W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2012

F2F minutes

From: Josh Soref <jsoref@rim.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:07:52 +0200
To: "Core Mobile" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <957F1ECDA90E004B8DBDE23CFC94E3A33A4CD474@XMB103ECNC.rim.net>
This may be the final minutes, they aren't perfect, but I haven't gotten
much feedback.

Thanks to those who did provide feedback. Thanks to everyone for
attending. Thanks to Facebook for hosting. And thanks to Fantasai for
joining and scribing with me.

Among other things, I don't have an accurate attendees list for day 2.

If you attended the first day, but weren't able to attend the second day,
please feel free to contact me, we can move you to the Regrets section
(and in the future, you can send Chairs a message if you know you won't be
present for a meeting of any kind, and they can arrange to add you to that
section).

Feedback is welcome.

minutes-2012-06-25.html


Present:
Andrea_Trasatti Andrew_Hubbs    Brian_Kelley    Chihiro_Ono
Chris_Ramos     Dan_Sun David_Dehghan   Dong-Young_Lee
Elika   Eunjoo_Lim      Harrison_Wu     Itai_Dadon      James_Pearce
Jean-François_Moy      Jet_Villegas    Jo_Rabin
Josh_Soref      Julian_Shen     Koichi_Takagi   Lars_Erik_Bolstad
Mansoor_Chistie Marcos_Lara Matt_Kelly  Ming_Jin
Nima_Ghanavatian        Robert_Shilston Robin_Berjon
Soohong_Daniel_Park     Tobie_Langel    Tomomi_Imura    Vidhya_Gholkar
Wai_Seto
Wes_Johnston    Wonsuk_Lee      Yan_Yu  Yinghau_Tsai

Speakers:
andreatrasatti  andrewhubbs     bkelley chrisramos      Daniel_Samsung
DanSun  darobin Dehghan
Dong-Young      Eunjoo  fantasai        girlie_mac      hwu     itai
James   jet
jfmoy   jo      Josh_Soref      jshen   lbolstad        mansoor
marcos_lara     mattkelly
ming    nghanavatian    ono     Robert_Shilston takagi  tobie   vidhya
WaiSeto
wesj    Wonsuk  Yan     ytsai


Andrea_Trasatti:
          andreatrasatti
Andrew_Hubbs:
          andrewhubbs
Brian_Kelley:
          bkelley
Chihiro_Ono:
          ono
Chris_Ramos:
          chrisramos
Dan_Sun:
          DanSun
David_Dehghan:
          Dehghan
Dong-Young_Lee:
          Dong-Young
Elika:
          fantasai
Eunjoo_Lim:
          Eunjoo
Harrison_Wu:
          hwu
Itai_Dadon:
          itai
James_Pearce:
          James
Jean-François_Moy:
          jfmoy
Jet_Villegas:
          jet
Jo_Rabin:
          jo
Josh_Soref:
          Josh_Soref
Julian_Shen:
          jshen
Koichi_Takagi:
          takagi
Lars_Erik_Bolstad:
          lbolstad
Mansoor_Chistie:
          mansoor
Marcos_Lara:
          marcos_lara
Matt_Kelly:
          mattkelly
Ming_Jin:
          ming
Nima_Ghanavatian:
          nghanavatian
Robert_Shilston:
          Robert_Shilston
Robin_Berjon:
          darobin
Soohong_Daniel_Park:
          Daniel_Samsung
Tobie_Langel:
          tobie
Tomomi_Imura:
          girlie_mac
Vidhya_Gholkar:
          vidhya
Wai_Seto:
          WaiSeto
Wes_Johnston:
          wesj
Wonsuk_Lee:
          Wonsuk
Yan_Yu:
          Yan
Yinghau_Tsai:
          Ytsai

minutes-2012-06-26.html

Present:
Andrea_Trasatti Andrew_Hubbs    Brian_Kelley    Chihiro_Ono
Chris_Ramos     Dan_Sun David_Dehghan   Dong-Young_Lee
Elika   Eunjoo_Lim      Harrison_Wu     Itai_Dadon      James_Pearce
Jean-François_Moy      Jet_Villegas    Jo_Rabin
Josh_Soref      Julian_Shen     Koichi_Takagi   Lars_Erik_Bolstad
Mansoor_Chistie Marcos_Lara Matt_Kelly  Ming_Jin
Nima_Ghanavatian        Robert_Shilston Robin_Berjon
Soohong_Daniel_Park     Tobie_Langel    Tomomi_Imura    Vidhya_Gholkar
Wai_Seto
Wes_Johnston    Wonsuk_Lee      Yan_Yu  Yinghau_Tsai

Speakers:
bkelley DanSun  darobin Dehghan Dong-Young      fantasai
girlie_mac      itai
jet     jfmoy   jo      Josh_Soref      marcos_lara     mattkelly
Robert_Shilston tobie
vidhya  wesj


Brian_Kelley:
          bkelley
Dan_Sun:
          DanSun
David_Dehghan:
          Dehghan
Dong-Young_Lee:
          Dong-Young
Elika:
          fantasai
Itai_Dadon:
          itai
Jean-François_Moy:
          jfmoy
Jet_Villegas:
          jet
Jo_Rabin:
          jo
Josh_Soref:
          Josh_Soref
Marcos_Lara:
          marcos_lara
Matt_Kelly:
          mattkelly
Robert_Shilston:
          Robert_Shilston
Robin_Berjon:
          darobin
Tobie_Langel:
          tobie
Tomomi_Imura:
          girlie_mac
Vidhya_Gholkar:
          vidhya
Wes_Johnston:
          wesj

Not definitively identified as speaking:
Andrea_Trasatti Andrew_Hubbs    Chihiro_Ono     Chris_Ramos
Eunjoo_Lim      Harrison_Wu     James_Pearce    Julian_Shen
Koichi_Takagi   Lars_Erik_Bolstad       Mansoor_Chistie Ming_Jin
Nima_Ghanavatian        Soohong_Daniel_Park     Wai_Seto        Wonsuk_Lee
Yan_Yu  Yinghau_Tsai

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected by the
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from
your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be
unlawful.
[![W3C][1]][2]

# Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference

## 26 Jun 2012

See also: [IRC log][3]

## Attendees

Present

    Robin_Berjon, Jo_Rabin, Josh_Soref, Wonsuk_Lee, Andrea_Trasatti,
Andrew_Hubbs, Brian_Kelley, Dan_Sun, Dong-Young_Lee, David_Dehghan,
Eunjoo_Lim, Itai_Dadon, James_Pearce, Jet_Villegas, Yan_Yu, Jean-François_Moy,
Soohong_Daniel_Park_(Daniel_Samsung), Julian_Shen, Harrison_Wu, Marcos_Lara,
Tobie_Langel, Vidhya_Gholkar, Wes_Johnston, Koichi_Takagi, Chihiro_Ono,
Robert_Shilston, Tomomi_Imura_(girlie_mac), Mansoor_Chistie, Wai_Seto,
Chris_Ramos, Lars_Erik_Bolstad, Yinghau_Tsai, Matt_Kelly, Ming_Jin,
Nima_Ghanavatian, Elika_(fantasai)

Regrets


Chair

    Jo Rabin, Robin Berjon

Scribe

    Josh_Soref

## Contents

  * [Topics][4]

    1. [Testing][5]

    2. [todo today][6]

    3. [Testing Goals][7]

    4. [Vendor Prefixes][8]

    5. [Beyond Level 1][9]

    6. [QoI Testing][10]

    7. [Wrap][11]

  * [Summary of Action Items][12]

* * *

<trackbot> Date: 26 June 2012

<scribe> Scribe: Josh_Soref

### Testing

darobin: topic for today is Testing Testing Testing

... with maybe a little on vendor prefixing

... yesterday we talked about QoI tests

... conformance tests

... prioritizing interop issues

... testing the untestable

... we had a notion of testing for areas

... "categorizing testing/levels"

[ darobin live edits a text file ]

Robert_Shilston: you might be interested in building a web app that's
primarily an audio player

... you might really care about ring 2+3 and only ring 1 of typography

tobie: Robert_Shilston's point goes in the direction of the point that
Josh_Soref made yesterday

... leveling doesn't make sense for extra features

Dehghan: polling app developers

... "what features do you need for these themes"

DanSun: we might want a video category

[ Scribe isn't going to transcribe the text file ]

mattkelly: the need to automate tests....

[ chairs bicker at eachother over testing the untestable ]

tobie: categorization is useful

... but a goal of this project is to fight fragmentation

... having a device that's a good fit for some apps and not others

... is a problem

... i want to raise a flag about this

jo: surely it's legitimate to have devices with a specific purpose in mind

tobie: for the vast majority of mobile devices people are interested in

... I'd argue it's less so

jo: say you're building a navigation - car app

tobie: it's not mobile

jo: it's "mobile scoped, not mobile specific"

... rob, why don't you lead us on QoI?

Robert_Shilston: i don't know how to do this

... it's the thing that causes us the most problems:

... browsers not quite behaving right

jo: give us an example

Robert_Shilston: there are 2 examples that sum up the problems

... 1. password field

... if it has lots of DOM elements before it, it hangs when you press
backspace

... we attach a DOM listener and clear it if it had one character

... 2. browser crashes if you have a thing to define a schema

... 3. browser clears local storage if you get a large calendar invite

... it took us 6 months to reach what we think is a reproducible test case for
that last one

darobin: some of the tests you mention are egregious corner cases of one
browser

... hopefully in a single version of the browser

... we could have a test suite for that

... but it would require automation driving

... and it's more in the field of regression testing

... than QoI

tobie: i agree w/ darobin

... you end up w/ test suites targeted at existing browser bugs

... and browser vendors don't like that

Robert_Shilston: absolutely

... and it makes the browsers you build for look like they're the worst

... conformance to spec is something we don't pay attention to

... we need to focus on real devices

... nuances that don't quite work

... we need to deliver now

... waiting for things to improve isn't an option

darobin: conformance testing brings a lessening

... of problems with time

... there's a reason no one's asking about GIFs or Tables

Josh_Soref: only in the last 5 years (gifs were crashing before)

... (tables may have been problematic more recently)

darobin: performance... not hardware accelerated graphics

... CSS animations

... where the frame rate suddenly drops to 1/5 s

... those are more common

... i think fixing those things can help

Robert_Shilston: i think we're close to the problem of defining what a device
is capable of

... and detecting if it's doing well enough

... or doing badly

... we have flags to detect "fastish" or "slowish"

... and vary how much we do based on how fast we perceive the device to be

... that isn't correlated to the absolute performance of the hardware

... it correlates to the browser

darobin: there's a relationship

... part of what we've talked about before wrt QoI

... is whether it's doable

... and people get performance testing wrong most of the time

... I'd like to find out if this group wants to do it

... and has the right resources to do it right

Josh_Soref: i want to praise FT for doing the right thing

... namely to detect performance

... and then adjusting what they do based on it

tobie: among the QoI issues

... are those that i added to the spec yesterday

... asked on and on again by game makers

... speed of canvas

... speed of CSS animation

... multiple sounds together

... latency

... - which is really terrible on some devices

... -- close to a second on some devices

... things which prevent the game industry from building html games

mattkelly: I'd add physics performance

... and GC pauses

... what i was focusing on in Ringmark early

... was page scrolling

... which affects everyone

... I'd assume including FT

darobin: page scrolling performance

... touch responsiveness is delayed to handle clicks

jo: people use native for touch reasons

darobin: it's deliberate and can be hackily disabled

Robert_Shilston: yet: can you talk about testing video output

jet: Mozilla has backdoors into firefox to do testing

... for fps

... for e.g. animations

darobin: there's the Browser Testing and Tools WG

jet: it may well be

... i haven't seen a proposal from them

darobin: the scope is anything related to testing a browser

... they'd be allowed to produce technology we're not

tobie: we could write a note to that group

darobin: if you have requirements around that

... then talk to them

jet: for our needs, are requirements are largely met

... for this group you want to be able to test across all

... browsers

itai: just wondering if the answer to these tests is highly dependent on the
hardware perf

... to test one compared to another

... maybe we need a way to have a combined grade for a hardware platform

... combining memory bandwidth, computing power, ...

