IRC log of wam on 2009-08-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:01:57 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:01:57 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-irc
13:02:11 [Zakim]: + +45.29.aacc
13:02:15 [ArtB]: ScribeNick: ArtB
13:02:17 [Benoit]: Benoit has joined #wam
13:02:19 [ArtB]: Scribe: Art
13:02:22 [ArtB]: Chair: Art
13:02:26 [Zakim]: + +49.208.4.aadd
13:02:28 [ArtB]: Date: 27 August 2009
13:02:35 [ArtB]: Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:02:51 [ArtB]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0823.html
13:03:03 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make log Public
13:03:10 [ArtB]: Regrets: Frederick
13:03:11 [Zakim]: + +1.919.536.aaee
13:03:16 [ArtB]: zakim, who's here?
13:03:16 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Marcos/Arve, JereK, Art_Barstow, +45.29.aacc, +49.208.4.aadd, +1.919.536.aaee
13:03:18 [Zakim]: On IRC I see Benoit, RRSAgent, arve, Zakim, Marcos, JereK, ArtB, timeless_mbp, tlr, shepazu, annevk, MoZ, marcin, anne, trackbot
13:03:28 [abraun]: abraun has joined #wam
13:04:02 [ArtB]: Present: Art, Arve, Marcos, Jere, Marcin, AndyB
13:04:12 [ArtB]: Present+ Benoit
13:04:20 [Zakim]: +Josh_Soref
13:04:26 [ArtB]: Present+ Josh
13:04:33 [marcin2]: marcin2 has joined #wam
13:04:39 [ArtB]: Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:04:49 [ArtB]: AB: draft agenda distributed on August 26 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0823.html ). Any change requests?
13:05:01 [darobin]: darobin has joined #wam
13:05:07 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:05:12 [ArtB]: Topic: Announcements
13:05:19 [ArtB]: AB: Reminders on upcoming deadlines: 1) Sep 14 is deadline to register for Widgets Testing event ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TestWorkshop2009 ); 2) Sep 15 comment deadline for APIs and Events LCWD; 3) Sep 20 comment deadline for WARP LCWD
13:05:25 [Zakim]: + +33.1.77.11.aaff
13:05:33 [ArtB]: Present+ Robin
13:06:08 [ArtB]: AB: Does anyone have any short announcements?
13:06:17 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:06:28 [ArtB]: Topic: P&C spec: IRI/URI normalization
13:06:45 [ArtB]: AB: on August 14 Marcin asked I18N Core WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0644.html ) for feedback on IRI/URI normalization. Addison replied ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0645.html ) with his personal comments but indicated the WG would review our request. Marcin, what's the status?
13:07:22 [ArtB]: AB: found http://www.w3.org/2009/08/26-core-minutes.html#item05
13:07:37 [marcin2]: I have not seen the update yet.
13:07:53 [ArtB]: MH: no, I have no additional info on their discussions
13:08:10 [ArtB]: AB: OK, I'll ping Addison on this
13:08:20 [ArtB]: Topic: P&C spec: Test template
13:08:27 [ArtB]: AB: on August 20 Marcos asked the MWTS WG too review the test template ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0769.html ). Marcos, what is the status?
13:08:52 [ArtB]: MC: they have not yet responded
13:09:10 [ArtB]: AB: I did ping Dom privately and got a message he is out of the office this week
13:09:23 [ArtB]: ... I'll ping him next week if he doesn't follow up
13:09:28 [ArtB]: MC: OK
13:09:38 [ArtB]: AB: is this blocking you Marcos?
13:09:40 [ArtB]: MC: no
13:09:55 [ArtB]: ... we are progressing though as if we will get an OK from them
13:10:01 [ArtB]: AB: that seems reasonable
13:10:09 [ArtB]: AB: any other comments on this topic?
13:10:21 [ArtB]: AB: any thing else on P+C for today?
13:10:28 [ArtB]: [ No ]
13:10:40 [ArtB]: Topic: A&E spec: proposal to change name to Widgets 1.0: widget interface
13:10:48 [ArtB]: AB: on August 20 Marcos proposed ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0774.html ) to change the name of the A&E spec to "Widgets 1.0: widget Interface". Are there any objections to that proposal?
