- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:36:39 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Below are the draft minutes from the August 12 Widgets voice conference WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before August 26 (the next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved. -Art Barstow Present: Art, Robin, Richard Tibbett, Wonsuk Lee Regrets: Frederick, Marcos Chair: Art Scribe: Art [09:02] <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda [09:02] <ArtB> AB: the draft agenda was posted yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0447.html ). The two specs on the agenda are Widget Interface and the Widget URI scheme. Any change requests? [09:03] <ArtB> RT: I would like to talk about Widget Updates spec [09:03] <ArtB> AB: ok, will add that to the end of the meeting [09:03] <ArtB> Topic: Announcements [09:04] <ArtB> AB: any short announcements today? [09:04] <ArtB> Topic: TWI spec: Action-568 [09:04] <ArtB> AB: earlier this week discussion on openURL removal continued ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0394.html ) [09:04] <ArtB> AB: Bryan Sullivan had some comments [09:05] <ArtB> ... I was hoping Bryan would join today but he hasn't [09:05] <ArtB> AB: I believe Marcos position is very clear [09:05] <ArtB> ... he wants it removed from the spec [09:06] <ArtB> RB: as far as I am concerned, agree it is useful [09:06] <ArtB> ... but it is also problematic [09:06] <ArtB> ... Think it should be solved somewhere else [09:06] <ArtB> RT: yes, there is a complexity issue here [09:06] <ArtB> ... so I agree with Marcos and Robin [09:06] <ArtB> RB: if we remove it, we should be able to go straight to REC [09:07] <ArtB> AB: we could go to PR but not REC because of some dependency issues [09:07] <ArtB> RB: dependency on HTML5? [09:07] <ArtB> AB: yes that is one [09:08] <ArtB> AB: I also tend to agree with the arguments to remove the functionality [09:08] <ArtB> ... and defer to some other spec for equivalent functionality [09:08] <ArtB> AB: I'll start an explict CfC about removing this method from the spec [09:09] <darobin> +1 [09:09] <ArtB> ... I'd like to make sure everyone has an opportunity to state their position [09:09] <richt> yep, sounds good [09:09] <ArtB> ACTION: barstow start a CfC about openURL and Action-568 [09:09] * trackbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it. [09:09] <trackbot> Created ACTION-569 - Start a CfC about openURL and Action-568 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-08-19]. [09:09] <ArtB> AB: anything else on that topic for today? [09:09] <ArtB> [ No ] [09:09] <ArtB> Topic: URI Scheme spec [09:10] <ArtB> AB: it has been a while since we discussed the widget: scheme spec ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ ) [09:10] <ArtB> AB: what's the status and plan? [09:10] <ArtB> RB: I still need to address some issues [09:10] <ArtB> ... I plan to make it a priority [09:10] <ArtB> ... hope to finish by the end of the month [09:11] <ArtB> ... I know the action items [09:11] <ArtB> AB: ok, great [09:11] <ArtB> AB: does anyone have any implementation status for this spec? [09:11] <ArtB> RB: I found it easy to implement [09:12] <ArtB> AB: the spec says authors shouldn't use this scheme [09:12] <ArtB> ... so what's the use case [09:12] <ArtB> RB: when using the DOM, need to determine an absolute URI [09:12] <ArtB> ... so impls need it [09:13] <ArtB> ... it could also to lead to security hole if an implementor was to use something like a file: URI [09:13] <ArtB> ... at runtime it is needed [09:13] <ArtB> ... e.g. to reuse a web runtime engine [09:13] <richt> It's a very useful spec and I believe we require it for impl. down the line. [09:13] <richt> ...at Opera [09:14] <ArtB> AB: anything else on that spec? [09:14] <ArtB> RT: we use it for some projects [09:14] <ArtB> ... good to get rid of the file: issue [09:14] <ArtB> Topic: Widget Updates spec [09:15] <richt> widgets updates: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ [09:15] <ArtB> RT: I've been working with Marcos on this spec [09:15] <ArtB> ... clarified update description [09:15] <ArtB> ... started an alogorithm to do the update [09:15] <ArtB> ... would like to get some feedback [09:16] <ArtB> AB: I haven't looked at the changes [09:16] <ArtB> RB: same here although I will do so shortly [09:16] <ArtB> RT: addresses comparing signatures for the installed widget and the update widget [09:17] <ArtB> ... so please do take a look [09:17] <ArtB> AB: to get broader review, it often helps to publish a new version [09:17] <ArtB> AB: when will it be ready for a new pub? [09:18] <ArtB> RT: I have another couple of weeks of work to do before it is ready [09:18] <ArtB> AB: ok, that sounds good [09:18] <richt> I want to clarify the Verification Process as it is largely just a placeholder at present [09:19] <ArtB> AB: perhaps we can put it on the agenda for the next call which is probably in 2 weeks [09:19] <ArtB> RT: any feedback now would be good [09:19] <ArtB> AB: I'll ask for internal review [09:20] <ArtB> AB: are there some existing protocols this functionality could be layered on? [09:20] <ArtB> ... e.g. the DM stuff from OMA [09:20] <ArtB> RT: yes, there is some existing work to consider [09:21] <ArtB> ... if you have related feedback, that would be useful [09:22] <ArtB> AB: anything else on Updates spec for today? [09:22] <ArtB> RT: not from me [09:23] <ArtB> Topic: AoB [09:23] <ArtB> AB: anything else for today? [09:23] <ArtB> AB: the bulk of the remaining work for the widget specs is test cases [09:23] <ArtB> ... and it is great to see that Opera is contributing in that area [09:24] <ArtB> ... e.g. DigSig tests and WARP tests [09:24] <ArtB> AB: next call will be August 26 if there is something to discuss otherwise, September 2 [09:25] <ArtB> AB: let's continue to use public-webapps so that we can eliminate and/or shorten our voice conferences [09:25] <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 13:38:31 UTC