Device APIs Working Group Teleconference

11 Apr 2012


See also: IRC log


Anssi_Kostiainen, Cathy, Clarke_Stevens, Deepanshu_Gautam, Dzung_Tran, Frederick_Hirsch, Jorge_Peraza, Josh_Soref, Jungkee_Song, Mahesh, Robin_Berjon, Sakari_Poussa, Travis_Leithead, adrianba, darobin, dsr, mounir, richt
Robin_Berjon, Frederick_Hirsch


<trackbot> Date: 11 April 2012

<scribe> Scribe: Josh_Soref


<fjh> please note WebIntents session at WebApps

<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note WebIntents slot on May 1 at 1:30pm-2:30pm California time at WebApps interim F2F is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0124.html

Minutes Approval

<fjh> F2F Minutes (v2) : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Apr/att-0025/minutes-2012-03-20.html

<fjh> known issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Apr/0012.html

<fjh> 4 April draft minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Apr/att-0009/minutes-2012-04-04.html

<mounir> The French Zakim Bridge number should be removed from the agenda...

fjh: we have face to face minutes as well as minutes from last week's call
... the question is can we approve these or do we need more time?

darobin: i recon we can approve them
... people have had a chance to look at the record
... i don't think Josh_Soref's changes are massive or modify what people have said

fjh: i think we need two resolutions

Josh_Soref: i'm missing a link from Claes's presentation
... I wanted a correction for Wonsuk

fjh: i don't think we're in a rush to approve them
... i think people are mostly fine with the minutes
... Josh_Soref, why don't you clean them all up and we'll approve them next week

RESOLUTION: 4 April minutes are approved

fjh: it's only fair to let people see what they're approving
... i'll send a message to Claes asking for the link

NFC discussion

<fjh> Please take all NFC discussion to new mail list, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Apr/0014.html

fjh: if you're interested in that discussion and able to participate, then you should probably join

dsr: we could set up a CG for this
... but it seemed simpler to set up a mailing list and a wiki
... without a patent policy commitment
... after a minimal discussion we can work that into a CG or WG
... with a charter...

F2F Meeting planning

fjh: there's two possible meetings coming up
... possibly week of 9 july

darobin: we should have a WBS with a short decision time
... on weeks in july
... we have an offer to host from vodafone in Dusseldorf
... they had originally looked into late June
... but it'd be good to have a decision very soon
... because we're running into the deadline

fjh: i don't know if Nokia could be able to host
... i suspect it would be problematic

darobin: at some point, richt had suggested Oslo could be an option

fjh: that might be useful as well
... it depends on the other offer
... what about TPAC
... I don't know which groups we want to overlap with or not

darobin: historically, we've avoided overlapping at all costs with webapps
... html5 is ok to overlap
... we have more shared participation with webapps
... i think we'll need to meet at TPAC
... if all goes according to plan, we'll have enough progress to justify meeting

fjh: and we need to do Intents work which justifies the July F2F

darobin: is XML Security meeting at TPAC?

fjh: no, we're just doing list work
... dsr, you have a problem with Friday at TPAC?

dsr: yes

fjh: anyone else have thoughts/comments?

darobin: should i set up a form?

Deep: i just want to add that the week of 9 july will conflict with an OMA meeting
... so perhaps we could do the week following

darobin: that's useful information
... we do try to avoid clashing, but sometimes there's no alternative

fjh: we could put the week of the 9th and the week of the 16th into the questionaire
... are we doing 2 or 3 days?

darobin: i think it makes sense to do 2 1/2 maybe 3 days

fjh: i'd suggest midweek

darobin: people tend to prefer traveling on weekdays

fjh: for me, it would be best if it were Wednesday, Thursday, Friday

<fjh> prefer wed-fri

darobin: I don't have a big problem

fjh: number of people should be 50-60 [based on past experience]
... for TPAC
... i was thinking about the TPAC questionaire

Sensor API

<fjh> Updated draft with discovery removed - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/sensor-api/Overview.html (Dzung Tran)

<fjh> Sensor wiki for issue review, please update: http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/Sensor_Issues

fjh: we got comments from marcos
... i don't think there's anything we can do on the call

Network Information API

fjh: i'm not sure what to do next
... AnssiK, do you have thoughts about next steps?

AnssiK: about energy?

fjh: yes

AnssiK: i don't consider myself an expert on that

Josh_Soref: is it possible to punt to v2?