13:11:18 [ArtB]: RB: I'm ok with this
13:11:28 [ArtB]: Arve: I'm OK with this change
13:11:30 [marcin2]: +1
13:11:33 [ArtB]: AB: I'm OK with it
13:11:36 [JereK]: +1
13:11:38 [ArtB]: BS: OK
13:11:42 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: A&E spec will be renamed to "Widgets 1.0: widget Interface"
13:12:37 [ArtB]: BS: what about short name?
13:12:42 [ArtB]: RB: I think we can keep it
13:12:45 [ArtB]: MC: agree
13:12:53 [Benoit]: ;)
13:13:07 [ArtB]: Topic: widget Interface spec: Storage Object
13:13:20 [ArtB]: AB: on August 21 Scott Wilson ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0783.html ) asked some questions about the Storage interface. I don't believe anyone has responded to him. Marcos, what are the key issues here? The latest ED for WebStorage is http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
13:14:02 [ArtB]: MC: some things are underspecified
13:14:07 [ArtB]: ... re the Storage interface
13:14:13 [ArtB]: ... this is section 5.1
13:14:28 [ArtB]: ... I need to catch up on this thread
13:14:45 [ArtB]: AB: anyone else have any comments?
13:14:48 [ArtB]: [ No ]
13:15:05 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos, how about you respond on the mail list?
13:15:13 [ArtB]: MC: yes; I've started a draft response
13:15:21 [ArtB]: ... I agree we nee to tighten the spec
13:15:27 [ArtB]: ... we made to do another LC
13:15:41 [ArtB]: ... but maybe it will just be a clarification
13:15:55 [ArtB]: ... I think this can be implemented in JS
13:16:05 [ArtB]: ... His concern is about hiding data
13:16:16 [ArtB]: ... and making some parts private
13:16:26 [ArtB]: ... thus a concern about querying
13:16:47 [ArtB]: ... There are some JS structures to protect data
13:17:02 [ArtB]: ... but it is easy for one object in JS to delete other objects
13:17:26 [ArtB]: ... I still think it is implementable in JS
13:17:35 [ArtB]: s/we nee/we need/
13:18:18 [ArtB]: ... Perhaps Robin has some comments here.
13:18:27 [ArtB]: RB: I also need to catch up on this thread
13:19:15 [ArtB]: AB: what is the level of "done-ness" of the Web Storage spec?
13:19:40 [ArtB]: MC: Hixie and the WHAT-WG made a change recently to allow storing any data type
13:20:02 [ArtB]: AB: so there are no longer any existing implemenations of the Web Storage spec?
13:20:08 [ArtB]: MC: yes, that's correct
13:20:36 [ArtB]: AB: what can we do to help push that spec along?
13:21:07 [ArtB]: MC: not much except to actively participate in the discussions ongoing in other forums e.g. WHAT-WG, HTML WG, etc.
13:21:22 [ArtB]: ... there are several tracking mechanims we would have to follow
13:21:44 [ArtB]: ... the WHAT-WG list is probably the most important list
13:22:22 [ArtB]: ACTION: barstow talk to Hixie about the publication status and plans for Web Storage
13:22:22 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-396 - Talk to Hixie about the publication status and plans for Web Storage [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-09-03].
13:22:52 [ArtB]: Topic: Moving the "alert methods" to DAP?
13:23:00 [ArtB]: AB: During the August 13 call we talked how to deal with the two alert methods that were removed from the A&E spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0791.html ). Marcos agreed (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/389 ) to talk to Hixie about HTML WG taking those two functions.
13:23:22 [ArtB]: AB: On August 25 Robin indicated ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0818.html ) these functions are in scope for the DAP WG.
13:23:39 [ArtB]: AB: Marcos, have you discussed this with Hixie?
13:23:51 [ArtB]: MC: no, I haven't talked to him about this
13:24:01 [ArtB]: AB: Robin, do you have an Editor commitment within DAP?
13:24:19 [ArtB]: RB: it's too early to tell
13:24:32 [ArtB]: ... but in theory we have an Editor for the UI spec of DAP
13:24:38 [ArtB]: ... not can't say for certain
13:25:05 [ArtB]: AB: Arve, you expressed some concerns about DAP taking on these functions
13:25:19 [ArtB]: Arve: I think Robin's response covered my concerns
13:25:29 [ArtB]: ... I'm not too concerned about where they are defined
13:25:58 [ArtB]: AB: do we have agreement that DAP will define these functions?
