12:59:44 RRSAgent has joined #wam 12:59:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-wam-irc 12:59:58 rrsagent, make log public 13:00:03 ScribeNick: ArtB 13:00:05 Scribe: Art 13:00:08 Chair: Art 13:00:10 Zakim, passcode? 13:00:10 the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Marcos_ 13:00:15 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0622.html 13:00:17 zakim, call thomas-781 13:00:18 ok, tlr; the call is being made 13:00:19 +Thomas 13:00:22 drogersuk has joined #wam 13:00:27 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 13:00:33 Date: 28 May 2009 13:01:06 + +33.1.77.11.aabb 13:01:08 Regrets: Josh, Frederick 13:01:14 Zakim, aabb is me 13:01:15 +darobin; got it 13:01:20 +Marcos/Arve 13:01:38 arve has joined #wam 13:01:41 Present: Benoit, Thomas, Marcos, Arve, Robin, David 13:01:51 Present+ Art 13:01:56 Zakim, call Mike 13:01:56 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 13:01:57 +Mike 13:02:01 Regrets: AndyS 13:02:05 Present+ Mike 13:02:10 - +45.29.aaaa 13:02:18 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 13:02:24 AB: draft agenda posted May 27 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0622.html). Any change requests? 13:02:38 [ None ] 13:02:44 Topic: Announcements 13:02:53 AB: I have two short announcements: 1) f2f agenda has been updated (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsLondonJune2009#Agenda_Items); 2) P&C LCWD#2 published today (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/). Comment period ends June 19. The comment period will not be extended. Comments will be accepted after June 19 but will not be included in the LC's Disposition of Comments document. 13:03:08 -David_Roger 13:03:21 + +1.920.840.aacc 13:03:31 Present+ Marcin 13:03:43 +David_Roger 13:04:43 ACTION: barstow discuss London f2f meeting time for Widgets DigSig 13:04:43 Created ACTION-346 - Discuss London f2f meeting time for Widgets DigSig [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-06-04]. 13:06:03 AB: any other annoucements? 13:06:08 +Bryan_Sullivan 13:06:20 DR: today OMTP will release Approve v1.0 BONDI 13:06:58 Topic: Access Requests (WAR) spec: Call for Use Cases and Requirements 13:07:19 AB: on May 21 I issued a Call for Inputs (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0571.html) regarding UCs and Reqs for the WAR spec (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/). So far the only response was from Scott Wilson (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0581.html). 13:07:32 -David_Roger 13:07:39 ... I think it is important to clearly articulate the primary Use Case (or Use Cases) and the main requirements. Without such information we subject ourselves to lots of questions about what motivates the prescribed model. The WAR spec explicitly identifies two relevant requirements in the Reqs Doc (http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/#default-security-policy). 13:08:09 +David_Roger 13:08:15 AB: let's start with Scott's input (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0581.html). Comments? 13:08:56 @tlr - oh dear ;-) 13:09:07 AB: Marcos, have you looked at Scott's comments? 13:09:11 MC: no, not yet 13:09:50 Arve: I think Scott's input is in line with what we have in mind 13:10:11 ... so I'm OK with what he wrote but some may not be directly in scope for the WAR spec 13:10:28 ... e.g. some may be addressed by the Widget UA itself 13:10:37 ... but the requiement itself is OK 13:10:44 RB: yes, agree it is a good req 13:10:53 ... but may need some work 13:10:54 abraun has joined #wam 13:11:21 TR: the rationale has a lot of solutions so may want to remove some of the mechanism 13:11:38 ... think Adam asked some good questions 13:11:48 ... we need to address those issues 13:12:01 ... by having some reqs 13:12:46 TR: don't want reqs to have detailed mechanisms 13:13:03 ... need to articulate widgets versus the broader web model 13:14:23 AB: sounds like we don't have all of the requirements defined 13:14:27 Present+ Bryan 13:14:41 BS: I can submit some requirements before the f2f meeting 13:15:19 TR: my suggestion is that Robin begin a draft of reqs and send it to me and Arve 13:15:41 ... and then once we have agreement we can send to the list 13:15:48 BS: is the call for UCs complete? 13:16:02 Arve: no, I think we've just started 13:16:02 + +1.919.536.aadd 13:16:31 BS: I can provide some UCs if people want them 13:17:23 ACTION: berjon submit requirements for WAR spec to public-webapps 13:17:23 Created ACTION-347 - Submit requirements for WAR spec to public-webapps [on Robin Berjon - due 2009-06-04]. 