... say "I'm a class B platform"

darobin: that's possible, but it's hard

... we talked about yesterday

... to draw a line and say "this is a typical platform"

... on anything like this or better, you need to do this or better

... if you do something piggishly on a high end hardware, good for you

... for feature phones, you can say you're below that

itai: the idea is captured

mattkelly: my opinion is in line with darobin

... we should have a baseline and go from there

... for level 1, 50 sprites @30fps, any phone should run

... even an iPhone 3

... no Device Capabilities are in the fold

... e.g. NFC

... no one is building apps for that

darobin: we're about to get an NFC WG

... i hear interest in this

... how do we make it actionable

... does someone want to pick a baseline hardware

... i want speed of CPU/GPU

bkelley: you can't quantify performance with a couple of numbers

... different architectures

... memory bandwidth

... cache size

darobin: can we cut corners in a way to be meaningful

... we know it's wrong, but good enough for our purposes

bkelley: by establishing that baseline, we exclude devices

tobie: one issue at the bottom of this is whether we can look at a browser
outside the device it's running on

... as an end user, i care about how quickly it runs on my browser on my phone

... they're tied together in a way much deeper than on desktop

... the other aspect is who the audience of these tests is

... for browser vendors, being able to compare matters

... for developers, it matters whether you can build to a phone

mattkelly: 500mhz, no memory

... and completely awesome browser, and does 50fps, and it passes

... maybe we can go w/ numbers for individual target bits

... don't worry about hardware

darobin: say targets for browser-device

Dong-Young: what matters is the combination of browser-hardware

darobin: we can test that

... it just makes more test results

tobie: you can do analysis to compare browsers on 200 different devices

jo: this conversation is going in the direction i want to talk about

... setting a particular hardware spec is the road to ruin

... many a young man has fallen on that road

... it's important to not talk about mobile phone

... say your purpose is to make a "video player"

... it should be testable

... relativistic measures

... are probably the only sensible way of testing

... if i produce a thing and it works abysmally on a device

... it's not useful

mattkelly: I'd argue we need very clear focus

... at least short term

... my opinion is the group should focus on where the market is

... to catch up w/ native

... enable 2d games

... and where people will buy in new markets

... when we hit critical mass

... then it's much easier to talk about more aspirational issues

... focus on current market

... where they're sold and why

... 2d games

... a/v apps

... camera apps

jo: i don't disagree

... I'd say categorizing in a limited and extensible way is a good thing

... i think relativistic measures is a good way

<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to say target UCs

Josh_Soref: I don't know if it's technically possible to count how many
sprites are on the screen in Angry Birds, but a survey of the top N apps in
the market, 2d games, video players...

... Top 3 devices, top 10 apps for a thing, see what they're using

... Maybe 25 sprites at 30 frames per second

... You test at 15 frames, 30 frames, 60 frames

... Figure out how many sounds, test for that

... you build tests so it can test more than the target, so it can report that

... then the tests can naturally scale up

... you can go back and say "This year, we need twice as many sprites"

... we don't need to rewrite the tests, just change the benchmarks

... I don't think it's very hard to do most of this. Might be boring. Might be
fun

jo: mattkelly you have done sprite counting, or you haven't don sprite
counting?

mattkelly: we did this 8 months ago

... we were building jsgamebench

... we built a 2d game bench

... we launched sprite counting in ringmark about 2 weeks ago

... we measure sprites rendering @30fps

... bare minimum

... high games need @60fps

... but that's rare, even on XBox

... it's definitely testable

... but on devices, push notices inbound can lead to a pause

... causing a fail, same for GC()

... from my perspective, if the pause happens, fail the test anyway

... we're definitely doing sprite counting

tobie: jo, you were asking about type of sprites in a game

darobin: jo was asking if sprite counting was done

tobie: the answer to that was "yes"

jo: mattkelly just answered that at more length

tobie: a point of cory's research for jsgamebench

... was to define types of games and sprites per game

... cards have max of 5 sprites concurrently

... 25 for 2d platform games

jo: action to tobie to chat this into the public domain

<darobin> **ACTION:** Tobie to provide numbers for required sprites/fps in
games [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action01][13]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Provide numbers for required sprites/fps in
games [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-03].

jo: it seems publishing the numbers you're talking about

... it tells developers you need to target this

... and to browser vendors

... the test's job

... is to see if you can do 1fps, 2fps, 6...

... until it barfs

... at that point, you say "you did 25fps", "but you can't do X/Y/Z @fps"

... that's all it should say, not pass/fail

... but there are external qualifiers

... it doesn't matter if you haven't reached that

... external contemporaneous events on a device

... in the event you get an SMS during audio, what happens

... ok, you can do 60fps

... but what happens to the battery

... there's a range of metrics that are testable

... no Pass/Fail criteria

... but perfectly testable

tobie: cory's jsgamebench

... brought to this discussion

... to have anything smooth enough, you need 30fps

... you don't need more than that, except hard core 3d games

... and less doesn't work

... about Battery

... how badly running a game drains the battery

... it goes back to browser-hardware combo

... good browser on bad hardware

... will have the same perf on bad browser on good hardware

... but good browser will probably drain the battery less than bad browser

... adding that would be good to test

jo: and you can directly compare to find 'good' / 'bad' browser on a single
device

darobin: trying to summarize to reach actions

... anyone want to write tests?

... since you joined this group to do testing

jo: i joined this group to talk about testing

mattkelly: the question is who wants to write these tests

... I'm happy to port over what we've done w/ ringmark

jo: can we reverse out the underlying bits

... to codify the tests we want to accomplish

mattkelly: we've done a bit of research for jsgamebench

<girlie_mac> an interesting study on browser battery consumption:
[http://www2012.org/proceedings/proceedings/p41.pdf][14]

mattkelly: GC pauses can be guessed based on dramatic framerate drops

vidhya: what's a GC pause

<jo> **ACTION:** mattkelly to document JSGameBench and the approach behind it
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action02][15]]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - mattkelly

mattkelly: sorry, Garbage Collection pause

Josh_Soref: GC pauses run a bit on the main thread

... historically heavily there, recently less so

mattkelly: for <audio>, we're testing from areweplayingyet

... you can't detect a pop, except w/ your ear

... page scrolling

... you need a high speed camera and a robot that flicks it

darobin: for audio testing

... we could have a background audio track

... and whenever you're supposed to have a file overlay

... you have a visual queue

tobie: it's doable to write a test

... it's harder to automate

... i wanted to add about physics testing

... and GC pauses

... the guy impact.js

... wrote extensively about it

... he had a 1 minute game with pre-controlled movements

... measuring movements

... to recognize GC pauses

... he explained why

... for physics, it's raw JS engine perf

... it's not very difficult to script a physics scene and measure how many
loops it does

... in a given time

jo: in the category of external interrupts

... SMS, calls, GC

... anyone have a list?

... there are 2 different categories

... GC isn't really external

... it's part of what you want to test

... you have accidental external events

... it's QoI

... it's stupid if receiving an SMS busts gameplay

... but it isn't fair if it impacts results of the test

... it's hard to reproduce

... GC pauses will get similar count if you run it a number of times

... i want to scope this down

... tests in terms of Sprites, FPS

... don't want to characterize testing as what else is going on

... which will have an impact

darobin: but it wouldn't be fair

jo: let's decide SMS is out of scope

... objections?

[ None ]

jo: are we talking about Steady state perf or burst

**RESOLUTION: Interruptions and slowdowns due to factors external to the
browser engine are out of scope for our tests**

... sustained rate of 30fps but a burst of 60fps

... for 5s

... useful in network testing

Josh_Soref: offhand, not this year

mattkelly: are there UCs for this where things happen differently?

... e.g. drawing perf in canvas

... birds just sitting in slingshot

... there's 1 sprite

... when he hits the blocks+pigs, there are 50 sprites

... we should just test for 50 sprites steady

jo: a good example is network interface performance

... queuing effects

Robert_Shilston: some new devices have cameras that capture in burst mode

Josh_Soref: can we rule it out until the end of 2012?

[ Yes ]

jo: no one has mentioned DOM manipulation performance

darobin: we have test suites for DOM perf

mattkelly: i think every game developer's opinion is canvas is the future

... it has a very granular API

... but some game developers use DOM manipulation is faster than canvas on
Android

... but let's eliminate that from gaming perspective

Josh_Soref: do we care about accessibility?

jo: we need to put DOM manipulation in scope

<marcos_lara> additional info on Benchmarking canvas.

<marcos_lara> "Benchmark Info: Tests the 2D canvas rendering performance for
commonly used operations in HTML5 games: drawImage, drawImage scaling, alpha,
composition, shadows and text functions."

Josh_Soref: canvas doesn't have an accessibility story today

... but there's an accessibility story coming to html5

... which doesn't have performance tests

<marcos_lara> [Asteroids HTML5 Canvas 2D Rendering and JavaScript
Benchmark][16]

tobie: saying you can do games fast enough with DOM manipulation on a mobile
phone

<marcos_lara> test it out and it's open source

tobie: means there's no need to test it

darobin: if people aren't complaining about it

... then it's not an issue

tobie: it's no longer a real performance issue

... coming from a company that builds timeline

... which has a huge amount of DOM nodes

... it's not something we've heard as an issue

mattkelly: I'd agree

... there are more important things to push

... it's not DOM manipulation that's important

... it's position:fixed

... i think it's when it's combined with other things

... that leads to problems

... and more important to focus on

... we have a massive feed in timeline

... but position:fixed killed timeline

Robert_Shilston: i was going to echo mattkelly 's point

... momentum scrolling+position:fixed

... they aren't well implemented

... you end up fiddling with them yourself

DanSun: video is an important thing too

... for perf

... do we want to test for video too?

... resolution/fps...

darobin: it's difficult

... one thing to test is battery consumption

... testing fps on <canvas> is easy

... I'm not sure we can do it for <video> w/o underlying engine helping

... i think it's a good idea, not sure how

tobie: your comment on video reminded me

... i heard from folks @orange

... that on a lot of devices, especially iPhone

... playing video isn't done in DOM

... but as a native plugin

... you can't overlay it with stuff

... like commercials

darobin: video controls

tobie: that's an issue

... but it's QoI

jo: jet+Robert_Shilston made a point

... about consistency/flow

... it may pass a 70fps test

... but not smoothly

... do we need to look out for it in QoI

Robert_Shilston: yes, but I'm not sure how other than using an external camera

jo: if it turns out to be impractical, it can drop out

Robert_Shilston: I'm happy to take an action to see if it's practical

jo: it would be nice to indicate to vendors that it's important for animations
to be smooth

<darobin> **ACTION:** Shilston to expeditiously check whether it is practical
to measure consistency of framerate [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26
-coremob-minutes.html#action03][17]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Expeditiously check whether it is practical to
measure consistency of framerate [on Robert Shilston - due 2012-07-03].

Josh_Soref: So, on video I think that most browsers are starting to have APIs
not standardized to check FPS in their engines

... Don't know when you'll be able to do it formally, but think sometime early
next year it might be possible at least non-standardly

... For other forms of testing, a lot of devices have HDMI or displayport or
something else

... Now that might not match the display output, but might be able to write
blackbox tester that uses that

... instead of a camera

... Also, some devices while they have platform access, might be a debug tool
that lets you capture video

... at RIM we have something that captures 1fps

... I think it may be possible at least on some platforms to capture frame
buffers and store that to a file for testing later

Robert_Shilston: Wondering Jet whether you were able to explain your HDMI
capture etc.

jet: I wouldn't hold that up as a best practice. Largely non-deterministic.

... We try to get close

... but in practice all the browser implementations upload a X to the GPU and
ask the hardware to draw

... Beyond that we can't measure

<tobie> GC test: [http://html5-benchmark.com/][18] and related blog post:
[http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2011/08/are-we-fast-yet][19] by ImpactJS author.

jet: ... impacts our ability to get 60Hz

... Definitely room for innovation, but need hardware vendors to come back
with methods to measure hardware

mattkelly: Not sure how important to measure things like fps, given most
devices defer to the native layer

... But need things like adaptive streaming

... They have a video that's 2 hours long, can actually dial up and down the
bandwidth

... important for audio as well

... can then queue up the next bit at the correct rate

**RESOLUTION: We are not going to specify baseline hardware, instead we will
test device+browser combos**

Josh_Soref: we're not just testing device combos, we're testing to targets

**RESOLUTION: We will specify a number of metrics that will be used to assess
the limits of performance of specific device+browser targets**

[ this line intentionally left blank ]

**RESOLUTION: We will not be testing burst performance for now**

<wesj> [WhatWG Wiki: Video Metrics][20]

**RESOLUTION: We will be testing in isolation**

[ Break ]

darobin: we covered QoI

... I'm somewhat concerned we have Actions for things

... but not Actions to write actual tests

... writing tests is welcome

jo: can we clarify

... do we want text

... or bits of JS?

darobin: i mean actual code

... you may care about <audio> latency and parallelism

... and submit a proposed test to the group

jo: i wonder if there's scope for people who don't write JS to write text to
write JS to implement it

darobin: it may be useful, but it's hard to describe the JS w/o knowing how to
write it

mattkelly: what I'd like to avoid is that people start writing random tests
that add no value

... i think it's important to get consensus on level 1

... and the framework to produce them

... and get consensus on the harness

... and get a clear way to coordinate writing these tests

... preferably not the ML

... from my perspective, it's something like github

darobin: I'm not sure we need the same work for QoI and Conformance tests

jo: do you have a harness you'd like to propose?

mattkelly: i think keeping a lot of the things in mind that we're trying to
achieve

... particularly the ability to automate these things

... in Ringmark, we're using QUnit

... it may not be the right thing

... but people know how to use it

... QUnit can compile to w3c test frame

... but not back the other way

... it may be a potential thing we can use

fantasai: what is ringmark?

