W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > January 2013

[minutes] Coremob Teleconference 2013-01-30 - Coremob-2012 is now "final"

From: Jo Rabin <jo@linguafranca.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:04:23 +0000
Message-Id: <F07B2F68-8B66-4647-B2A7-757B4EA69EA5@linguafranca.org>
To: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Hi Everyone

As mentioned we proceeded with our teleconference today, once again my apologies for the confusion on dates.

As a summary of the call, the following resolution was taken:

RESOLUTION: The CG requests the chair to advance the status of Coremob - 2012 to "Final" modulo editorial changes on frame rate and correction of references

So we have now completed Coremob-2012 - well, we will have done after Tobie has made those final corrections and I have pushed the relevant button to mark the document as final. We'll publish the final URI as soon as that is done.

We also heard the excellent news that Tobie is to become a W3C Fellow working on testing. This is really fantastic news and I'm sure everyone will join me in wishing Tobie well in that role, in which I'm looking forward to seeing him continue the work started here in Coremob. Here's the resolution recording our congratulation and thanks to Tobie for all his efforts especially as our principal editor.

RESOLUTION: The CG Congratulates Tobie on his appointment as W3C Fellow and thanks him for his efforts as principal Coremob editor

The setting up of a W3C Central Test Initiative (name tbc, afaik) has a direct impact on our work plans, and indeed on our charter. As I mentioned on the call, I'm in discussion with W3C about some changes that we should make to reflect this extremely positive development. I'm hoping that we have some conclusions in not too many weeks. 

I would particularly like to hear the views of the members of this group as input to the current discussions on next steps for Coremob, I'd welcome discussion on this topic either on list - or off list if you'd prefer to email me directly. 

I think we should pause for a moment to congratulate ourselves on having published our document!

All best
Jo

The minutes may be found here http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-coremob-minutes.html and as text, below.

        Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference

30 Jan 2013

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-coremob-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Jo, Chaals, Tobie, Giri, rtshilston

   Regrets
   Chair
          Jo

   Scribe
          chaals

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Advance coremob 2012 to final?
     * [5]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 30 January 2013

   <scribe> scribe: chaals

Advance coremob 2012 to final?

   <jo>
   [6]http://coremob.github.com/coremob-2012/ED-coremob-20130123.h
   tml -> Pre Final Draft -> Coremob 2012 Final Draft

      [6] http://coremob.github.com/coremob-2012/ED-coremob-20130123.html

   TL: Finished the references, haven't pushed changes.

    there are changes only on database, and not in document
   itself.

    was email from Bryan, and others.

    Saying it makes sense to point out that Last Call specs
   should be differentiated from other Working Drafts

    Agree, and plan to check the documents.

   JR: Be warned that some documents have many last calls...

   TL: It goes hand in hand with updating the bibliography so
   makes sense anyway.

    Finally, six comments came last night from Giri

    Four have already been decided, two comments to address.

    1. Term 'implementation' is not clearly defined - wanted to
   have ??, OS and CPU

    2. About number of Frames/sec for animated sprites to display

   <jo>
   [7]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2013Jan/0
   043.html -> Giri's comments and tobie's response

      [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2013Jan/0043.html

   Giri: Didn't understand why ?? wasn't a principal requirement

   TL: Didn't - we have requirements derived from the use cases,
   and this is not a bidirectional relationship.

   Giri: OK, that's the philosophy. Other point for discussion

    Geolocation. Think there is a difference between conformance
   for use cases and conformance to the spec. Geolocation is an
   example.

    There is nothing compelling in implementation to use the most
   accurate technology available. If your implementation ignores
   that, we should not state that implementation is conformant.

   TL: Think I addressed part of that in email. It is not for
   coremob to decide on conformance for a working group.

    don't think we need to go further in the discussion. But
   there are valid reasons not to provide best data possible, e.g.
   for saving battery. Or to preserve privacy as a user.

   Giri: You're not supporting the use case if you don't provide
   an accurate location.

   <gmandyam> +q

   CMN: Agree with Giri's principle, that if the defined
   conformance is not sufficient for the use case, we should state
   that conformance tothe spec is insufficient.

    but geolocation data is private, and if people choose a
   device or use it in a way to reduce the information I don't
   think there is an issue here.

   JR: Think quality of location is aquality of implementation
   issue, and they are out of scope except where specifically
   called out.

    we know this is an issue to which we will need to return. But
   if it is OK for now, can we move on.

   Giri: OK, makes sense. And Tobie has agreed to relax the
   framerate requirement. As an informative note, privacy
   applications don't allow users to set accuracy.

   [There are implementations that allow users to specifically
   change their resolution]

   TL: My new device (iPhone) asked if I wanted to use geolocation
   services

   Giri: That's not the same as accuracy.

   TL: Giri, you happy with changes I proposed for the last point?

   Giri: Yes.

   TL: Good - thanks for raising that. Will do the changes.

   JR: Think that is an editorial clarification, not a substantive
   change - so go for it.
   ... Any further comments to make before a resolution is taken?

   CMN: Noted that there was a discussion on fullscreen API /
   View-modes media. Where did that end?

   TL: Note that fullscreen spec expects user-input to go into
   fullscreen mode.

    thought I had addressed that on the mailing list.

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The CG requests the chair to advance
   the status of Coremob - 2012 to "Final"

   CMN: There are some specs covering part of the requirements -
   but there is a lack of clarity. At the same time, we should be
   aware that there seems to be a consensus that for security
   fullscreening without the user approving explicitly is
   unlikelyto be allowed. So I think we can leave this issue for
   now although it should arise for coremob2013
   ... [+1 to proposed resolution]

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The CG requests the chair to advance
   the status of Coremob - 2012 to "Final" modulo editorial change
   on frame rate and correction of references

   RESOLUTION: The CG requests the chair to advance the status of
   Coremob - 2012 to "Final" modulo editorial changes on frame
   rate and correction of references

   [Champagne flows freely]

   JR: Given low attendance, there is action item checking. I
   propose to do that and then ask for forgiveness.

   TL: The next year I will be a W3C fellow working on testing, so
   will be unable to edit coremob specs.

    Coremob document of this year is used as the basis, along
   with WebTV and Mobile profiling documents, of W3C's testing
   effort, which is a good endorsement of the work we have done.

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The CG Congratulates Tobie on his
   appointment as W3C Fellow and thanks him for his efforts as
   principal Coremob editor

   CMN: [+1 to proposal]

   RESOLUTION: The CG Congratulates Tobie on his appointment as
   W3C Fellow and thanks him for his efforts as principal Coremob
   editor

   JR: (But please do the last set of changes before you leave...)
   ... Think it is important for the CG to align with the new
   initiative, and we will need to change our charter with regard
   to testing.

    I am in discussion with W3C on the nature of that change, and
   hope to have some conclusions in the next few weeks.

    I think we have already delivered a good contribution -
   thanks everyone.

   Adjourned (more on charter will follow on the list)

   (And thanks to FT for the phone bridge)

   <jo> thanks to chaals for scribing and to Financial Times for
   providing telecon facilities

   <rtshilston> You're most welcome to have used the conference
   facilities.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 19:04:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:47 UTC