IRC log of wam on 2010-02-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
14:00:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:00:30 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:00:32 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be DOM3
14:00:33 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:00:33 [trackbot]
Date: 11 February 2010
14:00:39 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:00:55 [Steven]
zakim, this will be webapps
14:00:55 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; I see IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM scheduled to start now
14:01:14 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
14:01:16 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
14:01:18 [ArtB]
14:01:19 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
14:01:21 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
14:01:23 [ArtB]
Date: 11 February 2010
14:01:24 [ArtB]
Regrets: Stephen_Jolly, David_Rogers, Marcin_Hanclik
14:01:26 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log public
14:01:44 [ArtB]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:01:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
14:01:59 [Zakim]
IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has now started
14:02:04 [Zakim]
14:02:06 [Zakim]
14:02:09 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
14:02:09 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:02:10 [Zakim]
14:02:21 [fjh]
fjh has joined #wam
14:02:24 [Zakim]
14:02:25 [Steven]
zakim, mute me
14:02:26 [Zakim]
Steven should now be muted
14:02:38 [darobin]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
14:02:38 [Zakim]
+darobin; got it
14:02:52 [ArtB]
Present: Art, Robin, Bryan, StevenP
14:03:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.479.524.aaaa
14:04:02 [Marcos]
Zakim, 1.479.524.aaaa is me
14:04:02 [Zakim]
sorry, Marcos, I do not recognize a party named '1.479.524.aaaa'
14:04:17 [ArtB]
Present+ Marcos
14:04:25 [Marcos]
member:Zakim, +1.479.524.aaaa is me
14:04:26 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
14:04:30 [Marcos]
14:04:47 [ArtB]
Topic: Review and tweak agenda
14:04:48 [Marcos]
zakim, +1.479.524.aaaa is me
14:04:48 [Zakim]
+Marcos; got it
14:04:54 [ArtB]
AB: yesterday I sent out the draft agenda for this meeting ( ). Are there any change requests?
14:05:06 [ArtB]
AB: we will add MPEG-U discussion to AOB ( )
14:05:22 [ArtB]
AB: we will drop 5.a discuss Action-490 ( ) since I hoping to get to it before this meeting but did not and thus have nothing to report.
14:05:47 [ArtB]
AB: any agenda change requests?
14:05:49 [ArtB]
[ no ]
14:05:55 [ArtB]
Topic: Announcements
14:06:02 [ArtB]
AB: two normative refs in Widgets DigSig to XML Signatures specs entered LCWD on Feb 4 ( ). Any other short announcements?
14:06:54 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: Important Test Suite Updates
14:07:05 [ArtB]
AB: last week Marcos mentioned he would add a new test case to the P&C test suite. He has done that ( ). Thanks Marcos! What is the status of people running this new test?
14:08:04 [ArtB]
MC: it has been run by Aplix, BONDI, Wookie have all run this new test and passed it
14:08:30 [ArtB]
AB: wrt the P&C Interop Report, are we back to 3 impls that pass 100% of the test suite?
14:08:35 [ArtB]
MC: yes, that is correct
14:09:02 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: Action-486: Create ITS test case(s) for the P&C test suite
14:09:15 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, what is the status of the P&C ITS testing and Action-486 ( )?
14:09:27 [ArtB]
MC: I haven't done that yet
14:09:49 [ArtB]
AB: do you need some help wrt coordinating with the I18N WG?
14:10:00 [ArtB]
MC: no, I just need to create the test or tests
14:10:16 [ArtB]
... it's not that much work
14:10:28 [ArtB]
... I don't think it should block us from going to PR
14:11:15 [ArtB]
AB: I agree but we know the Director has indicated he would like to see that test
14:11:50 [ArtB]
AB: do you need an impl of ITS to test the tests?
