Widgets Voice Conference -- 17 Jun 2010

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Review and tweak agenda

AB: yesterday I sent a draft agenda to the list ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/1058.html ). Any change requests?

Announcements

AB: any short announcements?

Digital Signature spec

AB: later today we will discuss publishing a CR with the Team ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ ). We have 1 hour for two specs.
... I expect most of the discussion to focus "what's changed?".
... since CR#1 was published, we effectively applied two Change Requests: the first included moving from C14N 1.0 to 1.1 and some other fixes and the second change request fixed a few bugs and increased the spec's "testability".
... the changes between July 2009 CR and April 15 LCWD are briefly summarized in the status section ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status ) and more details can be found in the following thread ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0054.html ).
... hoping FH could lead that discussion
... since FH isn't here now, I follow-up with him about the call

MC: yes, FH should be on the call to talk about those changes

AB: the changes between the 15 April LCWD and 11 May LCWD are summarized in the 11 May LC ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/#changes-since-last-publication- ).
... while we wait for FH to join, any other issues or concerns re DigSig?

MC: I feel confident about this

AB: again the changes between July 2009 CR and April 15 LCWD are briefly summarized in the status section ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/#status ) and more details can be found in the following thread ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0054.html ).

FH: yes, I will be there
... have any issues been raised?

AB: not that I know about
... anything else on digsig

view-mode Media Feature spec

AB: re today's CR ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/CR.html ) call with the Team, are there any concerns or issue?
... Robin is not likely to attend the call but Marcos agreed to take the lead

MC: I looked at the disposition of comments and don't see any issues

AB: anyone have concerns about the view-mode spec?

Packaging and Configuration spec

AB: Marcos added text re "Changes Since Last Publication" ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/pub/#changes-since-last-publication ). Any comments?

SP: no concerns

AB: we need to talk about Normative References and PR. The [Sniff] spec is a Normative Reference. Does this block us from publishing a PR?
... I want to understand if this is a problem?

SP: if it is a WIP we have a prob

AB: what is the process here?

SP: a normative ref should be in step with the spec to be published
... it can be one step behind but only briefly

AB: the ref is:

[[

[SNIFF]

Media Type Sniffing. A. Barth and I. Hickson. IETF. November 5, 2010 (Work in Progress).

]]

<Steven> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-05

AB: what does this mean Steven?

SP: not sure about the status of this spec

AB: I don't know about the IETF process

SP: yes, I haven't referenced IETF WIPs so I don't know how this is handled

<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with StevenP re the [Sniff] IETF reference in the widget packaging spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-561 - Work with StevenP re the [Sniff] IETF reference in the widget packaging spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-06-24].

AB: Marcos, are there any other references issue for P&C spec?

MC: Widget DigSig but that will soon be CR
... CSS21 is still a CR
... I think Sniff spec is the only issue

AB: we will wait to hear from the Team on how we deal with Sniff spec

Widget Interface spec

AB: The TWI spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ ) has a Normative dependency on Web IDL.
... and we also have no active Editor for Web IDL

MC: one idea is to use OMG IDL
... that was used previously
... we don't really need Web IDL
... we can use prose instead
... the interface is so simple
... In this case, TWI spec doesn't really win anything by using Web IDL

AB: I came to the same conclusion
... my pref would be to not add a new ref but to update the spec directly
... by that I mean do not reference OMG IDL
... I noticed only 3 Web IDL refs: ReadONly, Supplemental, NoInterfaceObject
... and I think we could simply cut-and-paste some definitions and hence not need the reference

MC: yes, I agree

<bryan_sullivan> +1

AB: we can create a new section that includes these defs and just explain that since Web IDL isn't ready, we copied the definitions we need

MC: yes, could do that

BS: yes, that makes sense to me
... but we do need to address the Web IDL Editor issue

AB: yes, agree
... if we go that route to add definitions into the spec, will that require going back to LC?
... I think the precedence we've followed to date is that if we just do a cut-and-paste, we haven't really changed anything that would affect an implementation
... thus, no need to go back to LC

MC: sounds good

SP: I think that would be OK
... I don't think it would change any software
... so that's OK with me

MC: yes, agree

AB: so the consensus is that cutting and pasting definitions from Web IDL to the TWI spec would not require a new LC

SP: I talked to Ian Jacobs - don't make normative references to unstable materials
... in this case, Sniff may change
... thus it needs to be stable

MC: I would argue Sniff is already widely implemented
... it has been part of the Web Platform for a long time
... We can get some status from Adam
... I think it is good and matches reality

<scribe> ACTION: Marcos determine the status of IETF's Sniff spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-562 - Determine the status of IETF's Sniff spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-06-24].

SP: formally, CSS2.1 is also a problem case for Widget P&C spec
... the mis-match must be brief
... want the references to be at equal states

MC: P&C references CSS pixels
... I don't think we want to copy that entire section of CSS2.1

<scribe> ACTION: marcso work with ArtB and SteveP re P&C's reference to CSS2.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-wam-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - marcso

AB: does anyone know the plan for CSS2.1 to go to PR?

MC: I don't know if it ever will go to PR
... since it will need thousands of tests

<Marcos> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units

MC: we can copy some text re pixels

AB: I thought a spec could be parked in PR even though its refs were not yet in PR

SP: no, that's not the way it works
... A person couldn't really vote on a spec if it is in PR if its refs were not stable
... if a ref is not stable, it can still change

MC: we do have an "out" for P&C and CSS2.1 because CSS2.0 includes the identical text for pixels

AB: the Widget Interface normative refernces HTML5
... so we'll need to think about that as well as Web Storage
... we also still have ISSUE-116 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/116 ) open.

MC: nothing new to report on that
... expect some progress next week

AB: last call for spec discussions for today ...

AOB

AB: Calls during the summer and summer holidays. In general, I don't want to have a call if lead Editor isn't available.

<Steven> Regrets for next week, 29 Jul, and the first three weeks of Aug

AB: make the next call July 1
... re planning, roadmap, ToDos, etc., see the Action list and PubStatus page ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Widget_Specifications )

SP: we are still waiting for WARP PAG to conclude, right?

AB: yes
... anything else for today?

<Steven> http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/

MC: what about a widget conformace checker?

AB: if it is non-normative, we can publish it

SP: yes, agree

MC: OK, I may bring this up later

AB: that would be a great idea
... meeting adjourned

- DRAFT -

Widgets Voice Conference

17 Jun 2010

Attendees

Contents