Meeting started at 8:04  PST

 

====================================================================

Roll Call

Voting Members:

---------------------------------

Alejandro Abdelnur     Sun                      yes

Sasha Aickin           Plumtree                 yes

Subbu Allamaraju       BEA                      yes

Olin Atkinson          Novell                   yes

Atul Batra             Sun                      yes

Amir Blich             SAP                      yes

Chris Braun            Novell                   yes

Rex Brooks             Starbourne               yes

T.J. Cox               Novell                   yes

William Cox            BEA                      yes

Brian Dirking          Stellent                 no

Michael Freedman       Oracle                   yes

Ross Fubini            Plumtree                 yes

Richard Jacob          IBM                      yes

Jon Klein              Reed-Elsevier            yes

Andre Kramer           Citrix                   yes

Alan Kropp             Vignette Corporation     yes

Carsten Leue           IBM                      yes

Dan Machak             Tibco                    yes

Madoka Mitsuoka        Fujitsu                  no

Adam Nolan             Reed-Elsevier            yes

Petr Palas             Moravia IT               yes

Sunit Randhawa         Fujitsu                  no

Nigel Ratcliffe        Factiva                  yes

Thomas Schaeck         IBM                      yes

Gennady Shumaker       SAP                      yes

Yossi Tamari           SAP Portals              yes

Gil Tayar              WebCollage               no

Rich Thompson          IBM                      yes

Charles Wiecha         IBM                      yes

 

 

Total voting members:         30

Voting members in attendance: 26 (87%)

A quorum was present.

 

Members on Leave Of Absence

----------------------------

Raj Ramesh             CommerceOne              LOA

Joe Rudnicki           U.S. Navy                LOA

Steven Smith           Capitol College          LOA

Eric van Lydegraf      Kinzan                   LOA

 

====================================================================

The corrected minutes from 3/04/03 were accepted

 

====================================================================

Summary of Change Requests

 202 - Provide reference to the schema datatype defs        ACCEPTED

 203 - Wording for resend cached data                       ACCEPTED

 211 - NamespacePrefix is now a separate field              ACCEPTED

 212 - markupCharacterSet is now an array                   ACCEPTED

 217 - Update section reference                             ACCEPTED

 219 - Producer invalidation of registrationHandles         ACCEPTED

 225 - Specifying preferred character set                   ACCEPTED

 226 - Resource URL                                         ACCEPTED

 227 - Explicitly specify the relevant portlet url params   ACCEPTED

 187 - Cacheability and perform*Interaction                 ACCEPTED

 195 - Add registrationMethods                          NOT ACCEPTED

 173 - What does it mean to support registration?           ACCEPTED

 162 - Require Consumers to support UTF-8?              NOT ACCEPTED

 143 - Properly encode '&' in examples and BNF            

ACCEPTED     

 177 - Templates MUST send placeholders                     ACCEPTED

 164 - Namespacing Portlet URL Parameters                   ACCEPTED

 138 - How does info get to proxied resources               ACCEPTED*

 193 - Asserting multiple standard user categories          ACCEPTED

 192 - Prevent localization of standard user cat. names NOT ACCEPTED

 200 - Clarify response to ignoring security request    NOT ACCEPTED

 201 - PortletDescription applies to clones                 ACCEPTED

 204 - Fields for cache key                             NOT ACCEPTED 

 141 - Add previous windowState and mode?         Deferred (JSR-168)

 205 - Template requirements                            NOT ACCEPTED

 206 - Values for extensible items such as modes            ACCEPTED

 

 All Change Requests related to Conformance Statements      ACCEPTED

 

* partially accepted, partially deferred - see detail below

 

====================================================================

Summary of Action Items:

-----------------------

 - Andre will provide a proposal for getting a resource

   via a SOAP call. (See CR 138)

 

 - Alan Kropp will consider helping out on writing the primer.

   (See CR 204)

 

 - Rich will release a new version of the specification by

   next week.