... it's a bunch of tests?

... is it a harness?

mattkelly: Ringmark uses

... a lot of QUnit methodology

... it has a runner, a results page

... all of the tests

... and it's built so you could add in automatable tests

... so long as they don't require single page instances

... and you can run it through the QUnit test runner as well

fantasai: so it's a framework for running JS that has to be in the same top
level page

mattkelly: they can use iframe fixtures

... if you go to [http://rng.io][21]

fantasai: if you put 10,000 iframes in a page

... that's a major perf test on iframes

darobin: you test memory leaking fairly efficiently

... one thing I'm unclear about the differences between QUnit and testharness

... I've used both

... i can do the same thing in both

mattkelly: you can

... we ran into a lack of documentation + direction in how you write these
things

... these are fixable things

... there might be some overhead

... documentation is a big thing

... how tests are set up

... it's a lot harder to run in an automated fashion

... each test is meant to have an entire page defined

... for a <canvas> test, you have to have <head>, <body>

darobin: the reason I'm pushing back here

... we need to integrate with existing test suites

... we have thousands of tests using testharness

... I'd like to avoid conversion

mattkelly: there are probably tens of thousands of tests

... they are of varying quality/implementations

... they're all over the map

... some include other harnesses

... it seems like tests were of mixed quality

darobin: one thing that would be useful would be to have documentation on
these issues

... testharness is THE STANDARD for HTML, WebApps, DAP, etc., etc.

... even if we agreed there was a better alternative, i don't think we could
convince them to convert

mattkelly: from ringmark's perspective, it was about moving fast

... we had limited resources

... we had a goal of automating these things

... from OEMs and vendors I talked to

... none seem to run these

... they don't run testharness when they do device QA

... a goal should be to have Vendors run these so they can fail them

jet: in general, we don't go running the entire W3 test suite

... before we ship a browser

... it takes more than 24 hours

... to the other extent, anything that claims to test the browser in 60s isn't
trustworthy

... ringmark could be useful for something in the middle

... for Mozilla, we can't commit to a third, fourth or fifth harness

<darobin> [W3C Test Framework][22]

darobin: you have a list of test suites

... suites test specifications

... you can look at results

... you can run tests

... you can load a runner

... there's a JSON API on this Database

... if you can have a Requirements Doc of what you'd like to see

... it would be possible for us, you, or a third party, to get a list of these
tests

... run them, etc.

... to get something that could run in 15 minutes

... running 10,000 tests. and you could cherrypick

jet: sure

darobin: you could find bugs in the tests

... and presumably file them

... and hopefully find more bugs in the browsers

fantasai: i don't think cherrypicking a bunch of tests

... and saying here's a test of the web stack

darobin: i meant cherrypicking whole suites

fantasai: like ACID tests,

... we shouldn't build an ACID test

darobin: i meant more the ones you can run automatically

jet: a basic need i ran into

... I'm hacking firefox

... i put it on my phone

... i couldn't find a way to run the w3c suite against us

fantasai: importing the suite into tinderbox

jet: that works for us, but we're trying to address everyone

<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to talk about flaws in tests

Josh_Soref: I wanted to talk about flaws in tests

... Most of browser tests have laughed at tests they've looked at for the
flaws they've found in the tests

... But I don't think anyone has made a list of common mistakes

... e.g. not scoping variables

... Would be helpful to have a list for new test authors to write better tests

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to write documentation for testharness.js
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action04][23]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Write documentation for testharness.js [on
Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-03].

<darobin> **ACTION:** Soref to survey people and compile a list of common
errors in test writing [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action05][24]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Survey people and compile a list of common
errors in test writing [on Josh Soref - due 2012-07-03].

darobin: Problems I saw in Ringmark were feature tests, not conformance tests

... First 5% of testing something

... rest was missing

mattkelly: goal of Ringmark isn't surface area testing

... To be successful, you'd need 100s of thousands of tests

... we were just trying to provide a framework for thinking about things

... need to get consensus around that

<fantasai> fantasai noted above that testharness.js can't test CSS other than
its parsing

<tobie> [test262 - a test suite to check agreement between JavaScript
implementations and the ECMA-262 Specification (currently 5th Edition)][25]

tobie: I'm not sure you're familiar w/ test262

... it's probably a good idea to know about performance

... running 27k tests takes about a quarter of an hour

... each in its own frame

... having been responsible for the architecture of ringmark

... about testharness.js and qunit

... the idea behind the original architecture

... having written for Prototype

... having JS test separated from the page in which it would run

... was extremely useful

... and a good architectural choice

... there's a lot of boilerplate

darobin: fantasai might have something to add to that

... i know the CSS WG uses a build tool

... notably for multiformat

fantasai: the tests we write @CSS WG have a bunch of metadata

... a lot of the boilerplate is XML

... a goal was tests be standalone

... that you could load in your browser

... rather than having to run a build system to be able to see the results of
your tests

... it made it easier to work on tests

... it was harder when we had the build system required for Selectors

... it's only a little more work to have <!DOCTYPE> at the top

tobie: i guess it makes more sense to have doctype in CSS

... that explains about how you did that

... for testharness, it's in github

... it's easy to submit patches

... the documentation exists

... but it's included in the comments

... i submitted a patch a while back

... to turn that documentation into markdown

... to be turned into a readme

... it was turned down

... AFAIK, the plan is to move the documentation into the wiki

... i don't think there's more overhead in testharness than any other Open
Source project

mattkelly: i had something of value to add

... I'd like to stress pragmatism

... about building practical web apps

... which is the reason people buy smartphones these days

... we need lots of tests

... but it's easy to go overboard

... including very strict testing

... is something to consider not testing

... e.g. ECMAScript

... we shouldn't go overboard

jo: we could take a RESOLUTION not to go overboard

... so requirements for testharness

Robert_Shilston: how could it be made more friendly to newcomers

... a VM image?

darobin: like a git-clone of template project

tobie: it requires Node

darobin: who does not have Node.js?

Robert_Shilston: it has a bunch of dependencies

... the entry barrier could be lowered

darobin: the only thing you need is testharness.js and a test page

... you probably tried ringmark

Robert_Shilston: there are dependencies like PHP for AppCache

darobin: oh, right

tobie: there was a design disagreement about how that was done

... to write a testharness test, if you don't need server side stuff

... you don't need anything but an html page

... the coremob stuff on coremob's github repo

... requires both Node and a PHP runtime

... and that's stupid and should be fixed

... if all it requires is PHP, there are 1 click installers for it

... the existing code needs to be fixed

... and then documentation needs to be updated

ACTIONS?

<darobin> **ACTION:** Matt to remove the dependency on Node to get Ringmark
running, and help make it easier to set up [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action06][26]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Remove the dependency on Node to get Ringmark
running, and help make it easier to set up [on Matt Kelly - due 2012-07-03].

jo: who has requirements?

... i have a requirement that we not create another system for doing this

darobin: to address Robert_Shilston's point

... is whether it'd be useful to have something similar to jsFiddle

... but to have it preloaded w/ testharness

... and then be able to save it online

Josh_Soref: sounds useful

tobie: sounds like a good idea

... you just volunteered

darobin: if i can get time+budget...

... i can look into it

jo: jet , you expressed requirements earlier

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to look into something like jsFiddle for test
writing [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action07][27]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Look into something like jsFiddle for test
writing [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-03].

jet: something that takes more than 60s but less than 24hrs

... proper scoring of tests

... not green/gray

... some depth to tests as well

... it's too easy to cheat on green

jo: i volunteer darobin to write requirements

darobin: I'll implement, but not write

... it wouldn't hurt if an OEM or Carrier did it

... how about jfmoy ?

... wouldn't that be helpful?

jfmoy: for sure.

... i don't know

darobin: what would you need to run automated tests

jfmoy: for now, we're working on automation tests

... which we committed to give back to the group

... we're going down that road

tobie: so it must be easy to write requirements, since you did that

... if it's sharable, then you should be able to give it

<darobin> **ACTION:** Moy to provide requirements for an automated test runner
of all tests [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action08][28]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Provide requirements for an automated test
runner of all tests [on Jean-Francois Moy - due 2012-07-03].

jfmoy: some of our tests are interactive

darobin: if you'd like to present that

jfmoy: we compared 3 test platforms

... ours, html5test.com, rng.io

... sometimes interaction is needed for things

... like forms

<jo> ISSUE: what are the requirements for a test framework?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-29 - What are the requirements for a test framework?
; please complete additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/29/edit][29] .

jfmoy: all form bits for html5test/ringmark

... the proper keyboard display isn't tested

... for video, it isn't tested usefully

... ringmark is more automated than ours

mattkelly: starting a conversation in the group

... how QA processes work @ OEMs, Carriers, Browser Vendors

... making it as flexible as possible

... action to Orange, Mozilla, Qualcomm

... what would be the best way to get information out of ringmark

<darobin> **ACTION:** matt to document JSGameBench and the approach behind it
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action09][30]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Document JSGameBench and the approach behind it
[on Matt Kelly - due 2012-07-03].

<darobin> **ACTION:** matt to talk to OEMs/carriers about what they would most
usefully need to get out of Ringmark results [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action10][31]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Talk to OEMs/carriers about what they would
most usefully need to get out of Ringmark results [on Matt Kelly - due
2012-07-03].

<darobin> COREMOB TESTING:

<darobin> - Quality of Implementation tests

### todo today

- speed of canvas

- speed of CSS transitions

- audio latency

- audio parallelism

- physics performance (just raw JS performance)

- GC pauses (see ImpactJS)

- page scrolling performance

- touch responsiveness

✓ DOM manipulation (not a real issue)

- Conformance tests

- Ringmark

- blockers for test writing

- test automation

- things that have perceptual outcomes (reftests, audio reftests…)

- Prioritizing interoperability issues

- overlaying atop video

- integration with the W3C Test Framework facilities

- Categorizing testing/levels (but fragmentation is evil)

- Gaming 2D

- Gaming 3D

- Device-Aware functionality

- e-books

- Multimedia playback (Audio, Video…)

- Core (networking, application packaging & configuration, HTML…)

- Testing the untestable

- things that don't have adequate test specs of their own (e.g. HTTP)

### Testing Goals

darobin: if you could get 5 test suites, what would you like

Robert_Shilston: I wonder if we could put a survey up

... e.g. Tobie's been talking with people buliding apps, maybe he has some
idea of what people need most

mattkelly: In ringmark we focused on audio, 2d gaming, and camera apps

... And then going from there, dirlling down into what features are missing

... how can you test those features extensively to make sure they work well;
that was the goal of Ringmark v1

darobin: Ringmark tries to cover a lot of ground, covers some of it very
thinly

mattkelly: Whatever we agree on L1 is not that big

... In Ring 1 it's only about 14 features

... 1-2 that are large: one is DRM

... I think the feature set is reasonably small, and feedback I'm hearing is
we just don't hae deep enough tests for each of those areas

... want to go through the features and see if group agrees on them

... features were determined by us working with developers

... I think I have an action to put more research in the group on how we
qualified what's in ring 1

... based on what apps are out there today

... that would be my proposal, to start with what we've done in Ringmark and
figure out if we have any pieces missing or should be removed, an dfocus our
test writing effort there

...

... probably makes sense to have deeper consensus on categories in L1

jfmoy: I put two links to our comparison

... That's our results

... We're pretty happy with L1 right now

tobie: Missed part of conversation

... Robin, you wanted a couple areas of focus to work on?

... Why not looking at what holes exist?

... If what we want to do is to reuse existing tests and run those, makes
sense to have a good understanding of what exists

... and go through tests we want but aren't writen, might not need to
prioritize

<jo> **ACTION:** tobie to carry out a gap analysis of existing W3C test suites
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action11][32]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Carry out a gap analysis of existing W3C test
suites [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-03].

darobin: a lot of work for one person, could split by section

<jo> ACTION-35?