13:17:44 AB: are you saying you already submitted some UC info to public-webapps? 13:18:06 BS: I did send some feedback re the access element and proposed some attributes 13:18:24 ACTION: sullivan submit Use Case input before the London f2f meeting 13:18:24 Created ACTION-348 - Submit Use Case input before the London f2f meeting [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2009-06-04]. 13:18:25 -Mike 13:18:43 TR: need UC for net access from widget 13:18:58 ... need to differentiate widget versus web page 13:19:31 BS: I think both have issues with unrestricted access to the web 13:19:44 ... can describe the diff between the two via use cases 13:20:12 billyjackass has joined #wam 13:20:14 Arve: widgets are applications that simply use web technologies 13:20:23 ... but they are no different than desktop apps 13:20:34 ... at least that is how I think about it 13:20:43 Zakim, call Mike-Mobile 13:20:44 ok, billyjackass; the call is being made 13:20:45 +Mike 13:21:16 AB: Arve, Marcos - are there some explicit or implicit requirements from Opera's Widgets Security Model document (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Apr/att-0096/w3c-security.html) we should use? 13:22:31 Topic: WAR spec: Security Model 13:23:04 AB: the WAR spec's Security Model is a bit thin and includes a Warning about their not being consensus on the model. There was also a renewal of an older thread by Josh (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0600.html) that lead to a discussion about origin (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0608.html) and other things e.g. unique identifiers. 13:23:44 AB: not sure if we should dig into the threads or talk more about how to make progress. 13:24:13 ... what do the Editors need from the rest of us? 13:24:29 Arve: don't think we can make progress until we have an agreed definition of "ORIGIN" 13:24:38 AB: agree with that 13:24:49 RB: yes; plus we need to get agreed reqs 13:24:54 AB: agree with that too 13:24:56 q+ 13:25:17 RB: I think we need to nail dow the reqs first 13:25:26 q- 13:25:53 AB: OK, then let's stop the discussion on WAR today until the actions are completed 13:26:20 AB: any last comments about the WAR spec? 13:26:35 TR: can we change the name to PEACE? 13:26:50 Topic: A&E spec: Status of Red Block Issues 13:27:02 AB: the A&E spec still has some Red Block issues (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/). During the 14 May call we briefly discussed these issues (http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-wam-minutes.html#item07). What is the status of this spec? 13:27:05 only if we get Tolstoy to edit it 13:28:06 MC: I started editing this today; not much new to report 13:28:16 ... hope to spend more time on it soon 13:28:29 ... can't give a specific date when LC will be ready 13:28:36 ... Storage needs some work 13:28:47 Arve: yes, Storage needs some thought 13:28:58 ... Adam Barth mentioned that yesterday 13:29:17 ... need to get Storage and origin sorted out 13:29:28 AB: you two are on it? 13:29:30 MC: yes 13:29:44 Arve: we must first get an agreed defintion of Origin 13:30:06 I wonder what happened to this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0301.html 13:30:14 ... if we don't use HTML5 Origin, what do we do? 13:30:20 ... don't think we want to write our own 13:30:28 RB: writing our own doesn't sound good 13:31:14 Arve: Thomas was suggesting HTML5's definition of Origin may not be good enough 13:31:31 ... via a discussion with Anne in IRC 13:32:46 tr: discussion yesterday was about an issue with postMessage 13:33:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0478.html 13:33:55 tr: solutions: (A) fix postMessage (B) don't use synthetic origins in widget (C) both 13:35:18 AB: not sure how we can move the origin discussion toward closure 13:36:20 tr: what's the new piece vs the thread in April? 13:36:30 ab: want to understand what Adam's concern is 13:36:32 Topic: Window Modes spec 13:36:35 tr: ah, ok. I think it's the same as in April 13:36:40 AB: we still don't have a ED of the Window Modes spec although we have an ED of the Media Query Extensions spec (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html). What's the priority for the WM spec and the short-term plan? 13:36:40 ab: want to check 13:37:23 Arve: it has some impact on the A+E spec 13:37:25 + +45.29.aaee 13:37:46 ... if we can't finish WM spec soon, it will affect A+E spec 13:38:05 ... we could remove window mode stuff from the A+E spec 13:38:30 AB: do we have an Editor for the WM spec? 13:38:40 RB: I can take it if no one else will 13:39:00 AB: is anyone willing to step up and help Robin? 