See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 16 June 2010
<fjh> ScribeNick: maoteo
<fjh> DAP registration form
fjh: London registration is open, please complete asap
<fjh> ation and information available (F2F after London F2F, 4-5 November )
fjh: tpac registration is already available, F2F meeting for DAP already booked
<fjh> 9 June 2010
Resolution: minutes of 9 June approved
<jsalsman> Dom's comments:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0133.html
fjh: Dom has specific comments on the framework doc
... most of them seem to be editorial
<jsalsman> I haven't been able to get through all those yet
<fjh> need to crisply and concretely define capabilities and features
<fjh> Daniel message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Feb/0142.html
fjh: we may need to do the work on capabilties and features in conjunction with the API definition
<jsalsman> Should remote policy provisioning be removed into a seperate document?
fjh: ... initial input was based on BONDI APIs, but for instance DAP APIs are different
dom: before we move forward with the policy framework we need to discuss features and capabilities in a concrete manner
... need to avoid abstract discussions
... solving relationship with DCO may just be an editorial work
fjh: we should publish something soon to keep the momentum
<jsalsman> Should initial policy default provisioning be the same as enterprise policy re-provisioning? In a separate document like "Default security provisioning"?
richt: there is a possible mapping for contacts
... will send to the mailing list
fjh: anybody willing to contribute to the framework doc so that we can publish next week?
<richt> FYI, I sent an email RE: Capabilities and Contacts a while back: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec/0195.html
<jsalsman> let's split out the default perms
<richt> things may have changed a little bit since then but it's been considered.
bryan_sullivan: will try to provide some inputs by next week
<jsalsman> what is the semantic distinction between framework and profile?
<fjh> ACTION: bryan to respond to Dom's comments before next week, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0133.html , http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0132.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-dap-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-193 - Respond to Dom's comments before next week, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0133.html , http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0132.html [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2010-06-23].
<tlr> known issue
<jsalsman> I would rather see something like data structures/default provisioning than framework/profile
<fjh> Highlights of comments, need to clarify what is profiling of XACML 2 versus repeat of XACML material
<fjh> Move examples from examples document to XACML profile
<fjh> conformance needed
dom: general concern is that the policy document is not in a publishable form
<jsalsman> agreed with move examples, but I have comments about the overlap between framework and profile documents
<fjh> prompt-x seems to require prompting, perhaps should be restated as user-permission
Resolution: Merge examples document with profile doc
<jsalsman> James Salsman
<jsalsman> or Jim
jsalsman: there is an overlap framework between framework and profiles
... suggestion 1 document for data structures and another one for the algorithm
... and maybe both should contain examples
fjh: profile is very linked to XACML whereas the framework is not
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to say that Framework currently defines a lot of syntactic aspects of the XML format (in particular in section 3.2-3.4)
fjh: sending a proposal in the mailing list would help to standard the suggested approach
<fjh> dom notes section 3 of framework has lots of syntactic detail, hence division between model and format is not clean
dom: currently the division between the model and the format is not very clean
... for instance sections 3.2.2 3.2.4 provide a lot of syntactic detail
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0094.html comments from mohamed
<jsalsman> how about Policy Framework and Profile (with examples included) -- kind of a merge, and Provisioning (actions, also with examples)
RESOLUTION: editors to include editorial comments suggested by Mohamed and Dom
<jsalsman> where is provisioning in scope?
<fjh> Privacy and Policy requirements are ready to publish?
fjh: privacy and policy requirements are ready to publish
dom: no comments received
... either for publishing or not publishing them
<jsalsman> the examples? can they be merged?
RESOLUTION: Publish the Policy and Privacy Requirements doc, publication date will be 29 June
<jsalsman> currently the examples document has one example "Defending against premium rate abuse"
<jsalsman> I agree the policy and privacy requirements can be published, except for the part about always avoiding prompts, I think that needs to be reworded
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to do pubrules on policy and privacy requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-dap-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-194 - Do pubrules on policy and privacy requirements [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-06-23].
fjh: Robin made a proposal on the mailing list
<fjh> File Writer and File Directories and System moves to WebApps
fjh: the suggestion is moving File Writer and File Directories and System to WebApps
... is there any objection to Robin's proposal?
<dom> +1 on moving File* to WebApps
bryan_sullivan: is the assumption that there is no more File related work in DAP?