<trackbot> ACTION-35 -- Tobie Langel to carry out a gap analysis of existing
W3C test suites -- due 2012-07-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/actions/35][33]

darobin: HTML5!

... There are gaps we know aren't tested

... Are there missing tests on things we care about there? Does someone want
to look into that?

tobie: could be it's not a concern for companies/ppl

<jo> ACTION-35?

<trackbot> ACTION-35 -- Tobie Langel to carry out a gap analysis of existing
W3C test suites -- due 2012-07-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/actions/35][33]

fantasai: what's the relationship between the tests we want to write

... in ringmark

... and level 1

... there's no way to get a solid set of tests for things in level 1 in any
time reasonable

... if you can do 2% testing

... how is that representing

... showing interop

... testing 5% of features at 50% effectiveness

... but you want this to be level 1

... and show interop by the end of the year

tobie: what's your proposed solution

fantasai: pick a few features, and prioritize those

... what's the goal of this document wrt testing?

tobie: that's true of every

... different wg's aren't building test suites for the specs they're
publishing

fantasai: i can't figure out how reporting results would relate to this

tobie: as a group, as editing that spec

fantasai: yes we want to contribute tests

... to a bunch of WGs

... and also have some other way to report things

... as in ringmark

... that's the main advantage of it, right?

jo: that's an assumption that needs to be verified

... it isn't an assumption of mine

... it isn't an assumption that this CG will produce a reporting framework

darobin: I'd like to get the bottom of it

... fantasai has a good point

... the relationship between this document and the testsuite is unclear

... we should be able to reach consensus by the end of the year

... but how does that document relate to the testing effort it requires

... in the referenced specifications

... which we can't possibly accomplish by January

... unless aliens arrive

... that's where XO planet research helps

... plus we have to verify those tests

... we shouldn't produce a testsuite and say "This fully tests level 1"

... we need to articulate this clearly

... what I'd like to get out is an improvement

... if we test 5% where before we tested 2%, then I'm happy

... not as happy as if we could test 10%, but happier

... the test suite for this will never be final in under 10 years

... but i wanted to focus on high value targets for interop

... maybe html5 parsing is mostly interoperable

... maybe it's tested at 2% and that's ok

... but maybe shades of red, green, or pink doesn't work in <canvas>

... but maybe it's more important to get matching on blue by January

... does that make sense to people?

Dehghan: one thing that would make tests solid

... if we make tests a moving target

... i get a result today

... and a result tomorrow, and my score goes down

fantasai: i think it's great that people want to contribute to the testing
effort @w3c

... but the goal of this CG seems to be to push for specific things to be
fixed

darobin: we want to defrag the web

fantasai: right

... you want those fixed

... and to push for vendors to implement or fix those

... one thing that has not been done well

... at w3c

... is getting tests we've done

... and getting people excited

... ringmark did that

... well, making it a game

... the psychological pressure is lost if you won't seem to go somewhere in 10
years

... this is gamification of testing

... but if level up takes 10 years

... then it isn't going to work

jo: it's impractical to do a suite for level 1

fantasai: one thing to think about is

... to break it down and prioritize

... to avoid spreading yourself too thinly

... and to focus communication effort

... more than even adding 3 CSS testing volunteers

darobin: focus on making things pretty

... probably having ringmark 1, 2, 3, ... 17 in the next few years

... making it identifiable

... having conformance targets to have PR

... to avoid getting lost

fantasai: it would be good

... to have a goal to release testing wise

... this document is a 10 year road map

... what will you get done by the end of the year

... and getting them involved and excited about

<jo> ?

fantasai: if all you have is an extra 200 tests

... to the html5 parsing algorithm

... that won't get anyone excited

<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that w3c test suites rarely test perf

Josh_Soref: if we want perf tests, we either need to find someone whose
written them and steal them

... or write them ourselves

... current w3c tests are conformance/interop tests

... Wrt ringmark, don't like that failing the first ring prevents running the
second ring

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to draft a test suite release strategy based on
what scribe and Josh_Soref described [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action12][34]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Draft a test suite release strategy based on
what scribe and Josh_Soref described [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-03].

Josh_Soref: HTML5 tests can have bonus points -- you can get them even if you
didn't pass

... people like getting points

... different tests run on different tracks

... same engineer doesn't work on all the different aspects of the web
platform

... can race up one track while another engineer works on other track

mattkelly: it boils down to focus

... earlier point around the hesitation and concern that L1 spec can get
unweildy and large

... I share the same concern

... I feel strongly that for L1 spec we should focus on 14 different features,
like we are in Ringmark

... and focus intensely on that batch

... and feel comfortable about our coverage of those 14 features by end of
year

... if we try to test all of HTMl5, we'll go down a rabbithole

... and will not ship a coherent suite of tests

... another point wrt bonus points, and why ringmark stops running if it fails

... primary reason it does that is to make the browser look like it failed

... goal is to reduce the fragmentation

... don't want to reward browser for jumping out and implementing WebGL from
L2 when core features are not implemented

... Think we should have many releases, and have different levels

... L1 should have small amount of functionality, with ample test coverage

... Ultimately, we don't know what the unknowns are until we start building
this stuff

... if we do small bite-size chunks, can cover more ground faster

... I do feel that without having test suite in this group, we'd just have a
nother doc, have no impact on industry

... need a product that encapsulates our vision. test suite is how we make
this happen

... Do think group should have some work aorund crafting message

... .. need to own that message

... sharing of message, where group formulates what the structure of the
message is

... OEMs figure out how you message that to end users, end developers

... Unclear if that should be part of group's goal

... wrt focus, should focus on structure of that message, not necessarily
delivering it

jo: I agree with everything said before

... I think the whole thing would be more tractable if there was a L0 which
was smaller in scope than L1

Josh_Soref: if there was a smaller level 1...

darobin: There's no useful reduction of the current document for which we
would have sufficient tests

jo: I am not convinced this group should present a flashy state of things

... But to present tests that other people can show under a UI

darobin: But we already have that

... we already have a number of test suites that can report results that can
be reused by others

... Why would we do that?

... We have frameworks to do that

... One thing missing so far is packaging the rsults in a way that creates
market pressure to improve the situation

jo: What's the point of making a pretty interface?

... Let's make the tests reusable by anybody

darobin: But we already have that in the W3C test frameworks

discussion between Jo and Robin of whether we should use w3c test frameworks
or not

~_~

<jo> ?

tobie: I think it would be reasonably easy for Ringmark to pull out tests from
other WGs

... Either by unbuilding a stage to existing tests

... or by just changing ringmark so that it actually uses iframes and pulls
existing tests into it

... not a hard problem to solve

... scribe talked aobut test the web forward

fantasai: Test The Web Forward effort

... Adobe is spearheading it

... and teaching people to write tests for CSS and SVG

... primarily

... it's complementary to what you're doing here

... it isn't quite the same

... it's getting broader community to write tests

... and they're w3c contributions

darobin: also something Mosquito did

jo: can we have you talk to eachother?

fantasai: there's events and you're welcome to attend

tobie: do you explain how testharness works

fantasai: we talk people through the process of creating tests

... and submittting them

... and reviewing each-other's tests

darobin: how did it go?

fantasai: it takes writing 20 tests to get good at it

darobin: i made a presentation similar to yours 2 weeks before

... about half an hour in, i realized no one had written tests for anything
before

fantasai: i started in the Mozilla project doing this with very little
guidelines/guidance

jet: comments on testharness

... about depth of a test

... and fail on a test v. continue on a test

... there are very basic features that if you add them to ringmark

... no browser will pass ring 0

... i don't think that's the goal of testing

... i don't think complete CSS 2.1 every single thing is good

... and by definition not testing other features

... we'd like /all to be the default config for ringmark

... you can timebox

... level 1 december

... what you have in your tests at december is your level 1

darobin: if we did this today

... we'd have html3 and some level of scripting and styling

jet: right

... browsers claim support for html5

... we'll try to turn things green

... but that won't solve interop

darobin: one thing to do is testing

... every six months we release a new set of tests we'd like to turn things
green

fantasai: so like an acid test with more tests?

darobin: right, with a lot more tests

... anything we have tests already, we take

... wherever there's major gaps or interop problems, we add more tests, and
package this all up nicely

fantasai: seems like a reasonable goal to me

DanSun: whatever we do

... testing, quality is the key

... ringmark testing, in 5s there's no chance at all

... can we list test suites

... and which are the most trusted

... and maybe leverage that?

... and integrate w/ ringmark to show the results

tobie: the problem is, that needs to work

... and that requires resources

mattkelly: +1 for small packets of tests

... -1 on a 10 year plan for a doc

darobin: I'd find that weird

[ Lunch ]

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to assess which existing test suites can be reused
and at what level of coverage they stand [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action13][35]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Assess which existing test suites can be reused
and at what level of coverage they stand [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-03].

<darobin> ISSUE: should the document track the testing effort or not

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-30 - Should the document track the testing effort or
not ; please complete additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/30/edit][36] .

jo: Various side discussions happened over lunch in an attempt to break the
logjam

... Starting point is having concrete deliverables by end of year

... Document seems perfectly achievable, but what are we going to deliver in
terms of tests by the end of the year

... So here's a plan, taking scribe's point on board,

... Yes, we need something nice and visual that ppl can rally around. But
doesn't have to be this group

... So we should provide infrastructure to do that,

... What we need to do is an existing proof of an actual implementation of
such a thing

... Facebook is happy to refactor their existing ringmark output to fit in
with what I'm about to say

... In terms of meeting objective of having visual output, FB will provide
that existence proof

... Would be good fo others to provide similar things

... Browser vendors might want to work headless testing into ..

... So objective of this group then is to produce a framework within which
tests can be run and can be incorporated into other things

... Next thing is what tests should be done by the end of hte year

... Well, actually, we have a whole slew of tests that exist today

... If we said what we want by the end of the year is what exists today, could
be done

... But have som notion of prioritization, want to influence things

... to influence browser vendors, device manufacturers, and users

... some tests in ringmark, and lots of tests in WG

... But we have to do some gap analysis

... All that is so clear so far

... What is the framework these tests are to b eexecuted in?

... Seems clear to me that there is only one option, and that is to use the
existing W3C infrastructure

... Sounds like doing that in tobie's output is not simple, but doable

... So what we'll have by end of year, is a framework document that says what
we're trying to do in some timeframe writ large

... Then a prioritized list of features that goes into our initial test stuff

... Won't be whole of HTML5, but HTML5 things that people find problematic

... And then at least 1 visual representation of those results

... If you don't like FB's version, can create your own!

... So I think that's it. HOpe it made some kind of sense

Robert_Shilston: So, you've got a test suite for all tests which is already
capturing data

... Ringmark is a nice way of showing the data, and the idea is to combine the
two?

darobin: Bit more than that

... To summarize,

... 1. Keep document for L1, it's the shopping list of what devs need today,
and guidance for finding gaps

... 2. Write a smaller document, list of things to test for 2013

... that document will match the release of the test system

... That test system would ideally be able to use tests in W3C databases

... Talked with matt wrt separating Ringmark visual representation from
running the tests

... Could also compare the test results across browsers

... Has advantage that nonautomated test results can be included

vidhya: I did not understand what you said.

... You said, Ringmark will do what it does today plus it will show me other
stuff that's in the database about my browser?

darobin: I don't know if this was clear in earlier explanation

... There is a W3C existing system on w3-test.org

... Many of the tests by W3C WGs have been integrated

... This contains a test runner, you can take your browser and run the tests

... If the tests are automated, the results in your browser are automatically
submitted

... But for non-automated tests, the person looking at the test can say
Pass/Fail/Can't Tell/etc

... All that info is stored

... So for all browsers we have stored data on pass/fail results on all these
tests

... You can query this data, it's in a database

... Some of the things we want to test are not automatable, can't be used in
Ringmark

... But we can pull all that data and display it in a similar way to Ringmark

...

... The visual representation would be cleanly abstracted

vidhya: The output here is what? Someone is going to define this API

darobin: That's up to FB

... need to talk about what we need to feed into it

vidhya: I think the reality is that we see a lot of browsers that people out
there don't see

... We'll see them before they're commercial

... Would be great to go in and see that

Josh_Soref: Is there an action on you to fix the JSON to help people?

DanSun: So this team, or ringmark, is going to connect to test harness to get
results?

mattkelly: Yes, the goal would be to integrate with the test harness

... would need to make changes to do that, but that would be the goal

... Ringmark would just be a results page, rather than a runner and a test
suite and all that stuff

... we would just sit on top of what the group produces

some confusion over test harness and testharness

darobin: We want 2 things

... go to a page, and it tells you your browser sucks, what we have today

... that would run the tests right there, automated tests

... Other thing is to use the same visual component to get results from the
W3C database (or some private database)

... Idea is to produce multiple reports that are buzzword-compliant

DanSun: Two step process or one step?

