Widgets Voice Conference -- 21 Jan 2010

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 21 January 2010

<marcin> ups :)

<timeless_mbp> Zakim: who is on?

Review and tweak agenda

AB: the agenda was submitted on January 20 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0217.html ). Any change requests?
... without Robin here, we will need to make some modifications

Announcements

AB: does anyone have any short announcements? The only one I have is that we will not have a call on January 27.

WARP spec: LC comments

AB: the WARP LC ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20091208/ ) comment period ended 13 January ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-access-20091208/ ). I believe we only received 2 comments, from Marcos and Dom.
... Marcos (Dec 21, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1472.html ) and Dom (Dec 10, http://www.w3.org/mid/1260460310.3355.2561.camel@localhost ).
... we can't proceed to CR until we have done the necessary round-tripping with the Commentors

<scribe> ACTION: Robin process the LC comments for the WARP LC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-478 - Process the LC comments for the WARP LC [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-01-28].

AB: everyone else in the WG is also encouraged to respond to the LC comments
... anything else on WARP LC?

<Steven-cwi> Apologies for lateness

<scribe> ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-479 - Make sure all WG members know about the PAG's mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-01-28].

WARP spec: extending access to local network resources

AB: on January 14 StephenJ (SJ) started a thread ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0173.html ) re extending the <access> element to support local network resources.
... Arve and Stephen continued that thread today. What's the status (I haven't yet caught up on today's e-mails)?

SJ: I sent my proposal
... it is a starting point
... want to consider the local net
... want developers to be able to specify them as accessible
... Arve asked some questions
... I think it makes sense to create some UCs and I'll do that
... if people have other comments, that's good too

Arve: for our impl at Opera, developers have been not understood very well the diff between local and non-local
... and have just given permission to everything because of the confusion
... so that is something to consider

SJ: needs to be at least one good UX to accept or reject local access
... could be a number of networks available, especially in a mobile network (wifi, operator net, etc.)
... there is lots of more data that may be available

Arve: I'm not sure how much we need to standardize

SJ: how much info is needed for these UCs?

AB: we don't have any template

Arve: I don't expect a whole lot of details
... if you respond to the email, that should be sufficient

SJ: ok, no problem

<scribe> ACTION: jolly submit a UC for the local network access proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-480 - Submit a UC for the local network access proposal [on Stephen Jolly - due 2010-01-28].

AB: is there anything else on this topic for today?

[ No ]

URI Scheme spec: LC comments

AB: the LC comment tracker ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/doc/ ) indicates 7 of the 9 comments are still in the "tocheck" status.
... my take on Larry Masinter's 18-Dec-2009 reply ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1455.html ) is the two main issues are: 1) he doesn't think we have showed "Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility" per RFC4395; and 2) "The description of the mapping must be complete", in particular authority. Links to the authority thread are included in the draft agenda.
... without Robin, I'm not sure it makes sense to do a deep dive on this
... when we get Robin on a call, we will need to discuss these issues

MH: think we should first discuss on the mail list

AB: yes, I agree we should discuss as much as possible on the mail list
... One thing LM asks for is a Use Case that clearly demonstrates "New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already registered URI schemes." [ RFC4395 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395 ]. LM asserts the thismessage scheme [ RFC2557 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557 ] should be reused or modified to meet our requirements.
... I fully agree that if some existing scheme meets 100% of our reqs, we should re use it
... but that doesn't appear to be the case with any of the schemes we looked at
... we have some a wiki page of schemes we have evaluated ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme ). Perhaps it would be helpful to analyze this again (RB did last June http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0972.html ) but there was no reply by LM.

<Steven-cwi> OK

AB: I think this is an area where getting some advice and guidance from the Team would be helpful
... anything else on this topic for today?

[ No ]

View Modes Media Features spec

AB: Marcin on Jan 14 sent questions to the list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0170.html
... and there has been no response, correct?

MH: right, no response yet
... I have added the comments from VF (as agreed previously)
... I have some questions to discuss
... re interactivity, I proposed a solution in the ED
... mini says content is not interactive
... need to know if that affects HTMLInputElement
... I assume answers in the ED
... but some of my answers may be controversial

AB: Arve, any follow-up from you on this?

Arve: re mini, in what way would that affect HTMLInputElement?

MH: disabled atrribute

Arve: no, this would not affect that attribute
... in mini mode one can still have a distinction between enabled and disabled

MH: does this need to be specified?

Arve: no; take a look at print media type in CSS and see what happens there

MH: so, you think we should handle this like print media?

Arve: we probably shouldn't reference HTML at all

MH: OK, I'll look at that; this could affect the User Experience
... then we can discuss over email

AB: what's the issue with the opacity property?

MH: not sure how this applies for some of the modes
... need to explain this e.g. with body element?

Arve: no, I don't think we should do that
... don't want to tie this to body element

MH: we have 4 view modes now
... transparency depends on UA
... widget developer may not be able to detect if viewport is transparent or not
... don't necessarily want to add more properties and exponentially increase the property/view mode table

<arve> I'm back in, but speaking is difficult

<arve> landline = flat battery

MH: want to continue opacity discussion
... want author to require opaque viewport but now that can't be done - it is up to the UA
... In my email I said "I would like to have the widget behave like fullscreen or mini, but the transparency could depend on the content"

<arve> [We should do that by making opacity attribute separate from view mode]

MH: yes, I'm fine with that
... but not sure where that would be specified

<arve> [config.xml, probably]

MH: config.xml? CSS?
... ok, config.xml

AB: let's please continue this discussion on the mail list

<arve> CSS is for adjust certain aspects of presentation in web-type documents, while this is about the window type the widget is to be rendered in

AB: anything else on the VM-MF spec for today?

MH: I'm a bit behind on the VM-I spec but will try to get something done by the next call
... they are closely related

AB: ok; understood

AOB

AB: Next call: No call on January 27; next call is Feb 4.
... anything else for today?

JS: regrets for Feb 4

AB: meeting adjourned

<Steven-cwi> Jan 28th you meant?

AB: oops - I meant no call on Jan 28! - next call is Feb 4

- DRAFT -

Widgets Voice Conference

21 Jan 2010

Attendees

Contents