The minutes from the WAF WG's May 22 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-waf-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-appformats mail list before May 29; otherwise the
minutes will be considered approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Application Formats Working Group Teleconference
22 May 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/
2008May/0010.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-waf-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcos, Mike, Arve, Benoit
Regrets
Claudio
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review Agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Localization model
4. [8]Auto Update
5. [9]P&C Feedback
6. [10]Media type registration
7. [11]Widget URI scheme
8. [12]Voice Conf schedule for June, July
9. [13]Next f2f
* [14]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<marcosbot> he will and he did
<MikeSmith> trackbot-ng: start meeting
<MikeSmith> trackbot-ng, start meeting
<trackbot-ng> Date: 22 May 2008
<arve> ArtB: will call in RSN
<MikeSmith> ArtB: if you do "trackbot-ng, start meeting" it takes
care of all other setup for you
Regrests: Claudio
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Review Agenda
AB: agenda sent yesterday:
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008May/00
10.html
... any comments, suggested changes?
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/
2008May/0010.html
<marcosbot> cool music?
[None]
Announcements
AB: charter update, Mike?
MS: one comment said we should add something related to offline apps
but we won't do that
AB: our Charter expires 31 May
MS: there will be YA extension
... one request said cross domain access should be in a separate WG
with a short bounded scope
... not clear how that will be resolved
... regarding the location API, likely to put that in a separate WG
... expect an annoucement to the AC soon regarding the progress
... will give the AC another 3 weeks to submit comments
MC: when will this process end? It's been going on for about 7
months!
MS: I don't want to over estimate but it could take about two more
months to get everything resolved
... there could be a high probablity to create a separate WG for the
AC work
MC: but the work is mostly done
MS: but there isn't consensus about what should be specified
AB: is the reality, the Team waiting for the July 1-3 AC/XDR meeting
to occur before a decision is made?
MS: that hasn't been raised
... but that could make sense to wait
... we will definitely get a charter extension so we can continue to
publish documents
Localization model
AB: we've had comments from Addison Philips and David Clarke
... what is the status, Marcos?
MC: the comments were very good.
... Addison has offered to contribute to the model
AB: Mike, do we have to worry about IPR and Addison's contribution?
... he doesn't work for Yahoo! anymore, AFAIK
... and they aren't members of WAF WG
<marcos_> MC: he works for Amazon
<marcos_> MC:AFAIK
MS: Addison is an Invited Expert
ACTION Smith talk to Richard Ishida about IPR concerns with Addison
Philips directly contributing to the Widgets P-and-C spec
<scribe> ACTION: Smith talk to Richard Ishida about IPR concerns
with Addison Philips directly contributing to the Widgets P-and-C
spec [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-waf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-177 - Talk to Richard Ishida about IPR
concerns with Addison Philips directly contributing to the Widgets
P-and-C spec [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2008-05-29].
<marcos_> He said "(personal comments follow)"
MS: we need to be careful when people working for a company say "I'm
just commenting as a citizen, not as a representative of my
employer"
AB: I agree with Mike
... I am a very poor judge about "what is patentable?"
MS: agree; that's why I'll pursue this; should have some relevant
feedback on this issue by our next Voice Conf
MC: David Clarke proposed a slightly different model
... I responded it's a bit complicated
... It's a good idea, I just don't think we want to do what he
suggests
Presen+ Benoit
AB: I thought Marcos' response to David Clarke made sense and I
support it
... anyone else?
[None]
Auto Update
AB: comment from Michael Davey
...
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008May/00
21.html
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/
2008May/0021.html
MC: I told him the existing model is quite old and needs to be
updated
AB: auto update is important but we don't have any new proposals
MC: I can create an updated model
... we can leverage quite a bit from HTTP
BS: I think we should continue to work on it
ABe: agree we should continue; would go so far as to say it should
be required
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow send a link to Nokia Widget solution for
updates [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-waf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-178 - Send a link to Nokia Widget
solution for updates [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-05-29].