14:11:56 [ArtB]
MC: yes, that is correct
14:12:30 [ArtB]
... I am not aware of any impl that will support it
14:12:35 [ArtB]
... it is indeed optional
14:12:50 [Steven]
ack me
14:13:29 [ArtB]
AB: would like SP to help us with the process here
14:13:46 [ArtB]
SP: if it is optional then there should be at least one impl
14:13:57 [ArtB]
... with something like this, not sure what to suggest
14:14:15 [ArtB]
... to go to REC with an unimplemented feature would mean the feature is at risk
14:14:34 [ArtB]
AB: but what about going to PR?
14:14:52 [ArtB]
SP: should try to find something that can do something with the test
14:15:21 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow work with MC and the Team to determine how to test the P&C ITS test(s)
14:15:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-491 - Work with MC and the Team to determine how to test the P&C ITS test(s) [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-18].
14:15:56 [ArtB]
SP: input mode on XHTML Basic, we did find an internal impl we could use
14:16:07 [ArtB]
... without revealing confidential info
14:16:22 [ArtB]
... [so there is a precedence that could be followed]
14:16:44 [ArtB]
MC: could it be placed in Widgeon Robin?
14:16:50 [ArtB]
RB: if you want to do so :-)
14:16:57 [ArtB]
MC: just need to insert the right unicodes
14:17:11 [ArtB]
RB: agree it could be done but I don't have the bandwidth to do it
14:17:22 [ArtB]
... it is OSS so anyone can do the impl
14:17:30 [ArtB]
SP: I think that would be fine
14:17:41 [ArtB]
RB: agree it would take care of the process
14:17:50 [ArtB]
... not sure though about how useful it is
14:18:39 [ArtB]
SP: may not have one complete impl for PR but all features must be implemented by some set of the impls
14:18:53 [ArtB]
... need to show it is implementable, not necessarily implemented
14:19:02 [ArtB]
RB: we have tighter constraints
14:19:18 [ArtB]
MC: we said all MUST assertions must have tests
14:19:33 [ArtB]
... support for ITS is Not Mandatory
14:19:42 [ArtB]
... it wouldn't harm the spec if it was removed
14:19:50 [Zakim]
+ +47.23.69.aabb
14:20:01 [ArtB]
Present+ Arve
14:20:04 [arve]
zakim, aabb is arve/marcos
14:20:04 [Zakim]
+arve/marcos; got it
14:20:53 [Steven]
zakim, who is muted?
14:20:53 [Zakim]
I see no one muted
14:21:06 [ArtB]
AB: to wrap up, I have Action-491 and I'd like to be in a position next week during our call to deteremine if we have consensus to move P&C spec to PR
14:21:07 [Steven]
zakim, wh is muted?
14:21:07 [Zakim]
sorry, Steven, I do not understand your question
14:21:15 [Steven]
zakim, who is muted?
14:21:15 [Zakim]
I see Steven muted
14:21:31 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on P&C for today?
14:21:47 [Zakim]
14:21:58 [ArtB]
Topic: Widget Interface spec: openURL() security considerations
14:22:06 [ArtB]
AB: earlier this week Marcos proposed some security considerations text ( ) for the openURL method.
14:22:32 [ArtB]
MC: we proposed some text
14:22:43 [ArtB]
... Anne raised some good issues
14:22:58 [ArtB]
... want to wait for additional feedback
14:23:12 [ArtB]
... would be good to hear from TLR
14:23:26 [Marcos]
14:23:54 [ArtB]
AB: other than chasing down Adam, et al., is there anything else you need from the group?
14:24:13 [ArtB]
MC: no, that's it
14:24:39 [ArtB]
AB: the idea is to create non-normative guidelines?
14:25:03 [ArtB]
MC: yes but there is a question about if the file:// URI should not be used
14:25:39 [ArtB]
AB: would that change require us to go back to LC?
14:25:52 [ArtB]
MC: not sure; want to make this non-normative
14:26:12 [ArtB]
... a UA may want to support file:// URI
14:26:19 [ArtB]
... we can't keep an impl from doing that
14:26:34 [ArtB]
AB: any other feedback for MC on this?