... Run first in W3C harness, then Ringmark?

darobin: Depends. One thing will run those automated tests directly and show
you your results

... Other thing will pull data from W3C test database, that will be 2 step
process

DanSun: Are there documents to run the tests?

darobin: Ideally it should be user friendly enough that you won't need
documentation to run the tests

jo: Note there isn't any one method of running tests, or one visual
representation, we're just outlining what FB would like to achieve

... If anyone wants to volunteer for something else, that's great.

Jo gives some history of the mobileOK testing

jo: Proposal is not to limit how reporting and test results happen, but just
to make a start of it

Robin shows off

darobin: Let's imagine you want to run some tests

... you go here, click on the button to run tests

... It reports your UA, lets you choose which tests, and then starts running
tests

... Shows you the test with some buttons to choose the results, and some
metadata about the test

... The results you produce here, will appear in the results table

Robin shows off the table

darobin: The data used here you can have access to

... in a JSON dump from the system

... Are we all in agreement here?

Robert_Shilston: The idea I was talking about was to create a short-term hit
list

... We can choose our own reporting and visualization

... Everybody can take whatever data they like and show it off

... But we can share the data

darobin: so long as there's a test suite

Robert_Shilston: And we contribute our tests to the main W3C test suites, so
it's valuable all around

... And people can theoretically run private instances of this

tobie: and run the tests on their own devices, yes

darobin: TAKEAWAY:

... - target: end of year

... - Level 1 document

... - this is the aspirational documentation of what developers

... need to produce applications today

... - specific test suite nice and visual

... - this is pretty, can run atop testharness.js

... - document for the specific test suite

... - this is the subset of the Level 1 document that describes

... the interoperability hitlist that we are targeting for the

... current test release

... - refactoring Ringmark to be able to place the visual component

... atop results from a test run, or stored runs

<darobin> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the target for this group for EOY 2012 is the
above summary

this is the aspirational documentation of which APIs are needed by developers
to produce applications today

fantasai: this CG is going to focus on which things need to be worked on

... by the end of the year

darobin: mattkelly indicated he had 14 features

... in ringmark

... and those might be what we focus on

... or maybe we trim things out

<darobin> [the test bundle could be called Hit List Zero]

**RESOLUTION: the target for this group for EOY 2012 is the above summary**

[ this line intentionally left blank ]

**RESOLUTION: the primary input for Hit List Zero is the list of fourteen
features currently focused upon by Ringmark**

<darobin> **ACTION:** Tobie to make a fluffy picture out of the architecture
described by Robin for the test system [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action14][37]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Make a fluffy picture out of the architecture
described by Robin for the test system [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-03].

**RESOLUTION: The group will not try to boil the ocean nor make a perfect
system for the first release — which only care about rough consensus and
running code**

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to draft the architecture of the test system
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action15][38]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Draft the architecture of the test system [on
Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-03].

### Vendor Prefixes

jo: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

darobin: I think we're done w/ Testing

[ No ]

darobin: we had vendor prefixes on the agenda

... we agreed as chairs to drop the discussion

... the reason is that the proponent for text in that area isn't in attendance

... i think it's a solved problem in CSS WG

jet: I think it becomes a topic for the last question

... will our tests have prefixes?

darobin: they won't

... I believe the current opinion is that our tests won't have prefixes

... opinions mattkelly ?

mattkelly: can of worms

... we want to strike two balances

... give ability for vendors to move quickly

... and implement things

... move fast

... prefixes introduce fragmentation

... for ringmark we thought about allowing prefixes but marking as yellow

... passing but non standard

... for developers, they just want the feature

... long term, there needs to be long term stigma if you continue to use
prefixes

... we need to move quickly and get features in

... but also remove fragmentation

darobin: anyone want to react to that?

jo: I think vendors who have employed prefixes shouldn't be punished for
supporting prefixes

... in their code

... but they shouldn't get credit for implementing the feature

... since they did what the CSS WG asked them to do

... what we should do is test for conformance to the spec as finally agreed

Josh_Soref: +1

### Beyond Level 1

darobin: tobie, you wanted to talk about your UCs and Reqs doc

tobie: not really that ready

... I'm working on a document for UCs and Reqs for level 1

... I'm hoping to have something to share w/ the group in the near future

... I'm also going to bring UCs for AppConfig and Chromelessness

### QoI Testing

darobin: we have a fairly clear plan for Conformance testing

... for QoI testing

... we have agreement that it's cool

... and ideas of what we would like to test

... but no commitment to producing tests

jo: have we enough on our plate

... to do something in that area

... but not yet

... at least not before december

darobin: i have too many Action items

jo: that's largely my feeling

... absent volunteers

... i think it won't be worked on yet

darobin: anytime someone feels like jumping into it

... we welcome that contribution

mattkelly: we have a giant action item for a testrunner-testresults thing

... seems like we can do general compliance testing in parallel

... testing things like speed of canvas is highly important to goals of the
group

... it feels like we should dip our toes in the water

... w/o perf tests on things like <canvas>

... even if we get a feature in

... if it's slow and crappy, it defeats the purpose

darobin: <canvas> is the easy one to test

mattkelly: 2d <canvas> perf

... should be something we could tackle by the end of the year

jo: i think that's fairly generous of you to think of doing

Robert_Shilston: for us, we aren't using <canvas>

... about our own ports

... by being able to cherrypick things

... we can use them to prove bugs to vendors

... but if we know there are multiple browsers failing

... then we know of places where we should suggest pain points for future
devices

... but we can't do that until we can see where we are at the moment

jo: that's a tentative offer of contributing something in the future

Robert_Shilston: i think it's slightly firmer than that

darobin: any other offers on QoI testing?

Josh_Soref: [http://arewefastyet.com][39]

... This is essentially a QoI test

... compares FF and Chrome with v8

... I don't actually use this thing, I just knows it exists

[ Mozilla rep explains the tests ]

[ ... which are used internally to monitor performance ]

bkelley: it seems JS benchmarking has been done to death

... i think we should stay away from that

... unless there's something we can do that addresses a UC more directly

... maybe a physics computation benchmark

... just stealing + rebranding won't add value

jo: i feel inspired

**RESOLUTION: For QoI testing, we're open to input, but we won't move on it
before someone proposes something specific (FT & FB have tentatively suggested
they might think about it)**

### Wrap

jo: AOB

darobin: is there AOB?

... next F2F?

jo: proposal for group telecoms?

... darobin isn't enamored of the idea

... I'd like to try it

... meetings are difficult to coordinate based on time zones

Robert_Shilston: could we try dual-location F2F?

darobin: jo was talking about Phone Bridges

... separately to plan a single location F2F

... probably close to London

jo: if not @Orange, perhaps @FT

darobin: we know others in London, perhaps @Vodafone

jfmoy: I'll try to do my best if we can host

... but if it's more people than today, that'll be tough in London

... 40 people Max

... i need to check

... if we had to do it in Orange, we could do it in Paris

... I prefer London

... but we have more space in Paris

<jfmoy> **ACTION:** moy check on hosting @Orange Oct 2-3, in London (alt
Paris) [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action16][40]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Check on hosting @Orange Oct 2-3, in London
(alt Paris) [on Jean-Francois Moy - due 2012-07-03].

<darobin> **ACTION:** Jo to figure out teleconference logistics, timing, and
critical mass [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action17][41]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Figure out teleconference logistics, timing,
and critical mass [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-07-03].

jo: AOB?

[ None ]

darobin: many thanks to everyone for coming

... special thanks for Josh_Soref and fantasai (who got dragged in) for
scribing

[ Applause ]

darobin: thanks to FB for hosting in this cool location with great logistics

**RESOLUTION: The CG thanks Facebook for great organisation, location, and
logistics**

[ Applause ]

Josh_Soref: thanks for calling in lgombos

**RESOLUTION: The CG thanks Josh and fantasai for their outstanding scribing**

tobie: thanks to the chairs

[ Applause ]

trackbot, end meeting

## Summary of Action Items

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Jo to figure out teleconference logistics, timing, and
critical mass [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action17][41]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** matt to document JSGameBench and the approach behind it
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action09][30]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Matt to remove the dependency on Node to get Ringmark
running, and help make it easier to set up [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action06][26]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** matt to talk to OEMs/carriers about what they would most
usefully need to get out of Ringmark results [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action10][31]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** mattkelly to document JSGameBench and the approach
behind it [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action02][15]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** moy check on hosting @Orange Oct 2-3, in London (alt
Paris) [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action16][40]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Moy to provide requirements for an automated test runner
of all tests [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action08][28]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to assess which existing test suites can be reused
and at what level of coverage they stand [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action13][35]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to draft a test suite release strategy based on
what scribe and Josh_Soref described [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action12][34]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to draft the architecture of the test system
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action15][38]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to look into something like jsFiddle for test
writing [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action07][27]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to write documentation for testharness.js
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action04][23]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Shilston to expeditiously check whether it is practical
to measure consistency of framerate [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26
-coremob-minutes.html#action03][17]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Soref to survey people and compile a list of common
errors in test writing [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action05][24]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** tobie to carry out a gap analysis of existing W3C test
suites [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action11][32]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to make a fluffy picture out of the architecture
described by Robin for the test system [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action14][37]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to provide numbers for required sprites/fps in
games [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-
minutes.html#action01][13]]


[End of minutes]

* * *

Minutes formatted by David Booth's [scribe.perl][42] version 1.135 ([CVS
log][43])

$Date: 2009-03-02 03:52:20 $

   [1]: http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home

   [2]: http://www.w3.org/

   [3]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-irc

   [4]: #agenda

   [5]: #item01

   [6]: #item02

   [7]: #item03

   [8]: #item04

   [9]: #item05

   [10]: #item06

   [11]: #item07

   [12]: #ActionSummary

   [13]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action01

   [14]: http://www2012.org/proceedings/proceedings/p41.pdf

   [15]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action02

   [16]: http://www.kevs3d.co.uk/dev/asteroidsbench/

   [17]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action03

   [18]: http://html5-benchmark.com/

   [19]: http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2011/08/are-we-fast-yet

   [20]: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Video_Metrics

   [21]: http://rng.io

   [22]: http://w3c-test.org/framework/app/suite

   [23]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action04

   [24]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action05

   [25]: http://test262.ecmascript.org/

   [26]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action06

   [27]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action07

   [28]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action08

   [29]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/29/edit

   [30]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action09

   [31]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action10

   [32]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action11

   [33]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/actions/35

   [34]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action12

   [35]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action13

   [36]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/30/edit

   [37]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action14

   [38]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action15

   [39]: http://arewefastyet.com

   [40]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action16

   [41]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/26-coremob-minutes.html#action17

   [42]: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

   [43]: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


[![W3C][1]][2]

# Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference

## 25 Jun 2012

See also: [IRC log][3]

## Attendees

Present

    Robin_Berjon, Jo_Rabin, Josh_Soref, Wonsuk_Lee, Andrea_Trasatti,
Andrew_Hubbs, Brian_Kelley, Dan_Sun, Dong-Young_Lee, David_Dehghan,
Eunjoo_Lim, Itai_Dadon, James_Pearce, Jet_Villegas, Yan_Yu, Jean-François_Moy,
Soohong_Daniel_Park_(Daniel_Samsung), Julian_Shen, Harrison_Wu, Marcos_Lara,
Tobie_Langel, Vidhya_Gholkar, Wes_Johnston, Koichi_Takagi, Chihiro_Ono,
Robert_Shilston, Tomomi_Imura_(girlie_mac), Mansoor_Chistie, Wai_Seto,
Chris_Ramos, Lars_Erik_Bolstad, Yinghau_Tsai, Matt_Kelly, Ming_Jin,
Nima_Ghanavatian, Elika_(fantasai)

Regrets


Chair

    Jo Rabin, Robin Berjon

Scribe

    Josh_Soref

## Contents

  * [Topics][4]

    1. [Welcome][5]

    2. [Introductions][6]

    3. [CoreMob v. Ringmark][7]

    4. [L0 vs L1][8]

    5. [Level 1][9]

    6. [Markup][10]

    7. [HTML Media Capture][11]

    8. [SVG][12]

    9. [meta viewport][13]

    10. [App Config][14]

    11. [View orientation][15]

    12. [Fullscreen][16]

    13. [Style][17]

    14. [Style - Core][18]

    15. [Layout][19]

    16. [Typography][20]

    17. [Animations and Transitions][21]

    18. [Scripting][22]

    19. [DOM][23]

    20. [Storage][24]

    21. [Multimedia][25]

  * [Summary of Action Items][26]

* * *

<darobin> trackbot: start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 25 June 2012

<trackbot> Meeting: Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 25 June 2012

<scribe> scribe: Josh_Soref

### Welcome

darobin: Good morning everyone

... I'm Robin Berjon

... one of the co-chairs

... along with Jo Rabin

James: Welcome

... welcome to our warehouse

... my name is James

... I'm responsible for our Advocacy work

... this as you might imagine is not where Facebook lives

... it's the remnants of our old building

... sadly we won't be able to bring you to our new campus

... I don't think I need to tell you about Facebook

... the web at the moment is in an interesting place

... with respect to mobile

... the web has been around for a long time

... a couple of years ago Wired Magazine had an article

... saying "The Web Is Dead"

... but there's a future with mobile

... at the moment for mobile, if you want to make an app for mobile

... the Web is not your first choice

... apart from the very simplest experiences

... it isn't the runtime

... Mobile Web / Mobile HTML5 has passed the peak of excitement

... in 2012, there's a bit of disillusionment amongst developers

... if you're building a social-photo application, and you don't have access
to the Camera API

... you don't have it

... if you're trying to build a music app and you don't have access to music
apps, you don't have it

... if you're trying to build a game, and you don't have access to accelerated
canvas

... you don't have it

... one of the reasons Facebook got excited about this group is because we
feel that the world's web developers have an opportunity

... to speak to vendors

... in one voice about what they want

... the web developer community has been Defensive

... Graceful degradation,

... I want web developers to say "No, we refuse to use this stack"

... "until you provide Hardware orientation lock, audio APIs, etc."

