All - The minutes from the WAF WG's February 28 VoiceConf on Widgets
are available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-waf-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please
send them to the public-appformats mail list before March 10;
otherwise the minutes will be considered approved.
Regards, Art Barstow
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
WAF WG's Widgets Voice Conf
28 Feb 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/
2008Feb/0016.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-waf-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_(AB), Marcos_(MC), Ben_(BW), Benoit_(BS)
Regrets
Thomas
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review Agenda
2. [6]Charter Update
3. [7]F2F Meeting
4. [8]Landscape Doc Status
5. [9]Widgets
6. [10]Section 1
7. [11]Section 2
8. [12]Section 3
9. [13]Section 4. Widget Resource
10. [14]Future Voice Conferences
* [15]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Review Agenda
AB:
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Feb/00
16.html
... any changes, additions?
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/
2008Feb/0016.html
[None]
Charter Update
[Mike Smith is missing thus no update.]
F2F Meeting
AB: so far neither Charles, Mike nor I have been able to find a host
in Dublin for May f2f meeting
... If we can't find a Dublin host by March 3, then Dublin will not
be an option
... Thus, it's likely Turin June 3-5 is our mostly likely scenario
... is that OK with you?
MC: yes
BW: yes
BS: should be OK
AB: critical person then is Arve and I'll chase him down
Landscape Doc Status
AB: what's up Marcos?
MC: not much progress since last meeting
... I'd like to get some help from Benoit
BS: the people that can help me help you have higher priorities
right now but I will continue to pursue this
MC: particularly interested in Microsoft info
BS: I should be able to help there
AB: so the timeframe for a FPWD is still 3-4 weeks away?
MC: yes
Widgets
AB: latest ED [17]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
[17] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
Section 1
AB: [18]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#introduction
[18] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#introduction
MC: since our last f2f most if not all sections have been
re-shuffled and mostly rewritten
... looking for validation of the current text
BS: I have a question about the first paragraph
... missing "Web Widgets" - is that intentional?
MC: yes; trying to reduce scope
... it would affect the security model for example if the Widgets
are embeddable
BS: noticed leaving out other devices like TVs
MC: I can add something else
AB: is the Web Widgets out of scope an issue for you?
BS: not really but should state it isn't in scope
... it could be considered as optional functionality
MC: regarding Web Widgets, agree as a group we need a clear
agreement about them
... I see them as a server-side technology
... I see them as out of scope for our work
... Basically they are just iframes
... I don't see a need for standardization of them
BS: I understand what your saying but the way they are packaged
could be standardized
MC: the <content> element helps address this issue
... but its processing model could be complicated; we need to
discuss this
BS: perhaps we should wait until the Landscape doc is completed so
we have some data to help us forumualte and bound this discussion.
MC: that's OK with me
BW: +1
AB: +1
... this does seem to raise the priority of the Landscape document
<marcos> MC: we could google gadgets and live.com gadgets
MC: would need to add Microsoft gadgets i.e. MS Live.Com
Section 2
AB: any comments about this section?
... I don't have any
MC: I think this section is mostly self-explanatory
Section 3
AB: this section is OK with me
MC: I've been wresting with the defin of Widget UA
... could be a Web browser that supports this packaging format
AB: I think we want to continue to make the UI out of scope
otherwise the testing problem could be as broad as e.g. HTML and we
don't want to go there
BS: could the package include an Air app of Java program?
MC: I think so
BS: then I don't think the definition of Widget UA should explicitly
say anything about the Browser
MC: I tend to agree
... Prefer to leave the defintion as is and if we need to revisit
this, we can
BW: I tend to think of Widget engines as something like Y!'s Widget
engine which is of course browser-less
MC: David suggested we Ajax/XHR be a normative mandatory requirement
... but that's for the Requriements document
BS: I think it makes sense for that to be a must
... we should revisit this after the Landscape doc is completed
MC: I'm OK with that
Section 4. Widget Resource
BS: seems like the widget resource MUST contain a config doc
MC: not if we define a default and that's what we plan to do
BS: I would consider it as a must because it will contain important
contextual information
MC: the intent is to keep the widget as simple as possible
... all of the elements but one are optional
AB: in practice I think ~95% of the widgets will have a config file
... the question then is what should the UA do if there is no config
file
... should it "do its best" or abort
... I think it would be more consistent with "The Web" for the UA to
try to do its best and not abort
BS: I understand that but think the config file should be required
AB: perhaps we could base our decision on what's being done now
MC: I know for sure that the config file is mandatory for Opera
... for Dashboard I think it is not mandatory
BS: we could change it and see what type of feedback we get
... if it isn't a must then there must be a well-defined fallback
AB: I think we should talk to Arve before we change it
... we could also explicitly add a red block that asks for feedback
on this issue
Future Voice Conferences
AB: I'm OK with every week or every-other-week; what do people
think?
MC: I prefer more often meetings
... i.e. weekly conference calls
BS: weekly is too much but I understand Marcos' concern
MC: I need people making some commitments
... we need it to be done by the end of the year
... I'm willing to go and meet with people
BS: perhaps we should have an open meeting and invite MS, Apple,
Google, etc.
MC: I'm OK with that too
... I'd like to continue my Java impl but it's hard for me to do
that and to do the Editor work too
BW: a weekly voice conf is OK with me
MC: are there any sections in particular that VF is interested in?
BW: the format is most important
MC: if you would review the ZIP part and the processing model it
would be very helpful
... i.e. 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3
... can Olli provide an XML Sig profile?
... i.e. doesn't require XPath or XML Canon
AB: I can check with him
MC: Arve agreed to provide a security model input but hasn't done so
yet
RESOLUTION: have weekly Voice Conferences for Widgets
BW: I work for David Pollington; been looking at various Widget
engines; creating demos on Opera's engines and S60 engine
... been concentrating on developement work
AB: welcome Ben!
... Meeting Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
