- From: Jo Rabin <jo@linguafranca.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:04:23 +0000
- 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