... this group is a chance is a way for us to stand up

... say what we want from browsers/standards

... and a chance for us to put the mobile web stack back into the running

... I want to prove Wired wrong

... I look forward to seeing the results

darobin: Thank you James

... can everyone here me?

[ Yes ]

darobin: thanks a lot

... one of the things this meeting is trying to do

... is to get people to know eachother

... so we can work together

... the first step is to ask people to introduce themselves

... in addition to that, it'd be good if you had 2-3 sentences

... about what's important for you in this group

... what you hope to get out of it

... before we get started on this

... I'll ask you to say your name Clearly and Slowly

... I know you can say it really fast

### Introductions

darobin: I'm Robin Berjon, Freelancer, one of the co-chairs of the group

... I'm hoping to get a description of a platform that developers and XX2
agree on

... and a testing system

jo: I'm Jo Rabin

... I'm the new boy

... I'm delighted to be here

... I'm taking over for Tobie

... I'm CTO at a specialist mobile agency called Sponge in London

... specializing in mobile web apps

... prior to that I chaired Mobile Best Practices WG

... XX3

... I want to get out of this meeting

... working since 2000

... on mobile

... that hasn't happened until 2007

... I can't say it has happened yet (in 2012)

... my patience is running thin

... I'd like this to be the year of the mobile web

... let's make it happen this year

tobie: I'm Tobie Langel

... I used to co-chair this group

... I stepped down to focus on editing this spec

andreatrasatti: Hello, my name is Andrea Trasatti

... I work for Nokia

... I want to get clarity on what developers need to create great Web apps for
mobile devices

DanSun: Dan Sun, from Verizon wireless

... this is my first time in the w3c community

... I'm here to hear from mobile experts

... I'd like to get APIs into level 1

wesj: I'm Wes Johnston

... working for Mozilla on Mobile Firefox

... I'm here to learn what developers need

... trying to develop the right APIs for what they need

jet: I'm Jet Villegas

... I'm the engineering manager for Gecko layout team

... we're about to ship mobile Firefox

... we'd like to accommodate UCs in future versions

Yan: My name is Yan Yu

... from mobile tab

... we make the Dolphin Browser

... I'm interested in how HTML will evolve

Dehghan: David Dehghan, representing Mobile Tab

... our goal is to find out how to prioritize HTML5 technologies in our
browser

... and try to contribute to that prioritization

jfmoy: Jean-François Moy

... I work for France-Telecom Orange

... I'm here because I'd like developers to have more APIs

... I'd like test coverage for current features to be improved

Josh_Soref: I'll be your scribe for today and tomorrow

... RIM

... we're mostly interested in the Runtime/Security model

... we're worried that working on too many APIs will distract us from that
work

fantasai: I'm fantasai

... I'm on the CSS WG

... I'm here basically to be the liaison between CSS WG and this CG

... help integrate our testing efforts and

... taking feedback on specs

Robert_Shilston: Rob Shilston from FT

... here to share what we've experienced building web apps

... to ensure we can make apps that work really well for end users

marcos_lara: Marcos Lara

... I'm an HTML5 developer

... I was a web app launch partner with FB in Oct of last year

... as a developer, I'm here to see where standards are going

... I can agree with James there was an amount of exuberance that stalled out

... and we want to pick that up

vidhya: vidhya gholkar

... with Vodafone

... we'd like to see how much this CG can help us with Terminal testing

... for HTML5

mansoor: Mansoor Chistie

... I'm with Texas Instruments

... working on the Web Technology Architecture Team

... first time in W3C

... interested in direction and UCs and level-1 definition

andrewhubbs: Andrew Hubbs

... web developer at Rally

... first time in W3C

... here to learn and see how I can contribute to ushering the mobile web
forward

hwu: Harrison Wu at HTC

... here to see what the next step in mobile web will be

... and HTML5 platform

jshen: Julian Shen at HTC

... engineer on HTML5

... here with hwu

itai: Itai Dadon with ST-Ericson

... from the hardware side

... our cycle is much longer than the software side

Eunjoo: Eunjoo Lim from LG

... first time in W3C

... I'd like to learn the status of Ringmark

Dong-Young: Dong-Young Lee

... also from LG

... here to see about priorities in web platform

Daniel_Samsung: Soohong Daniel Park, Samsung

<Daniel_Samsung> I want to understand how to use html5 features for Samsung
AllShare solution in our products

bkelley: Brian Kelley, Qualcomm innovation center

... our interests are doing what we can to further this effort

... and provide input based on what we've heard from developers

ono: Chihiro Ono

... KDDI

... a phone company in Japan

takagi: Koichi Takagi

... KDDI

... I'm interested in Video/Audio streaming for mobile phone

... and the testing process

... since its cost is rising

nghanavatian: Nima Ghanavatian from RIM, working on the browser

... Interested in using Ringmark to test and validate the spec

Wonsuk: Wonsuk Lee, Samsung

... I'm in charge of HTML5 on Tizen

... I don't know how many people know about Tizen

... it's a web OS , open source project

... I'm here Widget requirement

... is important to our platform

ytsai: Yinghau Tsai, "Patrick". I work for MediaTek

... smart phone

... Part of my team is responsible for browser development. We attend this
meeting because we want to make our browser a better platform for HTML5

... applications

ming: Ming Jin, work for Samsung on Tizen platform

... Would like to find out from this F2F what is the req's for browser vendors
and web developers

... Would like L1 defined ASAP

... Hope to contribute to defining L1 requirements

chrisramos: Chris Ramos, product manager for Nokia

... Work on mobile browsers

lbolstad: Lars Erik Bolstad, represent Opera Software

... Responsible for Presto engine development. Also chair W3C Geolocation WG

... Interested in what the web devs think are the most important use cases and
reqs for browsers

... Hoping this group can help produce better test frameworks etc.

WaiSeto: Wai Seto, work for Nokia developer relations team

... Started 10 years ago, working with WML browser/scripts. Was fun. Now we're
10 years later working on core mobile community group

... Joined this group relatively recently. First want to make connections with
all of you. Also participate in group to educate web developers on these
mobile APIs

girlie_mac: Tomomi Imura, recently joined Nokia developer relations

... Worked as mobile web developer, huge passion for mobile web and web
standards

... Want this to become more than a buzzword

... Want to learn more about Ringmark. Pretty new to this community.

mattkelly: Matt Kelly, work at Facebook. Work on Ringmark, helped organize
coremob

... Building web my whole life, want to build web on mobile

... Worked with 100s of devs. Push for Ringmark and coremob came out of
frustration of web devs

... things that have disabled people from building for mobile web

... Want to get us to agree on L1. Also would be great to have agreement on L0

... Looking for consensus, open us to working on implementation

... Also want to get a test suite out that people can test products against

### CoreMob v. Ringmark

jo: Interesting to hear what people are interested in. Good to hear
consistency of purpose.

... Seems to me in joining the group, that there is continuing confusion
between Ringmark and coremob

... Since Tobie's here since the beginning, would like some background on
explaining the distinction

tobie: Coremob, first of all, is this group with all of you here. When we
launched coremob earlier this year in Barcelona, we announced

... FB announced Ringmark, which is a test suite that my colleague mattkelly
now works on

... Quite shortly afterwards, in 2 steps, donated the tests to W3C and open
sourced the whole test suite

... That's what ringmark is

... Other side there's Coremob L1 spec

... Which is W3C CG specification

... Document we are working on

... While FB gave test suite to group as a seed for a possible conformance ...

... and quality of implementation test suite

... Group has to decide what to do with it, pursue working with it, how etc.

... L0 spec has been mentioned a few times

... worth talking about that

... One idea when we launched the project was to first get a kind of, what we
felt, was a state of the world specification

... Which was to be L0

... And to have a short set of really focused goals on what was missing, what
could be improved in reasonable amount of time, that was L1

... Quickly appeared two things

... First was getting consensus on what current state of the world is happened
to be more difficult than expected

... Those of you that follow mailing list, seen a lot of debate about this

... 2nd thing, very difficult to make a spec that describes that which is
existing

... A lot of implementations moving from HTML4 to HTML5, ECMAScript 3 to 4

... Delimiting current state of the world happened to be technically so
challenging,

... I thought it better to move into a forward-looking aspirational document
rather than anything describing current state of the world

Dehghan: How does Ringmark test suite correspond to coremob L1

tobie: Originally each ring corresponded to each level. But now there's this
misalignment

... Need to fix

DanSun: what's the relation of levels and rings?

tobie: ... distinguish actual spec from conformance test for it

... Clarify this one last thing, important when we talk about this, have
issues about this, make sure we're talking about the right things

... If it's issue with spec, talk about spec. If it's issue with test, how
test is implemented, it's a test problem

?: How has contents of L1 document, where does it come from?

Robert_Shilston: Is your inspiration other W3C groups, or is it looking what
you're needing at Facebook, what functionality you think you'd like to turn to
in the future.

tobie: When we started on that project Q4 last year, we talked to a number of
developers and number of people in industry to gather best possible picture of
what first of all was the current state.

... What were devs currently basing their applications on

... That was a first step

... Second step was looking at what exactly are people requesting that is a
problem

... What is missing, improperly implemented, etc.

... Talking to developers mostly, our partners

... Also looked at what applications were built, what were top 100 apps built
on native platforms and what features were missing from Web platform to build
those on the web platform

... Finally looked at the existing implementations and existing specifications
to see what was possible and what made sense to target in a small amount of
time

... That's why some are separated into L1 and what will probably become L2

... want a reasonable amount of feature in reasonable amount of time

... Once we have an L1 spec and implementations conformant to L1, then app
devs can look at that and look at "now what"

Robert_Shilston: Mobile web moves really fast. What cadence do you have in
mind for iterating these?

tobie: I think once a year would be awesome

jo: Looking at L1 spec, and talking about testcases

... I think it's important for us to come out of this meeting with some
clearly defined objectives

... One objective would be to have a timetable in mind for completing a
substantial phase of work

... So working backwards, my suggestion would be that we define for the
purpose of the group, what can we do, by the end of this calendar year

... And leave some time for tidying up

... SO what can we realistically achieve here is a question for the objectives
of this phase of work

... There are a lot of tests to write, seems unlikely that all will be
assembled by then

... So let's define the scope of the tests

... e.g. L1 use cases

... tests can continue after that point

... I want to throw that suggestion out onto the floor, before coming to point
of this meeting

jet: I have something to add to that

... As browser implementers, we submit 10s of thousands of tests to W3C,

... And we have tens of thousands of tests at Mozilla

... We are very interested in having this group leverage that

... Several years' worth of work

... We think on the mobile platform, we want to get parity with mobile and
desktop and beyond

... We would like this group to work within existing infrastructure, rather
than writing tests from the ground up

tobie: I agree with that, part of group's charter

... have that discussion tomorrow

darobin: Please come to that discussion having thought about what you want to
get out of that discussion

... I would be interested in hearing requirements before talking about our
existing system, so people aren't influenced by what we have

Dehghan: What is coremob's relationship with major providers of browsers, e.g.
Apple and Google, who are not represented here?