14:26:53 [ArtB]
AB: I'd like to see this added as non-normative text
14:26:56 [ArtB]
MC: I agree
14:27:32 [ArtB]
Topic: Widget Interface spec: general comments by Cyril Concolato
14:27:47 [ArtB]
AB: Cyrll posted some general comments about the TWI spec ( ). There were quite a few follow-ups. Where do we stand on these comments?
14:28:15 [ArtB]
AB: will addressing any of these comments require the TWI spec to go back to LC?
14:28:41 [ArtB]
MC: I don't think any of these comments affect normative text
14:28:48 [ArtB]
... I consider them clarifications
14:29:17 [ArtB]
... it does expose the window object issue
14:29:50 [ArtB]
AB: I think he raised that in a separate thread
14:30:05 [ArtB]
MC: yes, but it's in thread 0479 too
14:30:26 [ArtB]
AB: here is the other thread by Cyril:
14:30:32 [Marcos]
Cyril said "* What happens to the "storage" event fired by the setItem or removeItem methods when the UA does not implement the window object ?"
14:31:20 [ArtB]
AB: do any of the non window object changes affect normative text?
14:31:28 [ArtB]
MC: no; the others are all clarifications
14:31:47 [ArtB]
AB: does anyone disagree with MC's characterization
14:32:15 [ArtB]
Topic: Widget Interface spec: window object comments by Cyril Concolato
14:32:21 [ArtB]
AB: Cyril also submitted some comments about the window object ( ).
14:32:50 [ArtB]
MC: the issue is the dependency on HTML5's window object
14:33:10 [ArtB]
... we use the browsing context as defined in HTML5
14:33:25 [ArtB]
... this does create a problem for non HTML languages
14:33:51 [ArtB]
... I don't think this means much wrt normative text for TWI spec
14:34:12 [ArtB]
... could say if you implement HTML5 then put Widget object on the Window
14:34:48 [ArtB]
AB: does anyone have concerns about this?
14:35:10 [ArtB]
RB: I'm not convinced we need to change anything
14:35:30 [ArtB]
... we can talk about global object but that could create problems for other impls
14:35:41 [ArtB]
... I think what we have is good enough
14:35:59 [ArtB]
MC: I think we should just leave it as is
14:36:25 [ArtB]
AB: I agree with Robin's concern about a global Widget object
14:36:35 [ArtB]
AB: any other comments on this?
14:37:19 [ArtB]
AB: does it appear Cyril is OK with what you and RB are saying MC?
14:37:48 [ArtB]
MC: yes; he acknowledged that what we said was correct (we pointed out some info he had not seen)
14:38:17 [ArtB]
AB: proposed resolution is: the window object as currently specified in the TWI CR is OK as is
14:38:27 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to that proposed resolution?
14:38:31 [ArtB]
[ None ]
14:38:41 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: the window object as currently specified in the TWI CR is OK as is
14:39:23 [ArtB]
Topic: TWI spec: test suite
14:39:33 [ArtB]
AB: is the TWI test suite still incomplete?
14:39:38 [ArtB]
MC: yes, that's correct
14:39:52 [ArtB]
... I need to get together with Dom after he returns next week
14:40:03 [ArtB]
... If anyone can help with the Web IDL, please let me know
14:40:24 [ArtB]
RB: I can take a look but I recommend you ask Dom first
14:40:30 [ArtB]
... I think it is correct
14:40:50 [ArtB]
MC: I think what Dom proposed makes sense
14:41:06 [ArtB]
... but there are problems with the automatically generated tests the Dom created
14:41:21 [ArtB]
... that is the only real blocker at the moment
14:41:35 [ArtB]
... some implementors are already running the test suite
14:41:48 [ArtB]
... Wookie has been reporting some results and Opera too
14:42:07 [ArtB]
AB: how does the report process work?
14:42:27 [ArtB]
MC: an implementor creates and maintains their own XML file
14:42:42 [ArtB]
... of the test results
14:43:00 [ArtB]
... we are not verifying results
14:43:23 [ArtB]
AB: do people drop their test results in CVS or email them to you?
14:43:38 [ArtB]
MC: preferably the implementors just put their results in CVS
14:43:51 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on the TWI spec for today?