<jsalsman> how about input type=file ?
bryan_sullivan: the ability to extend these APIs for non browser contexts is important
<jsalsman> can we approve the mime/type;source=device formalism before we transfer this work?
fjh: first of all we should try to work with WebApps
bryan_sullivan: there at least two additional methods on the FileSystem interface that are needed from non browser contexts
fjh: could be handled by an extended spec and conformance
<jsalsman> also, treating the entire file system as a single device is really a problem
<jsalsman> traditionally perms are per-file
<dom> +1 on layering approach as needed
fjh: suggestion is following the extension concept instead of defining a new API in DAP
<jsalsman> there were :)
<jsalsman> mute me
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: The DAP WG agrees to move the File Writer and File Directories and Systems API specifications work to the WebApps WG, however the DAP WG may continue work on extensions to the APIs or additional work in this area
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: The DAP WG agrees to move the File Writer and File Directories and Systems API specifications work to the WebApps WG
<tlr> +1 to the simple one
RESOLUTION: The DAP WG agrees to move the File Writer and File Directories and System API specifications work to the WebApps WG
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to notify chairs of WebApps of DAP decision re file specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-dap-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-195 - Notify chairs of WebApps of DAP decision re file specs [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-06-23].
<trackbot> ACTION-191 -- James Salsman to send pre-LC editorial comments on system-info and camera/Media Capture -- due 2010-06-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
dom: James sent some comments to improve the codecs part
jsalsman: substantial problems, types are free forms, problem with exceptions, microphone should have a name attribute, mime types are free form
<richt> jsalsman, 'No exceptions' is an automatic ReSpec.js addition to the specs...maybe that needs addressing on the mailing list? (actually, is there a dedicated mailing list for discussing ReSpec e.g. pub-tools?)
<bryan_sullivan> if you need someone to make the changes for Jame's comments I can help out
<jsalsman> mute me
<dom> richt, email@example.com is that list
<richt> thanks, dom
bryan_sullivan: Can help with implementing the agreed changes
<fjh> ACTION: dzung to incorporate edits from James proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0174.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-dap-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-196 - Incorporate edits from James proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0174.html [on Dzung Tran - due 2010-06-23].
<fjh> all, please review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0174.html
richt: some changes on the normative descriptions
<trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- Difference in data model between Contacts/Calendar APIs and vCard/vCalendar -- open
richt: the APIs themselves have not changed that much, but the schema has changed
<dom> Contact Properties
richt: for instance, the contact properties have changed, now they are not defined in the spec but linked to the portable contacts definition
<fjh> ContactProperties interface has changed to use portable schema
richt: producing a common set is very difficult due to the different information available in different sources: device, web, UICC
fjh: target publication date?
<fjh> suggest WG review updated contacts draft then publish on 29th
<fjh> ACTION: robin to add to agenda next week to agree to publish updated contacts WD on 29 June [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-dap-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-197 - Add to agenda next week to agree to publish updated contacts WD on 29 June [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-23].
<jsalsman> for the interop aspects it might be better to get it out in front of the public early
<fjh> ACTION: richt to prepare Contacts for publications, with pubrules [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-dap-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Prepare Contacts for publications, with pubrules [on Richard Tibbett - due 2010-06-23].
<jsalsman> what is access "once" for something like calendar or contacts?
<jsalsman> access to one item or one query?
fjh: status of calendar?
richt: most of the effort has been put on Contacts
<fjh> richt some open issues on dates and times to address on list
<trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- How to represent dates? ES has Date but with no TZ information; using strings is less than ideal; do we have to create a Web Dates specification? -- open
<fjh> richt also notes some open editorial actions
<fjh> richt notes need to discuss with suresh, review on next week's call
richt: some discussion on the mailing list, need to talk to Suresh to check what are the next steps
<jsalsman> julian date in double precision floating point UT timestamp?
<trackbot> ACTION-92 -- Thomas Roessler to give a heads up to the IETF/W3C liaison for review and input from IETF around PIM -- due 2010-03-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<Zakim> richt, you wanted to close ACTION-125
<richt> yep, that is a seperate q
<trackbot> ACTION-125 -- Richard Tibbett to fold in Contacts changes -- due 2010-06-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<fjh> please let richard if any outstanding changes to contacts needed, please review