13:39:05 MC: yes, I can help Robin 13:39:36 AB: is one task moving stuff from MQE spec to the WM spec? 13:39:40 MC: yes 13:40:41 specifically: viewMode 13:40:49 5.13 The onmodechange Callback 13:40:54 Arve: could remove viewMode from A+E 13:40:58 5.10 The width Attribute 13:40:58 5.11 The height Attribute 13:42:06 AB: so are the opts: 1) increase prio of WM or 2) remove wm stuff from A+E? 13:42:11 anne has joined #wam 13:42:35 Arve: well, one question is if the group is willing to ref incomplete docs 13:43:00 BS: wm-related reqs are very important 13:43:24 ... if those parts are moved out of A+E, the target spec must also move forward 13:44:10 AB: any other discussion points for A+E today? 13:44:37 AB: one question I have is what is BONDI going to do about A+E? 13:45:02 ... given its lack of maturity 13:45:13 DR: we will follow what WebApps does 13:45:34 ... we offered help some time ago 13:45:39 ... but it was put on the shelf 13:46:00 ... understand P+C was the main target of activity 13:46:48 [ can't hear BS ...] 13:46:58 DR: we currently don't ref any version of A+E in BONDI 13:47:11 ... but eventually we will align with it as it matures 13:47:46 BS: in the next phase of BONDI, we will work on events 13:47:54 ... and window modes is a key part of that 13:48:03 ... must get alignment of A+E and WM specs 13:48:44 AB: Bryan, if you can help with WM spec, that would be good 13:49:00 BS: yes, I can create some input 13:49:17 AB: anything else on WM spec? 13:49:19 [ No ] 13:49:29 Topic: Widget URIs spec 13:49:50 AB: several weeks ago Robin created an ED for the Widget URIs spec (http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/). This week, Jean-Claude Dufourd raised the frequently asked question "do we really need this scheme?" (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0610.html) and that naturally resulted in a lively discussion. 13:50:22 ... Additionally, Adam Barth started a new thread (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0624.html) regarding using a public key rather than UUID as the authority; that suggestion was "seconded" by Aaron Broodman 13:50:51 ... (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0636.html) of the Chrome team) and it also touched on the "origin" issue (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0629.html). 13:51:04 ... Lastly, the latest ED contains a list of Issues. 13:51:31 AB: are there any specific issues we want to discuss today or should we continue discussions on the mail list? 13:52:05 Arve: not sure what we can achieve 13:52:11 ... we just don't have consensus 13:52:19 ... we will continue to fight the TAG on this 13:52:33 RB: we need to get consensus first within the group 13:52:50 Arve: perhaps our requirements and UCs are not strong enough 13:53:06 RB: are you agreeing to gather UCs and Reqs? 13:53:30 Arve: want to know if other memebers of the group think our ucs and reqs are strong enough 13:53:56 RB: perhpas we need to simplify things for v1 and then defer some things for v2 13:54:19 Arve: if have an origin it will be exposed outside of widget somewhere 13:55:05 TR: need two strong reqs 13:55:14 ... 1. do as little as possible and KISS 13:55:29 ... 2. absolutize rel uris 13:56:00 ... 3. need something on the RHS 13:56:42 ... need to also think about adding authority section that identifies signer 13:56:54 ... as suggested by Adam 13:57:19 ... Not sure if that needs to be done for v1 vs. making sure that can be done for v2 13:57:36 ... no relation for origin; solved by DAP WG 13:58:01 ... Think we can define a simple model now and defer parts for v2 13:58:08 RB: agreed 13:58:38 Arve: if we use a simple model will we create interop problems for the implementors 13:59:02 ... don't want something that is incompatible with the web 13:59:37 TR: the model I proposed is fundamentally a sand-boxed iframe as far as the DOM is concerned 13:59:55 ... behavior is reasonable well-defined in the HTML5 spec 14:00:02 ... agree it could have some bugs 14:00:52 TR: we cannot reuse the web's origin model for remote access requests 14:01:08 Arve: how do we enable the UC to embedd video within a widget? 14:01:21 TR: use same model as XHR or any inline element 14:01:51 Arve: video and audio will be subject to CORS 14:02:04 ... will have required pre-flight requests 14:02:20 TR: preflight not required for a same origin request 14:02:41 ... must distinguish between decisions made in the UA and decisions made on the wire 14:03:03 ... the UA will seek authorization via preflight 14:03:16 -Bryan_Sullivan 14:03:32 - +45.29.aaee 14:04:21 Arve: we cannot make a decsion on the model until we have researched the consequences 14:04:41 AB: so where does this leave us TR and Arve? 14:04:59 TR: I agree there is a prob; not convinced we must solve it in v1 14:05:13 s/I agree there is a prob/I hear Arve says there is a prob/ 14:05:17 Arve: if we want to work with the real web we can't defer this to v2 14:05:35 TR: what is your proposal for solving the hard problem? 