IRC log of wam on 2010-02-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:01:03 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wam

14:01:03 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc

14:01:15 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make log public

14:01:27 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

14:01:29 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

14:01:30 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0411.html

14:01:32 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

14:01:33 [ArtB]

Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

14:01:35 [ArtB]

Date: 4-Feb-2010

14:01:56 [ArtB]

Regrets: Josh

14:02:02 [Steven-cwi]

Steven-cwi has joined #wam

14:02:11 [ArtB]

Present: Art, Arve, Marcos, StephenJ

14:02:13 [Steven-cwi]

zakim, dial steven-work

14:02:13 [Zakim]

ok, Steven-cwi; the call is being made

14:02:14 [Zakim]

+Steven

14:02:36 [ArtB]

Present+ StevenP

14:02:44 [Zakim]

+??P11

14:02:54 [ArtB]

zakim, ??P11 is Robin

14:02:54 [Zakim]

+Robin; got it

14:02:59 [ArtB]

Present+ Robin

14:03:03 [darobin]

Zakim, Robin is me

14:03:03 [Zakim]

+darobin; got it

14:03:15 [ArtB]

Topic: Review and tweak agenda

14:03:22 [ArtB]

AB: agenda submitted on Feb 3 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0411.html ). We will drop 4.a. because Macros already closed action 476. Any change requests?

14:03:33 [Steven-cwi]

s/Macros/Marcos/

14:03:51 [ArtB]

Topic: Announcements

14:03:54 [Zakim]

+ +49.208.829.0.aaaa

14:03:55 [marcin]

marcin has joined #wam

14:03:57 [ArtB]

AB: any short announcements?

14:04:01 [ArtB]

Present+ Marcin

14:04:21 [ArtB]

Topic: P&C spec: Any critical comments against P&C CR#2?

14:04:35 [Steven-cwi]

zakim, aaaa is Marcin

14:04:35 [Zakim]

+Marcin; got it

14:04:41 [ArtB]

AB: the comment period for P&C CR#2 ended 24-Jan-2010. About 15 comments were submitted against the spec and its test suite see the list in: ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0410.html ). Marcos said ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0413.html ) "the emails resulted in clarifications to the spec and fixes in the test suite".

14:05:33 [ArtB]

AB: any comments about Marcos' analysis or any concerns about the comments that were submitted?

14:05:39 [darobin]

+1

14:05:59 [ArtB]

AB: I also did not recognize any substantial comments

14:06:14 [ArtB]

Topic: P&C spec: Interop plans (and exiting CR)

14:06:32 [ArtB]

AB: the P&C CR Implementation Report ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/ ) shows 3 implementations pass 100% of the tests in the test suite. I think that means we can now exit CR and advance to PR.

14:06:50 [ArtB]

AB: any comments?

14:07:01 [ArtB]

... any disagreements with my intepretation?

14:07:08 [ArtB]

MC: I added one test to the test suite

14:07:16 [ArtB]

... thus everyone is down to 99%

14:07:23 [ArtB]

... planning to add one more test

14:07:32 [ArtB]

... then I think it will be complete

14:07:49 [ArtB]

SP: what are the exit criteria?

14:08:03 [ArtB]

MC: 2 impls that pass 100% of the tests

14:08:21 [ArtB]

Arve: having 2 interop impls doesn't mean there are no problems

14:08:28 [ArtB]

... if those impls are widely used

14:08:42 [ArtB]

... Perhaps the exit criteria should have been tighter

14:09:04 [ArtB]

AB: we are free to create any criteria we want

14:09:18 [ArtB]

... I would caution though on being overly constraining

14:09:50 [ArtB]

AB: I am also sympathetic to the concerns Marcos raised

14:10:43 [Steven-cwi]

and demonstrated at least two interoperable implementations (interoperable meaning at least two implementations that pass each test in the test suite).