<fjh> Bryan for next step on network information discussion of last week

Formal request to advance battery status/vibration to CR?

dsr: i had an action to schedule a call
... are we ready?

fjh: AnssiK, did we have an update for vibration?
... i thought we were good to go for both

<AnssiK> commit log: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2009/dap/vibration/Overview.html

fjh: i remember we had a bit of post decision comments/discussion

AnssiK: we removed the exception items

fjh: but that was old
... i think we're good to go

dsr: did we have a RESOLUTION?

fjh: I believe we did, but i'd have to find it
... we could do two now

<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Bring Battery API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features

darobin: there's a minimum bar to give people time to implement
... it's the reverse of the LC criteria

<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Bring Battery API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features and not exiting CR before July 1

darobin: to give people time to comment
... we don't need to make it long because we already have implementations

fjh: is July 1st ok?
... i want it before the F2F

<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Bring Vibration API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features and not exiting CR before July 1

darobin: sounds reasonable
... we need existing implementations
... and they need to pass the test suite

<darobin> +1

<AnssiK> +1

RESOLUTION: Bring Battery API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features and not exiting CR before July 1

<inserted> [ This line intentionally left blank to make the scribe scripts happy ]

RESOLUTION: Bring Vibration API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features and not exiting CR before July 1

fjh: I'm going to be away next week

dsr: in that case, i'll liase with darobin on the official request

Action review

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/open

fjh: we were kind and didn't do this at the F2F

<dtran> +1

fjh: i think it'd be nice if people could look through their own items
... Travis: you have one for Network Information, i think it's done

<fjh> ACTION-474?

<trackbot> ACTION-474 -- Travis Leithead to make a proposal for Network Information API -- due 2011-11-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/474

Josh_Soref: I thought that was getting feedback from Microsoft Teams
... and I think it's still worth doing

fjh: richt: you have an action to consider

<fjh> ACTION-513?

<trackbot> ACTION-513 -- Richard Tibbett to consider updating Contacts specification to add WebIntents section -- due 2012-03-27 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/513

richt: i don't remember that action
... i'm thinking about it

fjh: Josh_Soref: you have a bunch

<darobin> ACTION-483?

<trackbot> ACTION-483 -- Josh Soref to send proposal to list for how Contacts will move forward -- due 2011-11-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/483

darobin: i don't think that matches my recollection of what the action should be
... i think this was an action to rewrite Contacts as an Intent

<darobin> ACTION-482?

<trackbot> ACTION-482 -- Josh Soref to contacts find() may be replaced with Intents -- due 2011-11-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/482

<fjh> +1 to darobin interpretation

darobin: it's related to several actions that Josh_Soref has
... i believe that Josh_Soref worked with greg on a proposal

Josh_Soref: that's right...
... i'll share it to richt
... and i'll try to be happy with it and then share it out to the list

richt: that'd be great

darobin: Josh_Soref, that'll clear up a bunch of your actions

<darobin> ACTION-528?

<trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Richard Tibbett to provide more use cases. -- due 2012-03-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/528

<richt> what am I supposed to be providing more use cases for?? (ACTION-528)

<richt> fyi, I've closed "ACTION-528: Provide more use cases" on me since I can't work out what the action relates to.

<richt> fyi again. updated ACTION-528 and re-opened it.

<fjh> note that there were a number of actions on James and Greg in the F2F minutes, prefixed by AI.

<darobin> there's also:

<darobin> ACTION-527?

<trackbot> ACTION-527 -- Frederick Hirsch to send emial to other WG li -- due 2012-03-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/527

<fjh> ACTION-532?

<trackbot> ACTION-532 -- Dave Raggett to collect use cases for qrcodes in web context -- due 2012-03-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/532

darobin: the QR code action is related to rechartering
... maybe there's something useful in QR space that could be added to the charter

<fjh> ACTION-523?

<trackbot> ACTION-523 -- Anssi Kostiainen to work on test cases for battery and vibration -- due 2012-03-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/523

darobin: i think this was coremob stuff
... don't spend much time on it
... a lot of it is going to be dropped anyway
... most of it is feature testing
... skeleton testing
... not actual testing

AnssiK: i noticed that

darobin: we'll have to build our own tests
... since you and i have action items, we should coordinate

AnssiK: webkit has tests
... there's an ongoing effort to make the layout test work with the test harness
... i'd like to avoid extra work

<darobin> [last I checked Mozilla didn't have much in the way of battery tests]

AnssiK: i assume the browser vendors have their own test suites

darobin: yes
... a lot of the tests rely on features of their own browser
... e.g. mozilla relies on features of ecmascript not implemented elsewhere
... often they can be easily adapted
... for vibration, we have some tests, but we need more
... but they're not easy to write as they require user interaction
... i'd start with the same framework/setup as battery
... you can copy it over

AnssiK: do we have any tool for functional testing?

darobin: you can use testmonkey

<fjh> ACTION-516?

<trackbot> ACTION-516 -- Josh Soref to propose Security Considerations section on SSL for Intents sepc -- due 2012-03-27 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/516

AnssiK: maybe we can move this to the list

fjh: Josh_Soref, since there's a meeting soon, it'd probably be good if you sent an item on that one

Josh_Soref: yeah, i need to review the entire spec
... soon


fjh: regrets for next week
... Josh_Soref, you'll send out a new copy of the F2F minutes, making it clear it's the final version

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009-03-02 03:52:20 $