 

====================================================================

Small editorial/grammar changes

 

 202 - Provide reference to the schema datatype definitions

   Section 5.1.15 / Page 24 / Line 6 / Andre Kramer

 

 203 - Wording for resend cached data

   Section 6.1.1 / Page 26 / Line 36 / Andre Kramer

   States preference for the wording from initCookie() fault

   processing

 

 211 - NamespacePrefix is now a separate field

   Section 5.1.11 / Page 20 / Line 44 / Rich Thompson

   Reference to the additional field is now needed in this

   conformance statement

 

 212 - markupCharacterSet is now an array

   Section 6.1.9 / Page 30 / Line 30 / Rich Thompson

   Grammar didn't get updated when the field became an array.

 

 217 - Update section reference

   Section 6.4 / Page 41 / Line 18 / Rich Thompson

   Current reference is wrong as things have moved around

 

 219 - Producer invalidation of registrationHandles

   Section 7.2 / Page 48 / Line 36 / Rich Thompson

   Rephrases for clarity

 

 225 - Specifying preferred character set

   Section 10.1 / Page 55 / Line 16 / Rich Thompson

   Correct optionality & the change to array of char sets.

 

 226 - Resource URL

   Section 10.2.1.1.4.1 / Page 58 / Line 31 / Rich Thompson

   Make the conformance stand-alone

 

 227 - Explicitly specify the relevant portlet url parameters

   Section 10.2.2.11 / Page 62 / Line 10 / Rich Thompson

   Be explicit about what portlet URL parameters are being

  referred to.

 

Resolution: Accepted

====================================================================

 187 - Cacheability and perform*Interaction

   Section 6.3.x / Page 39 / Line 9

   Two alternatives proposed for clarifying how the protocol has

clues for interactions impacting caching. Discussion has centered

around whether we want anything in the spec until we define full

invalidation caching.

 

Resolution: Accepted - Will insert a statement that Consumers must

            always propatage end-user actions to the Producer.

 

====================================================================

 195 - Add registrationMethods

   Section 5.1.18 / Page 23 / Line 7

   Proposal adds a field to enable a Producer to provide guidance

for how to register. In-band technique is identified by the portType

name as this eliminates dependencies on particular bindings while

not inventing yet another name.

 

Resolution: Not Accepted - discovery of the registration method

            would be in same domain as discovery of the Producer

            Service.

 

====================================================================

 173 - What does it mean to support registration?

   Section 8.3 / Page 52 / Line 20-22

   We have a conformance statement regarding Producers supporting

registration. It currently points at the requireRegistration

flag ... not an exact match.

 

Resolution: Accepted - Will rework paragraph: "if consumer has

            registered then it MUST ...."

 

====================================================================

 162 - Require Consumers to support UTF-8?

   Section 10.1 / Page 55 / Line 22

   Proposal notes that we imply the answer to this question is yes

and suggests adding a conformance statement to that effect.

 

Resolution: Not Accepted. However, whereever UTF-8 is mentioned, it

            will be replaced with UTF-8 or UTF-16

 

====================================================================

 143 - Properly encode '&' in examples and BNF

   Section 10.2.1 & 10.2.2 / Page 58 & 61 / Line 15 & 24

   Question raised is whether or not the fragment containing a URL

destined for consumer rewriting needs to be strictly XML compliant.

If so, our '&' should be changed to '&'.

 

Resolution: Accepted - portlets have the responsibility to encode

            the results of a template to be compatible with the

            markup type they are generating. An example of this is

            the encoding of entity refs within text/xml markup.

            (This will be in the form of a conformance statement)

 

====================================================================

 177 - Templates MUST send placeholders

   Section 10.2.2.1 - 10.2.2.8 / Page 61

   Change 'SHOULD' to 'MUST' for the placement of fundamental

parameters in action, etc templates (not for the default templates).

 

Resolution: Accepted

 

====================================================================

 164 - Namespacing Portlet URL Parameters

   Section 10.3 / Page 64 / Line 18

   Alternate text suggested for clarity reasons.

 

Resolution: Accepted - Rich will reword and modify conformance

            language

 

====================================================================

 138 - How does info get to proxied resources

       (Insert a new section 10.4?)

 

   Section 10.4 (insert a new section at this point in the spec)

   In addition to a new section to discuss proxied resources, this

request raises the question of how does a resource get access to

information. Current discussion has noted three existing techniques

and proposed one new technique. The three existing are:

  1) Cookies that are properly defined/processed relative to cookie

     domains.

  2) URL-encoding of the information.

