Widgets Voice Conference

07 Oct 2010


See also: IRC log


Art_Barstow, Robin_Berjon, Steven_Pemberton, Marcos_Caceres


<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Review and tweak agenda

AB: a draft agenda was submitted yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0051.html ). Any change requests?


AB: October 26 is the deadline for comments re October 5 LCWD of Widget Packaging and Configuration ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-20101005/ )
... TPAC: widgets group will not meet; registration after October 22 results in increased registration fee ( http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/#Registration )

Widget Interface spec

AB: Addison Philips submitted a comment against the 7-Sep-2010 LCWD ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0728.html ) and it raises the issues about how a developer can determine the locale and direction for the "span-able" properties.
... Marcos submitted a proposal to address the issues ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0033.html ).
... so far, I don't think anyone has responded to MC's proposal

MC: yes, that's correct

AB: not clear if directionality needs to be an explicit part of the API or if the spec can "punt" on that as suggested by Marcos f.ex. by following ( http://www.iamcal.com/understanding-bidirectional-text/ )

MC: I think the API needs some type of extension
... eg. the Localizeable DOM String
... to add language
... thus getters can work

<Marcos> eg. widget.name.lang

AB: that part seems straight-forward

MC: the algorithm can be written in JS
... don't think we should deal with that at the API level

AB: so you think the directionality is out of scope for the API
... i.e. is handled by some layer above the API
... is that correct?

MC: yes

AB: anyone else have input on this issue?

SP: think we need to hear from the I18N WG

RB: yes, I agree
... don't think directionality should be part of the API
... for example, it should definitely not be settable

<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask the I18N WG to respond to Marcos' proposal for Interface locale and directionality [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-wam-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-588 - Ask the I18N WG to respond to Marcos' proposal for Interface locale and directionality [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-10-14].

AB: I'm becoming increasingly concerned the bidi model in P&C is overly complicated for a Level 1 spec. Could greatly simplify everything by dropping span and just defining the "dir" attribute for the span-able elements. Any additional info that is needed can be accessed via indirection i.e. include a URI in the metadata.

MC: in Opera we haven't had any problems implementing it
... it is quite simple to process

AB: the use cases we see for these span-able elements is quite limited
... e.g. just to display the name of a widget in a home screen
... or the description is displayed by a widget "store"

MC: I did a whole lot of research for this

<Marcos> reseach was http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/i18n.html

AB: I realize there are use cases for lots of embedded spans with different directions
... but for a L1 spec we want wide deployement, it seems rather complicated
... the other concern I would have here is will we get 2 impls that pass all of the span and dir test cases
... do the test cases include nested spans with direction changes?

MC: yes, they do
... would it help if I send my JS impl to the list?

AB: yes, I think it would be helpful
... anything else on Interface spec for today?
... we'll have to go back to LC to add "lang" support
... unless we define the lang in a separate spec

MC: I think other implementers will provide data about supporting P&C bidi model

AB: that would be good information to have

widget: URI scheme

AB: what's the status and plan Robin?

RB: I've been wondering if it should include navigation
... and wondering if we coud use or resue the blob: uri scheme that is defined in the File API spec
... would be cleaner to put navigation in a separate spec
... but would be easier to add it to uri scheme
... spawning another spec has disadvantages
... Need to get feedback from implementors re navigation

MC: we should do another landscape investigation
... some impls don't navigate at all
... for instance, Opera doesn't navigate

AB: you mean intra-widget package is not allowed

MC: correct, that is not allowed
... if click on a link, it starts a new browser

RB: for V1, wondering if spec should be silent on navigation

MC: think we can live with that
... there are some UCs for navigation

RB: what if an iframe is included in widget's index.html?

MC: not sure

AB: without more data, hard to know if we should say something normative, non-normative or remain silent
... Marcos, does the landscape doc touch on navigation?

MC: no, it's a bit dated and didn't look at these more sophisticated use cases

AB: can one of your ask for some feedback?

MC: yes, I can do that

AB: ok; great and I'll send in info from the Qt WRT implementation

<scribe> ACTION: marcos Ask implementors for feedback on navigation models supported [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-wam-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-589 - Ask implementors for feedback on navigation models supported [on Marcos Caceres - due 2010-10-14].

RB: need to know if widget: URI is exposed
... how about Opera, Marcos?

MC: we use it but don't think we expose it

RB: perhaps I should ask the list if there is value in merging widget and blob URIs
... but if there are already impls, we don't want to break them
... Given the IANA/IETF work involved, would be good to reuse a schemem if we can

AB: it would be good to know if other implementors support widget: scheme
... I believe (not certain) that widget URI scheme is implemented by the Qt WRT, at least the alpha release
... would be good to get implementor feedback on widget: scheme
... could use the same email as navigation request

MC: ok, I'll ask both

AB: so, registration is on hold pending more implementor feedback. Is that correct Robin?

RB: yes, we need to get more feedback

<Marcos> <a href="iframe.html">navigate to iframe</a>

<Marcos> <iframe width="200" height="200" id="iframe" src="iframe.html">

<Marcos> </iframe>

<Marcos> <p id="hello"></p>

<Marcos> <script>

<Marcos> var iframe = document.getElementById("iframe").src;

<Marcos> var p = document.getElementById("hello");

<Marcos> p.innerHTML = iframe;

<Marcos> </script>

MC: when "navigate to iframe" is clicked, the widget does Not navigate to iframe.html


AB: any topics?
... next meeting ...
... 1 or 2 weeks?
... let's go for 2 weeks which is Oct 21
... and as always, take discussion to the list
... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: barstow ask the I18N WG to respond to Marcos' proposal for Interface locale and directionality [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: marcos Ask implementors for feedback on navigation models supported [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/10/07 14:02:20 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Default Present: Art_Barstow, darobin, Steven, +1.479.524.aaaa, Marcos
Present: Art_Barstow Robin_Berjon Steven_Pemberton Marcos_Caceres
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0051.html
Got date from IRC log name: 07 Oct 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-wam-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow marcos

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]