14:11:10 [ArtB]

MC: we all agree we don't want to rush it

14:11:30 [ArtB]

SP: agree and that's not what I was saying; just wanted to clarify

14:11:31 [Steven-cwi]

Traditionally, exiting CR was with two impls of each feature, rather than two implementations of EVERY feature

14:11:41 [ArtB]

MC: think we need more "in the wild" usage

14:11:43 [Steven-cwi]

but we are being stricter, which is fine

14:11:58 [Steven-cwi]

but the wording can actually be interpreted as the looser version

14:12:03 [ArtB]

RB: I think we're OK to ship

14:12:10 [ArtB]

... think we've already done pretty good

14:12:23 [ArtB]

... if we run into serious probs we can publish a 2nd edition

14:12:35 [ArtB]

... we have done a bunch of authoring and not found major issues

14:12:52 [ArtB]

MC: if people feel confident, I won't block moving forward

14:13:11 [ArtB]

AB: coming back to these two new test cases

14:13:16 [Marcos]

http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/ta-rZdcMBExBX/002/

14:13:40 [ArtB]

... at a minumum, presume we would need at least 2/3 impls to run these 2 new tests

14:13:58 [ArtB]

AB: one of the new tests is checked in already?

14:14:01 [ArtB]

MC: yes

14:14:09 [ArtB]

... and the 2nd will be checked in today

14:15:10 [ArtB]

AB: after you check in this 2nd test, can you notify the list and ask implementors to run them?

14:15:12 [ArtB]

MC: yes

14:15:34 [ArtB]

ACTION: Marcos notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C tests and ask implementors to run them and report their results

14:15:35 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-485 - Notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C tests and ask implementors to run them and report their results [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11].

14:16:16 [ArtB]

AB: so this is BONDI, Aplix, Wookie?

14:16:18 [ArtB]

RB: yes

14:16:36 [ArtB]

AB: I wonder how long it will take to get data from them?

14:16:42 [ArtB]

MC: I think "pretty quick"

14:16:46 [ArtB]

RB: agree

14:17:15 [ArtB]

AB: so the tentative plan is we should be in a postion on Feb 11 to decide if the P&C spec is ready to move to PR?

14:17:20 [ArtB]

MC: yes

14:17:57 [ArtB]

AB: one question I have is about the plan to test optional functionality i.e. the SHOULD and MAY assertions, in particular the ITS stuff.

14:18:14 [ArtB]

... any thoughts on those?

14:18:16 [Steven-cwi]

q+

14:18:18 [ArtB]

MC: no, not yet

14:18:50 [ArtB]

... we had some tests that covered optional functionality but they aren't part of the test suite

14:18:58 [ArtB]

... I don't have any ITS tests

14:19:03 [ArtB]

... but I can add them

14:19:49 [ArtB]

AB: I wonder if they should be in a separate directory so it is clear they do not test Mandatory funtionality

14:20:04 [ArtB]

SP: so SHOULD and MAY assertions are not tested?

14:20:08 [ArtB]

MC: yes, that's correct

14:20:15 [ArtB]

... with a few exceptions

14:20:36 [ArtB]

SP: normally, SHOULDs shold be treated as regular tests

14:20:50 [ArtB]

... re MAYs, should have at least an example of how it is used

14:21:03 [ArtB]

s/shold be/should be/

14:21:14 [ArtB]

MC: we have 1 normative SHOULD in the spec

14:21:22 [ArtB]

... we also use OPTIONAL

14:21:42 [ArtB]

... e.g. with the ITS functionality

14:22:24 [ArtB]

AB: if we follow SP's recomendation, then we just need one more test?

14:22:31 [ArtB]

MC: yes and I already created that test

14:22:51 [ArtB]

AB: then it seems like we should ask the implementors to run that test as well

14:22:53 [ArtB]

MC: yes

14:23:17 [ArtB]

SP: if ITS is optional, what is your expectation if it is used?

14:23:37 [ArtB]

MC: used to denote certain text spans are rendered LtoR or RtoL

14:23:57 [ArtB]

SP: what is the normative requirement you'd have to test if it is implemented?

14:24:07 [ArtB]

... is it a "don't crash" type test?