... What do they care about?

... How seriously will they take our recommendations

fantasai: If producing good work, basically doing research for them, think
they will take into consideration

... Good test suites also puts PR pressure on browsers to implement things
better

... if test results are well-reported

DanSun: ...

jo: I think L1 is to say that we are done with the document Tobie has done

darobin: There's no way we'll have tests for everything in the spec by the end
of the year

... The chapters that we'll have tests for by the end of the year will be
extremely low

... But could have a document, and a large and growing body of tests, which
would give us increasing confidence that that document is supported or not

... Probably won't have it by the end of the decade... but that's another
problem

jo: So what do we want to achieve by the end of today?

... Would like to have gone through current draft line by line and for any
major issues, on what should not be there, or what's missing, and what's wrong

... Work item from this meeting would be to fix all those issues

... If you have something to raise, make sure you raise it. Doesn't matter
whether minor or major

darobin: Would be really good to have document in publishable state so we can
push out to community with feedback

... Need sufficient consensus in group that it has the right shape overall

### L0 vs L1

jo: What's not clear from the list is ...

... First point for newcomers, want .. understood by new members.

... Important to get stuff on the list, so as people join the group there's a
trail of stuff that can be referred to

... People will not be able to find things on the list

... Not everything has been documented

... L0, L1 thing

... ...

... why L0 is not there, or has been shelved

... I noticed that Nokia referenced the "default delivery context"

... Something that we discussed at length in best practices WG

... Why does this cause contention? Similar to L0

... What we needed to clearly identify was that mobile best practices were not
about WML

... that were about the web

... Wasn't talking about webapps, because this was 2005/6, but about old-
fashioned web pages on mobile devices

... OneWeb was also something that caused a lot of contention

... All kinds of people saying, mobile web thing can't be allowed to exist,
because there is only one Web

... But what some people meant by One Web was different by what other people
meant

... I think that discussion is over, different representations at one URI is
accepted

... we could have said this is way too contentious and avoided issue, but
didn't and made progression

... I'm not averse to lifting the lid off some topics to find consensus

... If we start at L1, we start a little bit in midair, don't have our feet on
the ground. Potentially dangerous.

... "Default delivery context", what is meant by a browser on a device

... Lots of people complained this was to dumb things down

... and that people would develop web pages to a least common denominator

... Device vendors wanted to exploit things beyond the LCD

... Intention was to distinguish mobile web browser from house brick

... If you fall below this level, then you can do some things but not all
things that are fundamental to web

... One issue that year was "is table support mandatory in a mobile web
browser"?

... Seems ridiculous now, but a bunch of browsers that supported tables in a
very buggy way

... I think there's a case for saying we don't consider browsers that have
lower than a certain level of support as in scope for this discussion

... L1 seems to me is a goal that has not been achieved by anybody. It's
forward-looking. But we have no retrospective

... We don't have a "no, that's not a mobile web browser"

... Anyone have things to say about why L0 is a useful thing to have

vidhya: Devs don't give two hoots about this. They just want stuff to work.

... What you call it is irrelevant. We just want tests that ensure that the
stuff in there work.

Robert_Shilston: I echo that, and testing is important

... We can't change what we're building based on where things are going to go

... We had a problem where local storage got purged if you got a calendar
invite that was 7 lines long

... How much is defining best practices for browser and web devs to work
together to make things work

... The headline of what you want to do is to enable highest number of
applications short term

... Is that best done by working on a toolkit? Is that best done by ...?

jo: Does anybody care about L0?

jet: We do. Leveling in Coremob seems to imply that you build levels upon
others. Have a strong foundation to build on, and then build L1

... I like that, otherwise all aspirational

... We should work on things like tables, where need a spec there. Want the
foundation to be there rigorous and correct. Not just about what was in Mobile
Safari last year

... We don't think that was rigorous enough

darobin: Do you have a strong notion of what how to build this rigorously?

jet: There's testing, that's single most important thing.

... Agree on a certain set of rigor on L0

... If we can apply that similar notion to ..., would be good use of time

... Both correctness and perf

darobin: What kind of resources do you have to commit to that

jet: We'll see what the need is. As said, we've already submitted thousands of
tests

... To call it L0, it allows use cases to happen

tobie: Wanted to point out confusion on spec vs tests

... The problem I see was, suggestion you're making here. Tests. But test
what?

... Until we define precisely what's in L0, can't test it

... What do we put in L0?

... I don't see how we can possibly have a full test suite for something we
haven't defined.

... I'm very concerned that we are going to spend a lot of things make it into
L0

... What's the baseline, what's not

darobin: I agree with where you're coming from but wondering, if we wrote the
tests to match level 1, could we not call L0 as the subset that is passed by
implementations?

... We could say L1 is what we aspire to, and L0 is the rising level of actual
implementation support

... Then don't have to jump through hoops of creating another spec

... whenever the L0 line meets L1, then everyone is happy

jo: Don't see L0 as capturing state of art of current browsers

... Think L0 is reasonably some abstract feature set that majority of vendors
support but probably none of them support correctly

... interop seems to serve dev community most urgently

Josh_Soref: Someone used analogy of building a house with bricks and levels.
One of the things looking at Ringmark and what we have, a lot of these things
are not things you build one level at a time. They're more components

... If I have an office and a stereo system and a library. For the library I
need shelves, for the music room I might need just a table

... Building levels on levels doesn't seem to do much good.

... If you're building an audio app, you don't really care if canvas is doing
wonderful things, unless you're also building something that's using canvas.
Not necessarily useful to you

... Fighting over L0, energy spent is already too much.

... I also don't want to canonize that you must support -webkit-.

... I don't think that's the right way to go

... I don't want us to write tests that make it easier to support vendor-
prefixed versions of things than to support standardized things

jo: Can we steer clear of specific implementers' technologies for now.

... ...

... Vendor prefixes not part of that discussion

Josh_Soref: I don't see any benefit in having a L0, and think we can work from
defining L1.

... If someone wants to come up with a list of things that theoretically work
but aren't quite there.

... Things that most browsers have some implementation, that people use, but
not implementations are not correct.

... A lot of people are more interested in new features.

... I think that having people submitting tests to improve quality of
implementation on old features

Dehghan: In my mind maybe we just have a classic feature prioritization issue,
and if we could apply some kind of objective measure

... mentioned searching top 100 native apps, what feature sets would be needed
to get there

... Fact that in L1 if we add in all of HMTL5 and CSS3, such a gigantic step,
not all browsers will implement features in same order

... It's a multi-release kind of problem for any browser

... So if we could consolidate industry around implementing features in same
order, then devs can rely on those features earlier on

<fantasai> Dehghan++

Dehghan: Different browsers will get to L1 at different speeds, and entire
platform will be fragmented.

... Come up with some test for what should be included, search for existing
usage, vote by community, etc.

[ fantasai spoke but there was no scribe to record as she was scribing this
section ]

mattkelly: I think the main goal, was one drive implementations, and two,
reduce fragmentation

... The goal for launching group and Ringmark, was not to say "we need all of
HTMl5", but to say "this feature is important for people to build their app"

... So we're purely taking pragmatic standpoint of what are people trying to
build, what can't be built and why, what features are missing and what perf
problems are there

... I think L0 is important for reasons stated before

... It's what app devs are building on today

... When FB builds mobile web app, we have limited engineers that can work on
it

... only a few engineers.

... We generally only test the most popular browsers: iOS and Android

... Any app dev team, is going to do the same

... Problem with not having L0 and jumping to L1, we'll say we want X perf on
canvas,

... but there aren't things that people are relying on today that are missing
from cutting edge browser that make web app breaks

... maybe has fast sprites, but audio doesn't work

... outside this group, would be good to understand people are building today

... web apps won't work in your browser if don't support L0

... what are people trying to build now,

... currently playing catch-up to native

... fixing those problems, and hopefully tipping point then can reach for
things that will set mobile web apart

... boils down to pragmatism

... for L1, we targeted 2D games, camera apps, and ?

... That's what sells devices

tobie: Should we rename L1 spec to L0, or should we not have a level now at
all until we actually work on a L2 spec and figure out whether this is a
building block on foundations or different rooms

... Could very well be that the levels would be better seen as timestamps

... This is 2012 goals

... Here are 2013 goals

... Given that we actually are working on only one level spec at the moment,
not two or more, why not drop level idea and bring it back when we actually
have a conversation with data

... Second thing wanted to say is, I've had a deep and serious look at editing
L0 and trying to make it a good picture of what's going on right now.

... It's super hard, I don't want to do it

... I think Dehghan's point about feature prioritization is exactly what we're
trying to do

... What are things are really needed now, and focus on it

... So whole industry is focused on it

... one reason mobile web runtime isn't as good as it should be, and different
vendors don't have a common view of what's important

... One feature requested is fast WebGL, but actually web devs want fast
canvas

... Regarding HTML5, discuss as part of L1 document

... what do we include

... easier to do with CSS3, since modularized

... Want to make a compelling platform for app development

jfmoy: Imo Levels are a really good notation,

... Easy for browser to say "I'm compatible with L1"

... Helps developers to understand what browsers they can target, what
features they can use for a given target

... I really like the level notation, want to keep it

fantasai: Listening to Matt Kelly, seems L1 should be the set of features that
we want and need, and L0 should be about defragmenting the current mobile web

jo: Exactly, it's about what can developers expect to be there

... Expect reasonable support for these features, not being broken

... Seems to be moderate support for something that is L0, what constitutes L0
is still open to discussion

... I have a proposal that L0 represents features that we desire that have
stable specs

... One can reasonably produce a set of tests that can ascertain the
implementations

... The world is short of public tests. Seems browser vendors do have loads of
tests they're willing to contribute

... We should encourage that

... Matt made some interesting points

mattkelly: What types of apps require what types of features?

... In rounding out this particular discussion, can you take an action to
create that map

jo: My part what I'm going to do is to try and create a working discussion
wiki document with a view to seeing if we can find a consensus position which
is sensible about L0

... Suggest we spent rest of day talking about L1

tobie: that's an open issue

jo: Suggest making that assumption for now

... As Tobie points out, if want L0 spec, need a L0 spec editor

... So if we want an L0 spec, need an editor

... look at what resources you can bring

<fantasai> **ACTION:** Jo Rabin: Short document on how to get an L0 out and
what it might mean [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action01][27]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Rabin: Short document on how to get an L0 out
and what it might mean [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-07-02].

vidhya: So, what is the message to developers here?

... we're not doing L0, so what are we actually telling developers

jo: I don't think we're saying we're not doing L0. It's shelved. I'm trying to
ascertain whether the group wants to take it down and take it on, or to put it
in the trash.

<tobie> delta between L0 and L1 roughly described here in terms of features:
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/Specs/Coremob_Level_1][28]

jo: It seems to me that from dev point of view, seems very useful.

... L0 is something that a dev can reasonably expect a consistency of
implementation and a reasonable set of good quality tests to ensure
conformance

<tobie> problem with describing L0 is current implementations are in-between
HTML4 and HTML5 and ES3 and ES5 right now, and as these aren't backwards
compatible, this is difficult.

vidhya: So you're saying that is the expectation a developer to have

... Are we there today?

marcos_lara: 0 is there today, I built an app today with mattkelly as my guide

jo: Who has experience with acid tests?

fantasai: Eric Meyer wrote ACID1, trying to point out the most egregious
interop issues with CSS at the time

... and then many years later Hixie, while at Opera, wrote ACID2 to do the
same thing

... and then ACID3 started up, but it was less strong and more random

jo: it is important to keep that in mind because ACID has been successful

... and we have a lot of the same goals

Josh_Soref: Want to point out that Acid tests have occasionally introduced
bugs in the platform, because of errors in the tests

... and developers trying to match the test, and therefore mismatching the
specs

... Trying to beat those problems out

[ Break for Coffee ]

<scribe> **ACTION:** jo to ACTION mattkelly to circulate his research on types
of apps requiring types of features [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25
-coremob-minutes.html#action02][29]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - ACTION mattkelly to circulate his research on
types of apps requiring types of features [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-07-02].

