See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 22 May 2013
<scribe> scribe: Josh_Soref
fjh: gmandyam, were you on the last call?
gmandyam: i was
fjh: you're not in the attendees
... i'll get that fixed
<fjh> Web Intents Addendum, Pick Media Intent, Pick Contacts Intent shelved, publishing Web Intents as WG Note, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0051.html
<fjh> fjh: publication of Web Intents as Note tomorrow is underway
<fjh> Media Capture and Streams updated WD published 16 May 2013, http://www.w3.org/TR/mediacapture-streams/ (significant changes)
fjh: i've updated the minutes to include gmandyam
<fjh> Approve minutes from 15 May 2013 ; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/att-0056/minutes-2013-05-15.html
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 15 May 2013 are approved
<fjh> updated editors draft, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0025.html (Anssi)
<fjh> CfC to publish another Last Call WD (CfC end 21 May): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0037.html
fjh: no objections, i believe there was support
... i'll arrange to publish a LC
... anssik, can you prepare a LC
... we need to pick a two-week window
anssik: yeah, i can do that
fjh: if we can publish it next week
... if you can prepare a draft, and we publish on May 30
... change Status section to mention LC and reference change to Error Handling
... and give 3 week LC ending 20th of June?
... and then we can go to CR
... any concern w/ that?
... i think that works
... anssik, let me know when you're done
... and i'll do the pub process
... thinking if 2 or 3 weeks is appropriate
... i don't think it matters
anssik: we haven't received explicit +1 on the new design
fjh: so, 3 weeks
... publish 30 May
... and finish on 20 June
... i don't think i'm forgetting anything
<fjh> Updated with draft privacy considerations, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0053.html (Anssi)
<fjh> Includes update to Event related normative text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0054.html
<fjh> Plans to update technical approach: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0026.html (Anssi)
<fjh> Open issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0034.html
<fjh> As decided at last meeting, waiting until end of May for discussion on list.
<fjh> Please review draft and discuss on list.
fjh: if you don't hear anything
anssik: i can restate what i said in the mail
... i'm planning to update the draft if i don't hear concerns w/in a week
fjh: better to provide a specific date
anssik: maybe Tuesday
... so we can talk about it on next week's call
fjh: send an email saying you'll do it on the 28th
anssik: sure
... thanks for handling the Privacy thing
... it's good that there are experts looking at the spec
<fjh> prefix issue , http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Apr/0054.html (Jean-Claude)
<fjh> status http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0028.html (Rich)
<fjh> Awaiting further activity
fjh: i think we're waiting for Cathy to get back
<fjh> Battery, Vibration, Light, Proximity, Network Service Discovery
<fjh> Network Service Discovery implementation released as open source, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0045.html (Jean-Claude)
anssik: we're working on implementing HTML Media Capture
... getting the implementation to match the latest spec
... i can't give you an estimate of when it will happen
fjh: what about Battery, Light, Proximity
anssik: i think we're going first w/ HTML Media Capture
... that's something we're currently looking at implementing
... I think Battery is in fairly good shape
... i'm not sure when we're migrating tests to the github repo
... that could attract outside contributors
fjh: i checked with dom
anssik: i think that could make it easier for outside contributors
fjh: if we don't get anyone, -- just you
... where are we?
anssik: Battery is
... coverage is good
... some tests require interactive testing
... you can always make things more clever
... Vibration tests, i haven't started
... we have darobin's initial draft
... Proximity, i think marcos has tests
... which are fairly extensive
... for Ambient Light, i think marcos also
... you can use the same structure
... those are pretty much done
... all these specs have test suites
... the most mature are Battery, Proximity and Ambient
... while Media Capture and Vibration are early drafts
fjh: this is good. so we need to make sure all the tests are in one place and are documented
anssik: i'm optimistic that when we migrate to github, we'll get outside contributors
... maybe people who do browser work will be more comfortable contributing
... since you don't need a w3 account
fjh: HTML Media Capture
... Network Service needs looking
... so the next step is getting implementations
... we need to figure out who's doing implementations
... we haven't gotten confirmation that people are participating
... i can send a message on that
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to follow up on implementation status for DAP specifications [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/22-dap-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-632 - Follow up on implementation status for DAP specifications [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2013-05-29].
fjh: I will also check on status of documentation
... do you have any timeframe
... on when your team will be doing things w/ HTML Media Capture?
anssik: we're working on getting the implementation in
... quite natural to start testing after that
... witihin a month
fjh: so an implementation before summer
anssik: yeah
<fjh> ACTION-523?
<trackbot> ACTION-523 -- Anssi Kostiainen to work on test cases for battery, vibration, and HTML Media Capture -- due 2012-08-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/523
<fjh> ACTION-621?
<trackbot> ACTION-621 -- Anssi Kostiainen to create test cases for HTML Media Capture -- due 2013-03-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/621
<fjh> ACTION-625?
<trackbot> ACTION-625 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to move DAP tests to Git, with help from others as needed -- due 2013-05-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/625
<fjh> no pending actions
<fjh> ISSUE-128?
<trackbot> ISSUE-128 -- Need more description on how bandwidth should be estimated -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/128
fjh: not sure what we're going to do with this
... suggestions on what to do next?
... should we be shelving this?
... the sense i'm getting is that
... this is more regarding control
... do we really need this spec?
Josh_Soref: I don't think we do
gmandyam: if timeliness is an issue
... dealing with latency is problematic
fjh: wondering if i should issue a CfC to shelve
Josh_Soref: i'm in favor of shelving, but we should explain in detail in the document why it's a futile/useless effort
fjh: anyone have a problem w/ shelving?
gmandyam: no problem
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to start CfC to shelve Network Information API, first checking with editor [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/22-dap-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-633 - Start CfC to shelve Network Information API, first checking with editor [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2013-05-29].
<gmandyam> My two issues with BW estimation in the Network Info API: (1) It currently leaves the BW estimation algm. up to the implementation, which would potentially provide an uneven experience for developers and (2) It is not clear if the BW estimate provides any value over Performance Timing, which is an approved and working W3C standard
fjh: i'd like to cancel the 26 June
RESOLUTION: Cancel 26 June call
[ Adjourned ]
trackbot, end meeting