AB: I found the document:
[19]http://wiki.forum.nokia.com/index.php/How-to_create_self-updatin
g_WRT_widgets
[19] http://wiki.forum.nokia.com/index.php/How-to_create_self-
updating_WRT_widgets
P&C Feedback
AB: Michael Davey submitted some comments
...
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008May/00
22.html
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/
2008May/0022.html
MC: I responded to all of Michael's comments
... I'm concerned about the Java model because it introduces a
business model I'm not comfortable with
AB: any comments on Marcos' response?
ABe: I think some of what David proposed is more related to an
implemenation detail and should be codified in the spec
BS: yes I tend to agree; could have some non-normative text, perhaps
MS: I think Marcos' response was good; don't want to add any new
hurdles for the developers
MC: the second comment was about making the config file the first
file in the ZIP
... but that would require a special too; it also would affect the
L10N model where an widget resource can have multiple config files
AB: anything else from Michael's comments?
MC: no
Media type registration
AB: we talked about this in Dublin but want to understand what needs
to be done
... Marcos, do you need some help?
MC: if someone wants to help, that'd be good
AB: I can help or find someone in Nokia to help
MC: the security considerations section is open
Widget URI scheme
AB: we now have a section in the P&C spec about the Widget URI
scheme
... [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-widget1
[21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-widget1
MC: could be helpful in cross-Widget communication
ABe: also can be useful with DOM attributes
... need to specify syntax constraints
... Think requiring UUIDs is overkill; that should be an
implemenation detail
... The main requirement is uniquness and UUIDs are one way to get
the uniqueness
MC: we could just say informatively, that UUID is one way to get
uniqueness
<marcos_> The current proposal is widget-URI = "widget:" "//" UUID
"/" zip-relative-path
MC: think it makes sense to specify something
ABe: what would be gained?
MC: guarantees a globaly unique identifier
AB: but UUID is not the only way to achieve that
MC: agree
<marcos_> widget-URI = "widget:" "//" random "/" zip-relative-path ?
ABe: yes, hashing could also be used
... I don't think we need to recommend anything specific
MC: OK, I'll change the wording to something non-Normative
<marcos_> widget-URI = "widget:" "//" random "/" name-of-widget
MC: we may also want the name of the widget to be part of the URI
scheme
ABe: I don't see the value in adding the name
... doesn't really identify the widget
<marcos_> widget://aaaadsfdaa/hello.wgt/image.png
MC: could be useful (see above proposal)
ABe: don't want to add redundant info
<marcos_> widget://aaaadsfdaa/image.png
ABe: could get name elsewhere
<marcos_> widget://aaaadsfdaa/image.png <--- this is the final
proposal
AB: I think everyone should review this new scheme and submit
comments
... any other comments about this scheme?
[None]
MC: I noticed there is a URI Scheme registrar
... what do we need to do?
MS: similar to the Media type registration
... put it into the spec itself
... then we send it to the right IETF board and ask them for review
and approval
MC: OK
... I'll put all three proposals on the mail list to get broader
feedback
AB: should we include the TAG?
MS: agree; let's get their input earlier rather than later
... worst case is they say "not in our scope"
AB: this probably means some more work for Marcos
MC: that's OK
Voice Conf schedule for June, July
AB: do we want to continue weekly calls?
MC: yes
BS: OK
ABe: with summer coming, maybe we want to go every two weeks
MC: OK with me
AB: either way is OK with me
Next f2f
AB: I gathered quite a bit of data about people
... prefs but I haven't consolidated that info
BS: and where?
AB: Claudio has stated Telecom Italia can be a host
BS: we can host Paris
AB: before next VC I will review people's prefs and be ready at the
May 29 call with a straw proposal
... meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Barstow send a link to Nokia Widget solution for
updates [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-waf-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Smith talk to Richard Ishida about IPR concerns with
Addison Philips directly contributing to the Widgets P-and-C spec
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/22-waf-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