13:26:14 [ArtB]: MC: I agree
13:26:18 [ArtB]: RB: I agree
13:26:31 [ArtB]: AB: are there any objections to that proposal?
13:26:42 [ArtB]: Arve: not me; I agree
13:26:58 [ArtB]: MC: I don't think it matters much but they do need to be define
13:27:07 [ArtB]: RB: you could join DAP
13:27:17 [arve]: +1
13:27:18 [ArtB]: MC: I'm subscribed to DAP's list but not a member of the WG
13:27:29 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: the alert methods removed from the A&E spec will be specified by DAP WG with cooperation from WebApps WG
13:27:56 [ArtB]: AB: OK Robin?
13:27:59 [ArtB]: RB: yes
13:28:18 [ArtB]: AB: anything else about the widget Interface spec?
13:28:20 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:28:49 [arve]: zakim, who is making noise?
13:29:00 [Zakim]: arve, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Marcos/Arve (50%), +1.919.536.aaee (19%)
13:29:22 [timeless_mbp]: Zakim, who is making noise?
13:29:33 [Zakim]: timeless_mbp, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Art_Barstow (100%), darobin (9%)
13:29:41 [ArtB]: Topic: View Modes spec: Issue-97 -> How is ViewModes DOM related to CSSOM?
13:30:00 [ArtB]: AB: Anne noted ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0800.html ) there is some overlap between the CSSOM View Module and the latest ED of the VM spec ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-vm ). Marcin raised this as Issue-97 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/97 )
13:30:50 [annevk]: Zakim, passcode?
13:30:50 [Zakim]: the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), annevk
13:31:19 [Marcos]: Marcos has joined #wam
13:31:21 [Zakim]: +??P19
13:31:25 [annevk]: Zakim, ??P19 is me
13:31:25 [Zakim]: +annevk; got it
13:31:34 [ArtB]: Present+ AnneVK
13:32:12 [arve]: we can hear you
13:33:05 [ArtB]: AB: Anne and Marcin, want to find a way forward on this spec
13:33:45 [annevk]: hmm
13:33:57 [annevk]: if I sit closer to the Mac I can't see the screen
13:34:34 [marcin2]: you could type what you say
13:34:42 [annevk]: I'll just type
13:34:43 [Zakim]: -annevk
13:34:53 [annevk]: the main problem I noted was that there was overlap between the interfaces
13:35:04 [annevk]: and I was wondering whether that overlap had been studied
13:35:32 [annevk]: I haven't reviewed View Modes in full
13:35:40 [marcin2]: it was not studied thoroughly yet
13:36:10 [ArtB]: MH: yes, I noticed this overlap
13:36:21 [ArtB]: ... we will need to review each others specs
13:36:30 [ArtB]: ... and determine a way forward
13:36:53 [ArtB]: ... I think splitting View Modes spec will help us
13:37:03 [ArtB]: ... one part is Media feature; other is the interfaces
13:37:15 [ArtB]: ... think we can get quick agreement on Media feature
13:37:25 [ArtB]: ... and it does not overlap at all with CSSOM spec
13:37:41 [ArtB]: ... think priority should be the Media spec
13:37:47 [ArtB]: ... then we can take on the interfaces
13:37:51 [Zakim]: +??P19
13:38:02 [annevk]: Zakim, ??P19 is me
13:38:02 [Zakim]: +annevk; got it
13:38:34 [ArtB]: AB: I get the sense that discussing the interfaces now prolly isn't the #1 priority
13:39:30 [ArtB]: ... until we do more analysis, we should postpone discussion on the interfaces
13:39:46 [ArtB]: AvK: it may make more sense for the CSS WG to define the APIs
13:39:47 [Zakim]: -annevk
13:40:12 [ArtB]: AB: thanks Anne for joining us; we will get back to you after we do more work on the interfaces
13:40:42 [ArtB]: MC: if need be, perhaps someone from WebApps can join CSS WG and help form a bridge between the two WGs
13:41:00 [ArtB]: MH: think first we should split the spec
13:41:11 [ArtB]: ... then we could propose APIs are spec'ed by CSS WG
13:41:24 [ArtB]: ... I think we can define the Media feature
13:41:38 [ArtB]: MC: I don't care so much where the specs are done
13:41:48 [ArtB]: ... more important that the specs Get Done
13:42:02 [ArtB]: ... but we can't rely on CSS WG to do our work
13:42:17 [ArtB]: MH: think we should define Media feature here in WebApps
13:42:27 [ArtB]: ... and them give them the interfaces
13:42:47 [ArtB]: MC: but we'll need to give them resource to define the interfaces
13:43:05 [ArtB]: MH: a concern I have is their scope is broader than our requirements
13:43:37 [ArtB]: ... I agree though we should do more about our interfaces
13:43:49 [ArtB]: ... but need to work closely with CSS WG
13:44:11 [ArtB]: ... want to avoid us creating something for which CSS WG finds problematic
13:44:39 [ArtB]: AB: we can certainly ask them to review anything we want
13:44:49 [ArtB]: ... we can't guarantee a response
13:45:10 [ArtB]: RB: we need to be careful about tracking whether or not they respond
13:45:50 [ArtB]: AB: agree; that means I'll need to follow-up with the CSS WG Chairs and/or their Team Contact
13:46:02 [annevk]: (nitpicking on the sideline here: you're required to reply actually)
13:46:18 [ArtB]: Topic: View Modes spec: Issue-96 -> Should we split the ViewModes specification?
