W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2012

Informal Chair's notes from F2F

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:59:50 +0000
To: <public-device-apis@w3.org>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <rigo@w3.org>, <runnegar@isoc.org>, <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu>, <futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp>
Message-ID: <1CB2E0B458B211478C85E11A404A2B270180825C@008-AM1MPN1-035.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Thanks all for attending the F2F meeting last week. Josh will be sending out formal meeting minutes later ; these include much detail.

Here I offer an informal summary  of the 1-2 Nov 2012 F2F.

The DAP WG had its F2F 1-2 November 2012 in conjunction with TPAC in Lyon France.

(1) Admin - Minutes from 3 October approved, agreement to coordinate with SysApps WG. Question raised of relevance of SysApps security model work to DAP - however DAP focus is open web platform. 

(2) Battery API review

In CR since May 2012, editorial update to upgrade ReSpec, also change 'Function -> EventHandler' per HTML5 update.  Change log: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/log/tip/battery/Overview.html

Reviewed status at F2F - will not advance to PR until sufficient browser implementations demonstrated, as well as test cases.

Current implementations include non-browser Tizen and Firefox OS implementations.  Implementation list: http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/ImplementationStatus#Battery_Status_API

Anssi, editor, reviewed test cases and showed examples. Test Cases: http://w3c-test.org/dap/battery/tests/submissions/anssik/

Dom and Rich  took actions to review battery tests.  All are requested to review as well.

(3) Vibration API review

Vibration API has been in CR since May, has had clarification updates. Change log: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2009/dap/vibration/Overview.html

Implemented in firefox OS, tizen, firefox android, webkit (not enabled by any webkit based browser). Implementation list: http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/ImplementationStatus#Vibration_API

Test suite drafted by Robin. Draft test suite: http://w3c-test.org/dap/tests/vibration/submissions/robin/ Test suite ToDo: http://w3c-test.org/dap/tests/vibration/submissions/robin/TODO.txt

WG noted that implementations needed to exit CR should not be experiments, but real browser implementations.

Note: all CR drafts should have had clear text in status section regarding exit criteria (at least two deployed browser implementations) and noting that nothing is at risk (though the default is that if nothing is noted then nothing is at risk).  

(4) HTML Media Capture - Last Call comment review

Reviewed Last Cal comments. LC comments: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/43696/WD-html-media-capture-20120712/doc/  

Discussion and insight that "Media Capture and Streams" (aka getusermedia) provides general and powerful capture approach with tracks and that HTML Media Capture offers a simpler and more constrained declarative approach, essentially a shortcut for file upload of media.  Note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Oct/0050.html

Reviewed Doug Shepazu's comments with Doug and Olivier. 

Doug and WG agree that update to abstract and introduction regarding purpose, limitations and relationship to Media Capture and Streams would be helpful.  Frederick offered to propose text  - Anssi to update.

WG not clear that making change Doug proposed is what is needed (providing comma separated list of audio, video etc) but Doug not sure it isn't. Agreement to revise document with agreed changes and revisit this issue in the hope we can clarify understanding.

Reviewed status of other LC items

2637 is one we have to decide on, but not now; 
2640, about html will be easy to resolve; 
2638, asking for an example, we can say this is solved and do it with the other comments of doug ; 
2639, re camcorder as name, this seems not an issue anymore - no objection, so closed. ;

2644 +1'd by commentor at:
(Frederick updated status post-meeting to indicate closed)

Discussion on whether to rename document for clarity, however this could confuse short name. General WG agreement that name change not needed.

(4) Proximity API review

Anssi requested hardware to enable testing.

Frederick confirmed (during break) that call for exclusion does not prevent going to Last Call during that period.

Resolution to publish CfC to bring Proximity Events to Last Call. Frederick sent CfC, deadline 13 Nov: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Nov/0002.html 

Anticipate Last Call publication of Proximity after CfC concludes. 

(5) Network Information API

Adrian provided review comments on the Network Information API (ACTION-474). Use cases to avoid end-user "billing shock" suggest need to know type of network (metered or not). Current proposals to determine available bandwidth may be wrong for a variety of reasons, however. Adrian noted that network type may be determined from underlying system depending on that implemenation.  Rich  agreed with Adrian about concerns. Discussion ensued.

Jonas noted that you don't want to provide information that requires initiating a network connection for then the damage may be already done (billing etc).

WG noted that latest editors draft version of Network Information API is much different than last published TR version. Mounir volunteered to update editors draft, add use cases and prepare  for publication.