14:24:21 [ArtB]

MC: would make sure the right Unicode indicators are inserted

14:24:31 [ArtB]

... and no crashes :-)

14:24:58 [ArtB]

SP: wanted to understand if there is some functional behavior

14:25:07 [ArtB]

... or is it about translating text

14:25:42 [ArtB]

MC: similar to HTMLs LtoR and RtoL tag

14:26:32 [Marcos]

For example, <name>Yay for the "<its:span dir="rtl">متعة الأسماك!</its:span>" Widget</name>

14:26:34 [Steven-cwi]

BDO

14:27:17 [ArtB]

AB: to summarize, the test suite will have 3 new tests that all implementations will need to run. Is this correct?

14:27:22 [ArtB]

MC: yes

14:27:46 [ArtB]

... but ITS may require more than one test case

14:28:08 [ArtB]

AB: what is the time frame on getting the ITS test case checked in?

14:28:24 [ArtB]

MC: tomorrow and I will collaborate with I18N Core WG

14:28:38 [ArtB]

ACTION: marcos create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite

14:28:38 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-486 - Create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11].

14:28:59 [ArtB]

MC: I don't want to block on comments from I18N Core WG

14:29:03 [ArtB]

... shouldn't be complicated

14:29:29 [ArtB]

AB: anything else on P&C for today?

14:29:31 [ArtB]

[ No ]

14:29:43 [ArtB]

Topic: TWI spec: test case comments

14:29:53 [ArtB]

AB: Scott submitted comments about the two of TWI test cases ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0222.html ) and ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0300.html ). Has anyone looked at these?

14:30:18 [ArtB]

MC: Scott's corrections are fine

14:30:24 [ArtB]

AB: he checked in changes?

14:30:28 [ArtB]

MC: yes, I think so

14:30:45 [ArtB]

Topic: TWI spec: Interop plans?

14:30:54 [ArtB]

AB: the Implementation Report ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/imp-report/ ) is still sparse. What are the plans and expectations here?

14:31:37 [ArtB]

AB: Marcin, can ACCESS provide some results?

14:31:43 [ArtB]

MH: I can't promise anything

14:31:55 [ArtB]

AB: do we know what Aplix is planning?

14:31:59 [ArtB]

MC: I can ask Kai

14:32:28 [ArtB]

ACTION: Marcos to ask Aplix about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec

14:32:28 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-487 - Ask Aplix about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11].

14:32:51 [ArtB]

ACTION: Marcos to ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec

14:32:51 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-488 - Ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-02-11].

14:33:07 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos, I can help with these two actions re TWI test results

14:33:26 [ArtB]

AB: anyone know Widgeon's plans?

14:33:40 [ArtB]

RB: it hasn't been a high priority for me ATM

14:33:51 [ArtB]

AB: what about Wookie?

14:34:06 [ArtB]

MC: yes, I think so but he hasn't published anything yet

14:34:23 [ArtB]

ACTION: Barstow to ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec

14:34:23 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-489 - Ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-11].

14:34:54 [ArtB]

AB: do you consider the TWI test suite complete?

14:34:56 [ArtB]

MC: no

14:35:08 [ArtB]

... one issue was raised by Dom

14:35:27 [ArtB]

... some of the tests were built manually and some were auto-generated

14:35:45 [ArtB]

... some of the auto-generated tests need review and possilby some work

14:36:05 [ArtB]

... there are still some other issues with that test suite

14:36:19 [ArtB]

... I can fix the manual things by Feb 5; no big issues

14:36:34 [ArtB]

... Would say the TWI test suite is about 90% done

14:37:03 [ArtB]

AB: anything else on the TWI spec for today?

14:37:22 [ArtB]

Topic: WARP spec: test suite plans

14:37:38 [ArtB]

AB: Marcos indicated he does not support publishing a LC spec before a test suite exists. Any comments on this?

14:38:36 [ArtB]

RB: I'm fine with either plan

14:39:00 [ArtB]

... I think the time is the same if test suite is done before or after CR

14:39:12 [ArtB]

... I do want the WG to consider the spec as frozen

14:39:44 [ArtB]

AB: I think the fact that we already recorded consensus to publish the LC means the spec is frozen

14:40:21 [ArtB]

RB: there aren't very many testable assertions

14:40:34 [ArtB]

... but it will require some special setup

14:40:44 [ArtB]

MC: we need some help from the W3C

14:40:56 [ArtB]

... we need to have at least 2 domains to test against

14:41:09 [ArtB]

... because we will do cross-domain requests

14:41:24 [darobin]

[there are 10 MUSTs, 0 SHOULDs]

14:41:41 [ArtB]

AB: wonder if there is any precedenc in W3C for this

14:42:03 [ArtB]

MC: Dom mentioned some related work being done in a test suite WG or QA group

14:42:32 [ArtB]

ACTION: barstow work with MC, RB and Dom on creating a infrastructure to test the WARP spec

14:42:32 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-490 - Work with MC, RB and Dom on creating a infrastructure to test the WARP spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-11].