13:46:25 [ArtB]: AB: on August 20 Marcin sent an email to CSS WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0764.html ) that asked for feedback about a propose spec split. On August 24 Robin sent a follow-up to CSS WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0799.html ). Marcin raised this as Issue-96 ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/96 ).
13:47:29 [ArtB]: MH: I created this to track the question
13:47:48 [ArtB]: AB: what you did is OK
13:48:11 [ArtB]: AB: what do people think about this?
13:48:17 [ArtB]: MC: ok to split
13:48:21 [ArtB]: RB: OK with me
13:48:29 [ArtB]: AB: anyone object to splitting the spec?
13:48:32 [ArtB]: [ None]
13:49:00 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: the VM spec will be split into two parts interfaces and View Mode Media feature
13:49:33 [ArtB]: MH: we can discuss spec titles with CSS WG
13:49:45 [ArtB]: ... I will split the spec into two specs
13:49:59 [ArtB]: ... I will get this FPWD ready ASAP
13:50:35 [ArtB]: AB: I think you should get the Media feature spec ready first
13:50:47 [ArtB]: MH: will do but I willl be on holiday most of next week
13:51:11 [ArtB]: ACTION: barstow close issue #96
13:51:11 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-397 - Close issue #96 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-09-03].
13:51:23 [ArtB]: Topic: View Modes spec: Issue-98 -> Cargo-culting (Relation DOM3 Events)
13:51:34 [ArtB]: AB: Marcin raised ( http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/98 ) this issue on August 26 after a related discussion on www-dom and public-webapps but it appears there is consensus o( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0814.html ) n how to address this issue. Marcin, what's the status of this Issue?
13:52:08 [ArtB]: MH: there are a few sub-issues
13:52:16 [ArtB]: ... what is closed is the type argurment
13:52:38 [ArtB]: ... the bubbling and canceling still needs some discussion
13:52:48 [ArtB]: ... we need to talk with the DOM people
13:53:08 [ArtB]: ... but these issues are part of the VM Interfaces spec so not the highest priority ATM
13:53:38 [ArtB]: ... we can discussion started with DOM and CSS WG after we get a FPWD out
13:53:55 [ArtB]: ... we could close this issue and create a new one re bubbling and canceling
13:54:14 [ArtB]: AB: that's OK with me
13:54:21 [ArtB]: AB: anyone object to that?
13:54:27 [ArtB]: RB: I'm fine with that
13:54:32 [ArtB]: [ No other objections ]
13:55:17 [ArtB]: RESOLUTION: Issue #98 will be closed and Marcin will create a new issue related to Bubbling and Canceling events vis-a-vis the VM Interraces spec
13:55:27 [ArtB]: s/Interraces/Interfaces/
13:55:43 [ArtB]: AB: anything else on View Modes for today?