WG agreed to publish editors draft as updated WD to make sure TR version is up to date, after a chance for WG to review updated editors draft.

Note, Mounir has updated the draft after the F2F, please review. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Nov/0019.html

(6) Web Intents/ Web Activities

Greg provided an update on Web Intents, including UI issues related to usability of notifications in a multi-tab environment. Mounir offered a review of Web Activities. The WG then discussed how to unify and progress the work. Greg and Mounir agreed to work together and draft a proposal to share with the group in order to move the work forward.

Notice regarding moving Web Intents behind flag in Chrome implementation (sent after F2F heads up): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012Nov/0000.html

WebActivities: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/WebActivities Earlier email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012Jun/0061.html

Mounir noted use of System Messages, like DOM events, enables waiting for handler to be available or  woken if necessary. Jungkee noted relevance to Pick Contacts etc. WG discussed possibility of creating a new specification for background service API.

(7) Privacy

Members of the W3C privacy interest group (PING) joined DAP to review privacy concerns using the Pick Contacts Web Intents specification to provide concrete context. (Joined by Christine Runnegar, Rigo and Nick).

Rigo clarified that even though the WG may not make normative conformance requirements for some privacy related items, documenting a SHOULD in an informative section has value as it provides a linkage to the legal system (e.g. this allows the question as to why it was not done given that the issue was documented).

General note that there is a data protection requirement for the transfer of user data outside the user sphere, so documents should indicate need for confidentiality in data transfers (but should not mandate SSL as there may be other other mechanisms used).

Nick noted in review that search seems to be more than a 'hint' given the draft normative requirement on what is returned.

Christine noted that 'groups' are sensitive information as well.

WG clarified case for debugging information and Rigo noted that this is indeed acceptable even in a production system as long as the use is limited.

Frederick outlined privacy related best practices and specs located on DAP home page roadmap.

Agreement to continue discussions on PING calls as needed.

(8) WebIntents Addendum - Local Services

Claes provided an update, a demo, and reviewed what he presented at the TPAC breakout session.


Breakout slides:

Kensaku gave a demonstration for browser-TV using DLNA enabled devices, not the WebIntents addendum.

Discussion that both approaches have value, not a competition. Analogy here to HTML Media Capture and "Media Capture and Streams" of having two approaches that differ in degree of control and capability to serve different needs.

Additional discussion of UI issues.

(9) Network Service Discovery

Latest published draft:

Network Service Discovery (NSD) API in Opera ->

Rich gave update on Network Service Discovery, noted spec abstracts underlying mechanism which is extensible. Currently outlines use with mDNS and UPnP. Gave a demo. Discussion about use of URLs. 

Please provide feedback on list.

(10) Web Based Signage

Futomi Hatano, Newphoria Corporation, from the W3C Web Based Signage Business Group gave an update on their work and requirements.  Slides will be made available later.



The service discovery use case seemed directly relevant to Web Intents and network service discovery.

(11) Media Capture and Streams

Travis gave an update of the TF work in on media capture and streams, will post slides later.

Frederick suggested that Media Capture Task Force member join with PING on a PING call to review privacy including  fingerprinting issues related to device list associated with settings API. 

(12) Pick Contacts

Discussion regarding keeping search.

RESOLUTION: Pick Contacts and Pick Media using dictionary for searchhint and field restrictions (field on media if applicable) 

(13) Pick Media

Jungkee reviewed metadata properties and solicited feedback. 


(14) Interop and testing

Dom noted that discussions are underway to decide on repository for tests.

(15) Coremob update

Coremob is abandoning the ringmark approach and going back to working on user cases and requirements, in order to be able to justify the test cases included.

HTML Media Capture was included in the list of specs of concern to Coremob. 

Nothing for DAP to do here other than respond to queries, if any.

(16) Sensors

Discussion concluded with agreement that work on sensors is premature until use cases and requirements are understood. Nicklas volunteered to submit a landscape review in order to increase the WG understanding of the area.

(17) Calendar API

The group reminded itself that there are a number of issues with the current calendar API draft, including the  recurrence model. Possible topic for next F2F.

(18) F2F planning

The group needs to consider when and where to have the next F2F. Dom will send out a questionnaire about when, March and early April might be possibilities (though the chair has certain weeks not available). Last F2F was in Burlington MA.

Thanks to all for attending and making the F2F a productive meeting.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair, W3C DAP Working Group
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 17:00:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:56 UTC