14:05:44 Arve: I don't have a proposal now 14:05:53 TR: when will you have a proposal? 14:06:01 Arve: I can't commit 14:06:13 RB: the table is open for proposal 14:06:27 Arve: I have worries but no proposal 14:06:40 RB: do you have specific examples of things that can go wrong? 14:07:07 Arve: video with synthetic origin it could be impossible for content owner is being served to a widget 14:07:59 ... also content owners may want to know where the content is used or embedded 14:08:05 - +1.920.840.aacc 14:08:51 Arve: this discussion slops over with the WAR discussion 14:09:05 TR: there is a set of proposals on the table 14:09:25 ... I'm looking for a strawman 14:09:36 ... I'm hearing there may be requirements 14:09:43 Arve: I'm saying there may be issues 14:09:50 ... and consequences 14:09:58 TR: please put them on the table 14:10:33 AB: Arve, can you take an action to document your concerns? 14:10:43 Arve: I've raised the concerns here 14:10:51 ... I don't have the answers 14:11:01 ... I think the minutes reflect the concerns I have 14:11:47 TR: given Opera has been working on CORS, perhaps you can investigate this 14:11:57 Arve: I will ask Anne 14:12:51 AB: I don't want to be in the same place next week 14:13:07 +1 14:13:13 TR: I think in the absence of any new proposals, we should specify the simplest proposal possible 14:13:25 s/+1/+1 to Robin/ 14:13:32 +1 to TR :) 14:13:47 RB: yes, I agree with TR and can edit the ED that way 14:14:24 AB: any other comments on Widget URIs spec? 14:14:27 [ No ] 14:14:41 Topic: AOB 14:14:44 As mentioned earlier on the call, the Approved Release of BONDI 1.0 can be downloaded from http://bondi.omtp.org/. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. 14:14:55 DR: I will post a link to BONDI release in IRC 14:15:28 AB: my recommendation is to send this information to the public-webapps mail list 14:15:33 DR: yes, I will do that 14:16:12 MC: does this reflect changes from the RC comments? 14:16:15 DR: yes, it does 14:16:56 AB: what level of testing has been done? 14:17:32 DR: it is a spec; what part are you talking about? 14:17:50 AB: e.g. the security policy framework 14:17:56 ... is there a test suite for that? 14:18:08 DR: we have compliance matrix and guidelines 14:18:21 ... for v1.1 we will have a compliance suite 14:18:55 AB: so this is a set of specifications without a test suite to show an implementation complies? 14:19:26 DR: there is a compliance document and that may help answer your question 14:19:34 AB: any other comments for David? 14:19:37 [ No ] 14:19:57 MC: which version of DigSig and P+C is BONDI referencing 14:20:33 DR: for P+C we ref the 28-May-2009 version 14:20:45 Marcos has joined #wam 14:20:55 ... not sure about the DigSig spec 14:21:02 RB: I think it is the LC version 14:21:14 DR: yes, I think that's true 14:21:55 - +1.919.536.aadd 14:22:03 AB: Meeting Adjourned 14:22:43 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsLondonJune2009 14:22:47 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:22:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:22:54 -Mike 14:24:04 -David_Roger 14:25:52 -Art_Barstow 14:26:00 -Thomas 14:26:03 -darobin 14:26:18 -Marcos/Arve 14:26:19 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended 14:26:20 Attendees were +45.29.aaaa, David_Roger, Art_Barstow, Thomas, +33.1.77.11.aabb, darobin, Marcos/Arve, Mike, +1.920.840.aacc, Bryan_Sullivan, +1.919.536.aadd, +45.29.aaee 14:26:20 Regrets: Josh, Frederick, AndyS 14:26:29 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:26:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:50:26 Marcos has joined #wam 14:53:50 MoZ has joined #wam 15:28:39 Zakim has left #wam 15:53:45 rrsagent, bye 15:53:45 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-wam-actions.rdf : 15:53:45 ACTION: barstow discuss London f2f meeting time for Widgets DigSig [1] 15:53:45 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-wam-irc#T13-04-43 15:53:45 ACTION: berjon submit requirements for WAR spec to public-webapps [2] 15:53:45 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-wam-irc#T13-17-23 15:53:45 ACTION: sullivan submit Use Case input before the London f2f meeting [3] 15:53:45 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-wam-irc#T13-18-24