14:43:01 [ArtB]

AB: anything else on WARP testing for today?

14:43:05 [ArtB]

[ No ]

14:43:41 [ArtB]

Topic: WARP spec: use cases for local network access

14:43:56 [ArtB]

AB: Yesterday Stephen sent some use cases for local network access ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0385.html ). Let's start with an overview from Stephen.

14:44:43 [ArtB]

SJ: the UCs are related in that they all require access to resources on a local network

14:45:00 [ArtB]

... can expect these resources to have API a widget may want to call

14:45:13 [ArtB]

... e.g. to access a camera

14:45:36 [ArtB]

AB: any comments on these UCs?

14:45:53 [ArtB]

Arve: these UCs are consistent with what Opera considers "local network"

14:46:40 [ArtB]

... not sure where to go from here

14:47:00 [ArtB]

... not sure how the service discovery will be done

14:47:13 [ArtB]

... could reference some other spec or could add that function to WARP

14:47:24 [ArtB]

MC: I'd prefer not to add this functionality to WARP

14:47:37 [ArtB]

... automated discovery has a lot of prior work

14:47:50 [ArtB]

... want to keep WARP spec scope as is

14:48:12 [ArtB]

... and then we can add on top of WARP

14:48:55 [ArtB]

Arve: the definition of local network can change during an invocation of widget i.e. while it is running

14:49:37 [ArtB]

AB: so what is the next step for SJ and this proposal?

14:50:05 [ArtB]

SJ: I can understand the consensus to not change WARP scope

14:51:06 [ArtB]

[ Note taker missed some of SJ's comments .... ]

14:51:24 [ArtB]

MC: I don't think WARP should include service discovery

14:51:41 [ArtB]

... don't want to list things the spec doesn't do

14:51:47 [ArtB]

RB: agree with Marcos

14:52:37 [ArtB]

SJ: if local net discovery could be standardized somewhere e.g. in DAP WG

14:52:48 [ArtB]

... could WARP then reference that spec

14:53:24 [ArtB]

SJ: so this functionality could be added in a subsequent spec?

14:53:36 [ArtB]

RB: yes, we could add it to something like WARP 1.1

14:54:13 [darobin]

[I would like to clarify that I am very supportive of these local network things]

14:55:14 [darobin]

Zakim, mute arve/marcos

14:55:14 [Zakim]

arve/marcos should now be muted

14:55:40 [darobin]

+1

14:55:51 [ArtB]

AB: perhaps we should have followups on the mail list

14:56:00 [ArtB]

SJ: I'm OK with that

14:56:17 [ArtB]

Arve: if widget must connect to local net and then to the public net

14:56:52 [ArtB]

... otpions are to give completely open access or to just the local net plus the one specific public service

14:57:49 [ArtB]

... definition of local is tricky and don't want to open too much

14:58:05 [tlr]

tlr has joined #wam

14:58:16 [Steven-cwi]

s/otpions/options/

14:58:23 [ArtB]

AB: would be helpful if you Arve would respond on the mail list

14:58:27 [ArtB]

Arve: yes, I'll do that

14:58:48 [ArtB]

SJ: where can I ask questions about service discovery? Is it this WG or some other?

14:58:56 [ArtB]

Arve: I think DAP is more appropriate

14:59:03 [ArtB]

RB: I think this WG is OK

14:59:12 [ArtB]

... but this isn't really in WebApps' charter

14:59:20 [ArtB]

... so you can expect some pushback

14:59:34 [ArtB]

s/WebApps' charter/DAP charter/

14:59:51 [ArtB]

RB: I am open to discuss this in DAP but think we'll get pushback

15:00:36 [ArtB]

AB: I'm not aware of any other WGs for which service discovery is in scope

15:01:16 [ArtB]

AB: anything else on this topic for today?