14:44:04 [ArtB]
Topic: AOB: charter renewal
14:44:18 [ArtB]
AB: Doug sent out a call for comments on WebApps charter renewal ( ). Scott Wilson requested some new deliverables ( ).
14:44:39 [ArtB]
AB: I think the #1 priority for the new charter is completing the work we already have in progress.
14:45:07 [Steven]
14:45:34 [Zakim]
14:45:44 [ArtB]
Present+ Doug
14:46:12 [Steven]
ack me
14:46:32 [ArtB]
SP: I don't have any comments on the charter yet
14:46:39 [Steven]
14:46:41 [ArtB]
... the copyright is incorrect
14:47:18 [ArtB]
DS: thanks for that pointer
14:47:34 [ArtB]
... we wanted to re-use as much of the existing charter as possible
14:47:54 [ArtB]
... I will look at that output
14:48:31 [ArtB]
... we will include a pointer to our publication status:
14:49:07 [ArtB]
AB: I prefer a pointer to a living document
14:49:21 [ArtB]
SP: the charter should include a pointer to that pub status page
14:49:24 [ArtB]
AB: yes, it does
14:49:40 [ArtB]
DS: Art, I have now included the change you proposed
14:51:06 [ArtB]
... I expect to get management review next week so a formal AC review could happen late next week
14:55:32 [ArtB]
DS: what new widget delieverables do we want?
14:55:44 [ArtB]
AB: Scott Wilson proposed a few things
14:55:51 [darobin]
14:55:58 [ArtB]
... the Social APIs need more info
14:56:19 [ArtB]
... there is also a widget intercommunciation proposal
14:56:49 [ArtB]
... some have said that should leverage HTML5's mechanisms as much as possible and I agree with that
14:57:10 [ArtB]
DS: if we want to add any new work, we should make it explicit
14:57:38 [ArtB]
Arve: I don't think we want a widget-specific spec for communication, we want a Web communcation spec
14:57:46 [ArtB]
DS: so a "Web messaging" spec?
14:57:58 [ArtB]
Arve: yes, something like that addresses discovery
14:58:22 [ArtB]
... don't know where we will end up e.g. one spec versus two and scope
14:58:30 [ArtB]
... we should probably start with use cases
14:58:47 [ArtB]
... need messaging to signal between windows for example
14:59:09 [ArtB]
... not sure postMessage will be the best way to solve it
14:59:42 [shepazu]
15:00:24 [viper23]
viper23 has joined #wam
15:00:35 [ArtB]
[ Doug reads related text he has added to the draft charter ]
15:01:25 [ArtB]
DS: I think we should have an explicit deliverable
15:01:30 [ArtB]
Arve: yes, agree
15:01:47 [ArtB]
Arve: there may be some relationship between notifications and messaging
15:02:33 [ArtB]
... we can also consider widgets embedded on a web page e.g. Google gadget
15:05:59 [ArtB]
DS: think this format can be used by other apps e.g. flash
15:06:26 [darobin]
DS: it is very common for designers to need to send a file with all its resources, this would be very useful for that
15:06:42 [ArtB]
DS: I can add messaging and discover
15:06:52 [ArtB]
15:07:16 [ArtB]
... and that will take care of Scott's #1 point
15:07:34 [ArtB]
... re point #2 from Scott, I think that's a reasonable use case
15:08:23 [ArtB]
... re pioont #3 and Social api, not sure
15:08:41 [ArtB]
Arve: I'd like to see some use case about the Social API
15:09:12 [ArtB]
MC: there is some related work onging in one of the XGs
15:09:52 [ArtB]
15:10:33 [ArtB]
Arve: I don't think we can add something like Social API without more information
15:10:39 [ArtB]
AB: I agree with Arve
15:11:11 [ArtB]
ACTION: wilson submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets
15:11:11 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - wilson
15:11:11 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ChrisWilson, swilson3, awilson2)
15:11:24 [ArtB]
ACTION: scott submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets
15:11:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-492 - Submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [on Scott Wilson - due 2010-02-18].