  3) URL-encoding of an indirection to the information.

     The proposed new technique is to define HTTP headers that carry

     UserContext and UserProfile information. The portlet could use

     portlet URL parameters to control whether or not these two

     items are supplied to a resource.

 

Resolution: 1) Accepted - When a Consumer claims that it supports

               cookies it must also support cookies for proxied

               resources.

            2) Not Accepted

            3) Deferred - Andre will provide a proposal for getting

               a resource via a SOAP call.

 

====================================================================

 193 - Asserting multiple standard user categories

   Section B.2 / Page 77 / Line 25

   Adds explicit statements that multiple std user categories can be

asserted and that there are no correlations between them.

 

Resolution: Accepted - Will remove the second sentance in B.2

 

====================================================================

 192 - Prevent localization of standard user category names

   Section 5.1.9 / Page 18 / Line 36

   Notes that the description for std user categories are their

names and they are not localized.

 

Resolution: Not Accepted

 

====================================================================

 200 - Clarify response to ignoring security request

   Section 5.1.11 / Page 21 / Line 1 / Andre Kramer

   Specifies what Producer should do when security requests are

   ignored.

 

Resolution: Not Accepted

 

====================================================================

 201 - PortletDescription applies to clones

   Section 5.1.11 & 6.3.3 / Page 21 / Line 29 / Andre Kramer

   Proposes which fields from PortletDescription are required to

apply to clones as well.

 

Resolution: Accepted -  Metadata for the portlet applies to

            the clone as well.

 

====================================================================

 204 - Fields for cache key

   Section 6.1.2 / Page 27 / Line 33 / Andre Kramer

   Proposes several additional fields also be part of cache keys

 

Resolution: Not Accepted - Will deal with these suggestions in

            the primer.  Alan Kropp will take a look at helping

            Gil with the primer.

 

====================================================================

 141 - Add previous windowState and mode?

   Section 6.1.2 / Page 26 / Line 46

   This would place the burden of remembering the previous

windowsState and mode on the Consumer and thereby permit the

Portlet to know about interesting transitions that do not

involve user interactions with the Portlet's markup.

 

Resolution: Deferred (pending JSR-168)

 

====================================================================

 205 - Template requirements

   Section 6.1.6 / Page 29 / Andre Kramer

   Proposes explicit language for how templates may be dependent on

markupType.

 

Resolution: Not Accepted

 

====================================================================

 206 - Values for extensible items such as modes

   Section 6.1.9 and 7.1.1 / Page 31 / Line 13 / Andre Kramer

   Consumer vs custom modes and window states

 

Resolution: Accepted - Rich will look at adding a section

            to describe the process for setting the mode.

 

====================================================================

Discussion on schedule

 

- A bit behind schedule, but there does not appear to be many

  Change Requests where there would be much contention over

  the premise.

 

Mostk of change requests relate to changes in

conformance statements - These fall into 3 major categories.

  1) There is one batch of statements that are not clear

     when extracted out of context. The CRs related to these

     make the conformance statements clear when extracted.

 

  2) Another batch of conformance statements are not testable.

     The CRs related to these statements are changed to

     semantic language, still capturing the intent of the

     original statement.

 

  3) A third batch deals with conformance statements that

     are repeated multiple times. For the CRs dealing with

     these, the strongest statement was identified, and the

     others were dropped down to semantic language. In some

     cases the statements got out-of-sync and the differences

     needed to be resolved.

 

It was agreed that all conformance statement related CRs

would be accepted as a group, and Rich would incorporate these

changes in the next version of the spec, using change bars to

indicate the changes.

 

This will leave 6 outstanding Change Requests.

 

Rich will create a new version of the spec by next week, with

a target of Tuesday.

 

====================================================================

Change Requests that remain open:

 

138 - How does info get to proxied resources?

141 - Add previous windowState and mode?

207 - PortletDescription dependent on UserContext?

213 - Require modes, windowstates & userAuthentication are URIs

215 - Delete statement about 'private conversational state'

230 - Setting navState

 

====================================================================

Next Meeting:

 

Thursday March 13

       8:00 am PST / 11:00 am EST / 5:00 pm CET

       duration: 2 hours

====================================================================

 

Meeting adjournded at 10:05 AM PST