15:01:28 [ArtB]

Topic: URI Scheme spec: Status of LC comment tracking

15:01:41 [ArtB]

AB: the tracking document for LC comments for the URI scheme spec is ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/doc/ ). Seven of the comments are labeled "tocheck" and this implies some additional communication with the Commenter is needed.

15:02:51 [ArtB]

AB: what's your sense on the next step Robin?

15:03:21 [ArtB]

RB: we can make a few changes based on the TAG's input

15:03:40 [ArtB]

... not sure if we should submit registration before or after CR

15:04:02 [ArtB]

AB: the PoR says after CR

15:04:19 [ArtB]

... is there some input that would change that?

15:04:42 [ArtB]

RB: depending on the feedback from IETF we may need to go back to CR

15:04:53 [darobin]

s/back to CR/back to LC

15:05:02 [ArtB]

... may want to have IETF feedback before Director's Call for the CR

15:06:17 [ArtB]

AB: I'm certainly OK with doing the registration before we propose CR to the Director

15:07:04 [ArtB]

AB: how can we satisfy the "thismessage scheme doesn't meet our reqs"?

15:07:19 [ArtB]

RB: I don't think that will be hard; AFAIK, it hasn't been implememted

15:07:47 [ArtB]

RB: I can take an action to do the registration

15:08:15 [ArtB]

AB: there is a related action http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/416

15:08:17 [darobin]

action-416?

15:08:17 [trackbot]

ACTION-416 -- Robin Berjon to register URI scheme for the Widgets URI spec -- due 2010-01-01 -- OPEN

15:08:17 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/416

15:08:39 [darobin]

action-416 due 2010-02-11

15:08:39 [trackbot]

ACTION-416 Register URI scheme for the Widgets URI spec due date now 2010-02-11

15:09:22 [ArtB]

AB: OK, then let's get the registration submitted and then we will have more information to use in our decision on what to do next

15:09:35 [ArtB]

AB: anything else on this spec for today?

15:09:54 [ArtB]

AB: does anyone have experience with scheme registration?

15:10:07 [ArtB]

... I'm wondering what the expecations are re timeframe

15:10:24 [ArtB]

RB: HTML5 may have done something recently re WebSockets

15:10:32 [ArtB]

AB: OK; I'll check that

15:10:45 [ArtB]

Topic: AOB

15:10:52 [ArtB]

AB: I don't have anything for today. The next call is scheduled for 11 February.

15:11:30 [ArtB]

AB: anything else?

15:11:30 [darobin]

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/system-info-api/

15:11:49 [ArtB]

AB: Meeting Adjourned for today

15:12:02 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

15:12:02 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-minutes.html ArtB

15:12:02 [Zakim]

-Marcin

15:12:04 [Zakim]

-Steven

15:12:06 [Zakim]

-arve/marcos

15:12:08 [Zakim]

-darobin

15:12:18 [Zakim]

-Art_Barstow

15:12:19 [Zakim]

-Stephen_Jolly

15:12:19 [Zakim]

IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended

15:12:20 [Zakim]

Attendees were Art_Barstow, arve/marcos, Stephen_Jolly, Steven, darobin, +49.208.829.0.aaaa, Marcin

15:12:47 [darobin]

heh, I just had a conversation thanking Art for his congratulations and explaining the spec — but was muted...

15:28:47 [ArtB]

zakim, bye

15:28:47 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wam

15:28:52 [ArtB]

rrsagent, bye

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-actions.rdf :

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Marcos notify public-webapps of 2 new P&C tests and ask implementors to run them and report their results [1]

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-15-34

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: marcos create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite [2]

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-28-38

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Marcos to ask Aplix about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [3]

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-32-28

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Marcos to ask BONDI (David Rogers) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [4]

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-32-51

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Barstow to ask Wookie (Scott Wilson) about their plans to contribute results on testing the Widget Interface spec [5]

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-34-23

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow work with MC, RB and Dom on creating a infrastructure to test the WARP spec [6]

15:28:52 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-wam-irc#T14-42-32