15:12:52 [ArtB]
AB: I think we given Doug sufficient info for points #1 and #2
15:14:42 [ArtB]
DS: not sure I have wording about the embedding proposal
15:14:50 [ArtB]
... but I will work on some wording
15:15:16 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on charter?
15:16:13 [ArtB]
MC: in the scope of the charter, should say something about packaged client-side applications
15:16:18 [ArtB]
... perhaps i.e. widgets
15:16:38 [ArtB]
... make it very clear that widgets are in scope
15:17:09 [ArtB]
[ Doug reads latest related text form the scope ]
15:17:15 [ArtB]
MC: that's good enough
15:17:37 [shepazu]
[[Widgets Embedding:: a mechanism to allow server-side deployment of packaged client-side applications, within a Web page or as standalone content.]]
15:18:34 [darobin]
+1 to Marcos
15:18:48 [arve]
[Widgets Embedding: A mechanism to allow deployment and embedding of packaged widgets in web applications, within a web page or as stand-alone content]
15:18:50 [ArtB]
MC: not sure about "deployment" here
15:20:39 [ArtB]
DS: perhaps I should remove stand-alone content
15:20:42 [ArtB]
Arve: yes
15:22:22 [ArtB]
[ DS reads updated proposed text ... ; positive nods from attendees ... ]
15:23:21 [ArtB]
AB: thanks Doug!
15:23:38 [arve]
+1 thanks
15:23:40 [ArtB]
Topic: AOB: ISO's MPEG-U and Widgets
15:23:50 [ArtB]
AB: ISO' MPEG-U group is "embracing and extending" our widget specs e.g. see: ( ).
15:25:01 [ArtB]
AB: without Cyril here, not sure we should have this discussion today?
15:25:19 [ArtB]
AB: has anyone there spec?
15:25:24 [ArtB]
[ No ]
15:25:53 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow invite Cyril to our widget call on 18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets
15:25:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-493 - Invite Cyril to our widget call on 18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-18].
15:26:46 [ArtB]
DS: I skimmed it
15:26:52 [ArtB]
RB: I skimmed it too
15:27:00 [ArtB]
... some parts are concerning
15:27:41 [ArtB]
DS: I propose we send an immediate response and will respond with details later
15:28:02 [ArtB]
... think they want to finish their work in April
15:28:25 [ArtB]
... I think some of their work will conflict with our widget messaging work
15:29:42 [ArtB]
AB: how about we invite Cyril to next call and use that as a way to explain our concerns
15:29:52 [ArtB]
... that would give everyone 1 week to review their doc
15:29:54 [ArtB]
15:29:56 [ArtB]
15:30:03 [ArtB]
AB: then that's what we'll do
15:30:16 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on this topic?
15:30:20 [ArtB]
... anyhting else for today?
15:30:51 [ArtB]
AB: meeting adjourned; next meeting is Feb 18
15:31:07 [ArtB]
15:31:08 [Zakim]
15:31:11 [Zakim]
15:31:14 [Zakim]
15:31:15 [Zakim]
15:31:15 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:31:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
15:31:25 [arve]
arve has left #wam
15:31:27 [Marcos]
heh, I don't know if he heard
15:31:28 [Zakim]
15:32:43 [shepazu]
darobin is the walrus, kookoo-kachoo!
15:36:29 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, arve/marcos, in IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM
15:36:29 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
15:36:29 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wam
15:36:33 [Zakim]
IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
15:36:34 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bryan_Sullivan, Art_Barstow, Steven, darobin, Marcos, +47.23.69.aabb, arve/marcos, Shepazu
15:37:06 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
15:37:06 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in :
15:37:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow work with MC and the Team to determine how to test the P&C ITS test(s) [1]
15:37:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:37:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wilson submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [2]
15:37:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:37:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: scott submit some use case information about Social API proposal for widgets [3]
15:37:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:37:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow invite Cyril to our widget call on 18-Feb-2010 to talk about MPEG-U and widgets [4]
15:37:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in