<Marcos> +q
<Marcos> -q
AB: re point #3, Marcos responded but Magnus did not reply
Arve: re point #2, the VM spec
doesn't include any sec considerations
... and that's a bug, especially for full screen
<drogersuk> David here
<drogersuk> I proposed some security considerations
AB: we will discuss VM-MF sec concerns next week
<drogersuk> I'm here - happy to discuss now
<drogersuk> can't join the call though
david - can you join the call next week?
I'd rather discuss this when we can talk about it. OK?
<drogersuk> yes but I'd prefer we agree this now
<drogersuk> I put it into the F2F and that was over a week ago
we decided at the beginning of the week to not include this today
<drogersuk> Why?
because "I'd rather discuss this when we can talk about it."
<drogersuk> ok, let me leave the meeting and join the call
<drogersuk> let's do it now
Arve: I will respond to Magnus mail
AB: OK
AB: an old thread was re-started
about the viewmodes, in particular the full screen mode (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0541.html
). Marcos, Robin?
... where do we stand on this?
MC: I think we agree we need to
define base semantics to each mode
... with each mode there are some potential security
implications
... our discussion was about to what level of detail the modes
must be defined
RB: nothing else to add; agree with Marcos' summary
AB: have we captured all of the
relevant properties?
... is the set of properties complete?
MH: we may have some issues with full screen and the properties
<marcin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0047.html
MH: we may need another
property
... we have one media feature now but maybe we need more than
one
... otherwise, we may have some border cases that aren't
defined
MC: at the f2f I proposed a
viewport media rule
... I need to formalize that proposal
... I don't understand the interactivity proposal
<marcin> arve, probably yes
Arve: re interactivity, either
the media is interactive or not (e.g. print or screen)
... think we should ask AnneVK
... not sure how to specify this or if we should specify it
AB: can you Arve chat with Anne about this?
Arve: yes, ok
AB: so there is an open action for all to continue discussions and for Marcin to drive toward closure on the open issues
MH: yes, and I will start by removing all to align with P&C
<Marcos> d
AB: View modes security
considerations; David Rogers (2-Nov)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0438.html
... David?
DR: this is an input for the VM-MF spec
MH: I can add this info
DR: I presented it at the
f2
... not clear why we need to wait for ratification
AB: the general process is if there is no discussion on an input then we add it to the agenda
MC: have you looked at the sec consids in the P&C spec?
DR: yes; tried to align it with
what is in the P&C spec
... understand we want a sec consids section per spec
<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#media-type-registration-for-applicationw
MC: we had to do it for P&C because of the IETF req for that info be in the P&C for the MT reg
DR: I will need to look at it
MC: the deadline is Nov 19
... for P&C LC#3 comments
DR: does anyone object to my input?
MC: we have no objections
... think we need considerations per view mode
... i.e. "these are the sec consids" for fullscreen, etc.
... we can build on your input
DR: I'm happy if the Editor will add my input
AB: anything else on this topic?
AB: on November 2, Dom submitted
two comments re the WARP spec (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0442.html
and (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0443.html
).
... any feedback on Dom's comments?
ACTION darobin respond to Dom's two comments about WARP submitted on Nov 2
<trackbot> Created ACTION-456 - Respond to Dom's two comments about WARP submitted on Nov 2 [on Robin Berjon - due 2009-11-19].
MC: are there any updates to WARP spec?
RB: not since TPAC
MC: when will it be ready for review?
RB: please review ASAP
AB: last week I sent out a call
for comments
... we can set aside a big chunk of time on Nov 19 for WARP if
needed
AB: on November 2, Bryan
submitted some comments re WARP (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0437.html
). Marcos and Bryan have been going back and forth on
this.
... without Bryan here, not sure we should deep dive on
this
MC: Marcin also responded
MH: yes, I did
MC: would be good if Robin also responded
RB: yes, I'll get to that
AB: let's skip this topic for today ...
AB: on November 2, Marcin submitted some comments comments re WARP and local addressees and UPnP ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0456.html )
MH: we talked about UPnP a bit
during last week's f2f meeting
... we may want to add some additional support for local
hosts
... support private IP ranges
... local nets with IPv6 can be problematic
... IPv6 provides a means to know if an address is local
... want to make the spec future-proof
AB: who can we ask to review this proposal?
MH: perhaps some IETF people
Arve: I think we need an
agreement within the group before talking to IETF
... I need some time to understand MH's proposal
AB: can you get some comments within 1 week Arve?
Arve: yes
AB: all should send comments to
the list
... if needed, we can discuss this next week
... anything else on this topic?
[ No ]
AB: the LC comment period for the 8-Oct-2009 URI Scheme LC ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/ ) ended on November 10. I believe there was only one comment. Robin, what's the plan for responding?
RB: yes, just the one comment
from Larry Masinter
... I haven't yet responded to him but will do so
<scribe> ACTION: barstow create a Comment Tracking Doc for the 8-Oct-2009 Widget URI LC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-457 - Create a Comment Tracking Doc for the 8-Oct-2009 Widget URI LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-19].
AB: after Robin replies to LM, please follow-up if you have additional comments
AB: I don't have anything for today. Does anyone have any AOB for today?
[ 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) Succeeded: s/media rul/media rule/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Marcin Marcos Arve Robin David_Rogers Regrets: Frederick David Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0631.html Found Date: 12 Nov 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow marcos[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]