13:55:59 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:56:08 [ArtB]: Topic: URI Scheme spec: status and next steps
13:56:15 [ArtB]: AB: the URI Scheme spec's FPWD was 18 June ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ )
13:56:32 [ArtB]: RB: we haven't had much feedback
13:56:50 [ArtB]: ... was expecting more feedback from TAG despite me prodding them
13:56:55 [ArtB]: ... Not sure what to do next
13:57:05 [ArtB]: ... We could fix the technical issues and then publish a LCWD
13:57:17 [ArtB]: ... That would prolly be the easiest way
13:57:22 [ArtB]: MC: I agree we should do that
13:57:37 [ArtB]: RB: I'm happy to make the related fixes
13:57:52 [ArtB]: AB: I tend to support that proposal
13:58:18 [ArtB]: ... I don't think we'll get any more feedback until we publish a LCWD
13:58:43 [ArtB]: AB: any objections to preparing a LCWD of the URI Scheme spec?
13:58:46 [ArtB]: [ None ]
13:58:57 [ArtB]: ACTION: Berjon prepare URI Scheme spec for LCWD
13:58:57 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-398 - Prepare URI Scheme spec for LCWD [on Robin Berjon - due 2009-09-03].
13:59:32 [ArtB]: RB: I'll try to get it ready in one week
14:00:16 [ArtB]: AB: OK, so then let's try to be in a position where on Sep 3 we can make a Yes/No decision
14:00:29 [ArtB]: Topic: AOB
14:00:35 [ArtB]: AB: anything?
14:00:47 [ArtB]: MH: re WARP
14:01:02 [ArtB]: ... we in ACCESS are thinking about objecting to this spec
14:01:21 [ArtB]: ... I provided some info a while ago
14:01:38 [ArtB]: ... the feature element and this spec is the basis for our concern
14:02:09 [ArtB]: ... the subdomain attribute of access element is a problem area
14:02:18 [ArtB]: ... think we need a more extensible design
14:02:34 [ArtB]: ... may want to include other URI schemes e.g. sms:, tel:, etc.
14:02:41 [ArtB]: ... also the name of the spec is an issue
14:02:58 [ArtB]: ... need more work on security model
14:03:26 [ArtB]: ... need more spec on what is done in the proc model and what is defined in the syntax of <access>
14:04:07 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:04:07 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:04:27 [ArtB]: ... need to have some related discussions in DAP
14:04:40 [ArtB]: RB: can you put your concerns in an email?
14:04:45 [ArtB]: MH: yes, I will do that
14:04:56 [ArtB]: RB: for each issue, please raise a LC issue
14:05:27 [ArtB]: ... if you are not satisified with the WG's response, that will lead to a Formal Objection
14:05:49 [ArtB]: MH: my email will include proposals on how to address the issues I raise
14:06:03 [ArtB]: RB: please indicate the issues are against the LC doc
14:06:29 [ArtB]: AB: anything else on this subject?
14:07:13 [ArtB]: ... one reason we had a long review period for WARP was to give DAP some time to ramp up and review it
14:07:25 [ArtB]: AB: any other topics for AOB?
14:07:28 [ArtB]: [ None ]
14:07:37 [ArtB]: AB: Meeting Adjourned
14:07:43 [Zakim]: - +49.208.4.aadd
14:07:45 [Zakim]: - +45.29.aacc
14:07:45 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:07:45 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:07:46 [Zakim]: - +1.919.536.aaee
14:07:47 [Zakim]: -JereK
14:07:52 [Zakim]: -darobin
14:07:56 [Zakim]: -Marcos/Arve
14:08:00 [Zakim]: -Art_Barstow
14:08:17 [Zakim]: -Josh_Soref
14:08:18 [Zakim]: IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:08:19 [Zakim]: Attendees were +47.23.69.aaaa, +1.850.385.aabb, Marcos/Arve, JereK, Art_Barstow, +45.29.aacc, +49.208.4.aadd, +1.919.536.aaee, Josh_Soref, +33.1.77.11.aaff, darobin, annevk
14:09:41 [JereK]: JereK has left #wam
14:15:02 [Marcos]: Marcos has joined #wam
14:15:18 [Marcos_]: Marcos_ has joined #wam
14:17:14 [ArtB]: RRSAgent, bye
14:17:14 [RRSAgent]: I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-actions.rdf :
14:17:14 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: barstow talk to Hixie about the publication status and plans for Web Storage [1]
14:17:14 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-irc#T13-22-22
14:17:14 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: barstow close issue #96 [2]
14:17:14 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-irc#T13-51-11
14:17:14 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Berjon prepare URI Scheme spec for LCWD [3]
14:17:14 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-wam-irc#T13-58-57
14:17:21 [ArtB]: zakim, bye
14:17:21 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #wam