<tobie> [http://coremob.github.com/level-1/][30]

### Level 1

darobin: if people aren't happy with the abstract

... we can fix it fairly easily

... note that this document is on GitHub, you can fork and submit pull
requests to the editor

tobie: a couple of things I'd like to say

... I made this document as thin as possible

... I tried to make the document as thin as possible

... I'll have another document for Requirements and Use Cases

... I'm planning to do the same kind of work that mattkelly has an action to
do

... a list of applications we're hoping that Level 1 would enable

... listing the features an application will need

... the introduction restates the goals of the CG as expressed in the Charter

... same balancing idea

... between what developers would like to see in the specification

... and what's doable in a reasonable period of time

... I tried to group things in a sensible way

... I filed a number of issues on the spec which I'd like to discuss with you
today

... 1. HTML5

... an implementation must support HTML5

jo: over coffee, "what is the meaning of mobile/web applications?"

... I'd like to see a link to any discussion we'd like to have

... possibly removed later

<scribe> **ACTION:** jo to start a discussion on "what is the meaning of
mobile web applications?" [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action03][31]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Start a discussion on "what is the meaning of
mobile web applications?" [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-07-02].

<jo> ?

jo: second, can we remove the word "Core" from the introduction

<darobin> ISSUE: Should "core features" actually be core at Level 1, or should
we just consider features (in Level 1 Intro)

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-18 - Should "core features" actually be core at Level
1, or should we just consider features (in Level 1 Intro) ; please complete
additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/18/edit][32] .

DanSun: maybe we should add the application categories we wanted to facilitate

... were we going to move the messaging application to level 2?

tobie: Rich wanted that in networking

... I don't think it's in scope for level 1

DanSun: because the technology isn't there?

tobie: both that, because the APIs to access it aren't there

... and because it isn't a core feature

darobin: we don't have Push Notifications

... Web Apps WG is working on it

... but we can't reference it

jo: can we record that SMS is a key feature of mobile

... it's a key feature for mobile

... having SMS interop outside of scope of level 1 is odd

<darobin> ISSUE: Lack of a push notification system, important feature, but no
sufficient specification at this time

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-19 - Lack of a push notification system, important
feature, but no sufficient specification at this time ; please complete
additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/19/edit][33] .

DanSun: and Push

tobie: having a list of targeted applications and requirements

... is something I'm working on now in another document

... we can see if we include it directly in this document, or reference it

mattkelly: I think re Push notification / SMS

... another class is distribution of Web Apps

... getting bookmarks of web apps on the homescreen

... or more easily bookmarked

... I think it's a much harder thing to accomplish

### Markup

tobie: 2.1 UAs must support HTML5

... HTML5, today, the spec is a lot smaller than it used to be

... I think supporting it is a more achievable goal

<darobin> [documentation for trackbot, for actions and issues management:
[http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc][34]]

tobie: I haven't looked to see if we could slice it into bits and pieces

... and only require support for some bits

<mattkelly> issue-19: It might be useful to expand the issue of SMS/push
notifications to include other points of distribution/engagement features.
E.g., bookmarking mobile web apps to the home screen, how they can be
bookmarked, etc. Basically features that enable developers to get better
distribution/re-engagement of their apps.

<trackbot> ISSUE-19 Lack of a push notification system, important feature, but
no sufficient specification at this time notes added

<darobin> [documentation for Zakim, for meeting management][35]

tobie: in the case where we believe 1/2 or 3/4 of a spec are really useful

<Robert_Shilston> During the break, Robert Shilston, Fantasai, Marcos Lara
were chatting about the structure of the ringmark. There were two aspects to
this. Firstly, dividing the ring circles into wedges: As an example, this
would enable developers interested in audio apps could look at the audio wedge
and disregard the typography wedge. Secondly, how to capture what's currently
available for developers, and this could form a L0. There was discussion as to
how

tobie: and the rest not so much

... should the CG give feedback to the editors of that spec?

<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that subsetting specs is a disaster

vidhya: from the point of view of a developer, I don't know what it means

... <!DOCTYPE> is html5

... is it even a reasonable

... it's not even a reasonable requirement

... I'd argue

darobin: there's a difference between this spec asking the browsers to
implement things

vidhya: you have the spec, it's full of optional features

darobin: no, it's not

... the html5 spec has been trimmed down to features that are thought to be
interoperable

... when we looked at this with tobie recently

... they removed the future bits to the next specification

<andreatrasatti> HTML5 is still marked as a "working draft"

vidhya: so there's no SHOULDs?

darobin: there's only a few SHOULDs

vidhya: I'm happy with what you're saying

... you should say here

fantasai: it should have a conformance section

vidhya: that's clearer

darobin: perhaps we should to address your point

<Robert_Shilston> **ACTION:** Shilston to clarify on the wiki that the active
L1 spec document is on github, and describe when things should be discussed on
the wiki and when Github issues are used to further the discussion. [recorded
in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action04][36]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Clarify on the wiki that the active L1 spec
document is on github, and describe when things should be discussed on the
wiki and when Github issues are used to further the discussion. [on Robert
Shilston - due 2012-07-06].

darobin: we could say "whenever you see UAs MUST support Document

... it means UAs must conform to Document"

Josh_Soref: my preference is to say instead of "MUST support" say "MUST
conform to the Document specification"

<jo> ?

**RESOLUTION: Add a conformance section to Level 1**

tobie: group gives me something, I'll use it consistently

fantasai: your question was to break down specs

... for example Values and Units, you might want to exclude Cycle

<darobin> **ACTION:** Tobie to add a conformance section to Level 1 that
explains what it means to say "User agents MUST support Foo [FOO]" [recorded
in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action05][37]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Add a conformance section to Level 1 that
explains what it means to say "User agents MUST support Foo [FOO]" [on Tobie
Langel - due 2012-07-02].

tobie: should we break them down here, or go to them

fantasai: there's no reason to say it to the CSS WG

... you may want to cut out page-break

... but CSS WG might need it

<jo> note that consensus of the group re the above resolution was that in
general reference should be made to the conformance section of the referenced
spec by way of specifying conformance

darobin: 1. features we might not need

... 2. features holding things from being finalized

... when we went to CSS WG, we found things were AT-RISK

... which made us happy

... we want other groups to ship their specs

fantasai: right

Josh_Soref: Mobile groups have a bad track record of subsetting specs

jfmoy: we started this discussion about reducing fragmentation

... subsetting could make it worse

... it's easier to say this is "in complete conformance"

... it sounds like it'll make the same mistake as was done before

tobie: I'm raising that as I don't have an idea of how to handle it

jo: it seems to me there's a logical disconnect between us cherry-picking

... saying "you made the wrong choice"

... in general we shouldn't subset specs

... we should say to groups "you should subset specs"

mattkelly: from the dev perspective

... it isn't introducing fragmentation to subset

... Google came out w/ Glasses

... they need WebRTC

... vs Mobile Web

... where the popular item is 2d games

... Mobile Web reduced fragmentation

... saying we don't want to push....

... it's more about not reducing fragmentation globally, but within

... saying these are the apps we're trying to build

... and saying these are the features we're trying to build

vidhya: I think the points I wanted to make have been made

fantasai: the grouping of specs

... as a group working on specs

... won't be driven by one consumer

... CSS WG takes input from you, EPUB (very different), and things that are
just simple

... some you might not want browser devs to implement

... (urgently)

... it might hurt your ability to ask browser devs to focus

... the considerations we have for subsetting are not the same as you have

... you can have things you want us to prioritize when we're in DRAFT

... but it's not going to work for things closer to REC

... if you request features that aren't important to you just because they're
in the same spec, that dilutes your message about what is important to you

jo: in subsetting other's specs

... aren't we diluting other people's specs

darobin: we're affecting other people's focus

jo: specs that are already baked

... it would be unreasonable to require conformance to every last one of them

... where we do subset, we should be clear at the top of the document

... that it isn't intended to subset the spec

... but the testing and urgency of work on portions of the spec

tobie: are you suggesting we'd make supporting the whole spec a requirement

... and only test a subset?

darobin: we're weasel wording our way out of subsetting

jo: anyone with a problem with articulating the thought subsetting for the
reasons described

... having clarified the reasons described

<darobin> proposed RESOLUTION: Subsetting is undesirable and will be avoided
as much as possible; however it is pragmatically required in some cases. When
subsetting does happen, it should not be understood as a subsetting of the
specification itself but rather as a prioritization of our testing efforts

[ No objections ]

**RESOLUTION: Subsetting is undesirable and will be avoided as much as
possible; however it is pragmatically required in some cases. When subsetting
does happen, it should not be understood as a subsetting of the specification
itself but rather as a prioritization of our testing efforts**

tobie: I added as notes QoI issues in relevant sections

... for html5 spec, the main issue is poorly implemented audio playback

... playing sounds in parallel and latency

... I identified sub 10ms latency

... if someone has a better number

jo: say you're doing DOM Tree Traversal

... are you interested in performance?

... you almost certainly need it to be reasonable

mattkelly: we need to avoid surface area testing

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to talk about quality of implementation issues

mattkelly: saying "audio is supported"

... saying you can support one file

... in mobile browsers, you get popping / audio artifacts

... a 2d game developer doesn't want that

... say <canvas> is supported, but how many sprites can you do @30fps?

... but you can't build Angry Birds/Words With Friends

... the hard part is understanding where those gotchas are

... it's hard for nuanced bugs in browsers

... on Android, there's an issue where if you animated something
horizontally/vertically, it was accelerated

... but if you animate diagonally, it drops (frames/perf)

... it's important to test QoI

jo: what would your proposal be?

mattkelly: it's hard

... in a doc

... it's easier in a test suite

... you can also evolve it

... there are 2 ends

... incredibly detailed

... or preface to the doc "QoI is expected"

... performance/avoiding artifacts

lbolstad: for this doc/spec

... it's useful on one level

... but it needs to address QoI

... with ACID3, it doesn't address QoI

... you need to be able to animate with a certain speed

... but it quickly becomes hardware / device dependent

... there's certain iOS/Android

jo: it seems it's very hard given device dependencies

DanSun: I don't think we should depend on Hardware

... it depends on the hardware/application

jet: despite the difficulty of hardware stacks

... I like the idea of supporting games

... getting games to run well gets everything else to run well

... I want to encourage the group to look at it

Robert_Shilston: I want to show a demo based on jsFiddle to test a browser bug

[ Demos 2 browsers running concurrently ]

Robert_Shilston: we thought it was a hardware constraint

... until we got to browsers on the same and distilled it

bkelley: any perf test, it's impossible to factor out hardware

<Robert_Shilston> My example URL was [http://jsfiddle.net/v7C4a/][38]

darobin: I think we can survive this by defining a particular hardware

... such as Galaxy S2

... on a feature phone 120 sprites @60 fps

... is understandably not going to work

... users understand this

... we should be able to try to work our way out of the slippery slope

jfmoy: do you want to write out the hardware into the spec?

darobin: not in the spec

... if we have a QoI Test Suite

... I'd write that into the test

... if you have hardware with roughly these specs

... you should do this well

jfmoy: do you want Pass/Fail, or a score?

darobin: I'd like to get into them, but not now

jo: I find it seriously problematic to have numbers

... because they quickly become obsolete

... rather than specific numbers

... you have cross browser comparisons

... I'd rather relativistic nature

... than a specific numeric measurement

Robert_Shilston: I object

... in some areas, only iOS performs reasonably

... and in others, only Android performs reasonably

... you'll drag down the result

... it's reasonable to compare multiple browsers on a single Android device

... but what do you do comparing across different hardware (iPad, Galaxy Tab)

tobie: that metric is Requirement driven

... ask a game developer

... he'll say they have a sound file in the background

... and game triggered events

... 8 will work for most games

... maybe eventually 12 might be used

... but the number won't generally change

jo: I think it's problematic to code in numbers

tobie: 2 games is a certain case

... an audio synthesizer is different

bkelley: how would we phrase a relativistic test as a requirement

**RESOLUTION: there is no strong interest in producing relativistic tests at
this point in the group, we will keep focusing our Quality of Implementation
efforts on absolute measures**

jo: I'm trying to explore taking these outside the test domain entirely

... a matter of public record

bkelley: in terms of a specification?

...

**RESOLUTION: The group has no taste for making qualitative issues into
relative measurement and wishes to continue to try to formulate specific
objective tests**

tobie: I want to thank Vanessa for organizing everything

[ Applause ]

tobie: ... to close up on HTML5

... issue 1 ... about AppCache

... there was a Workshop organized by Vodafone

... where we talked about the problems with AppCache

... it didn't work very well with content generated on the server

... an index page of a blog would always display a cached version and not a
live one

... that issue was fixed in the living HTML spec... worked on by WHATWG

... I think it's a critical issue

... the question is whether this group should lobby the HTML WG to include
that in the HTML5 document

andreatrasatti: what is the time frame

... if the group wanted to lobby for it for HTML5

... if we also pushed for people to implement it

... you or darobin said HTML5 is basically stable

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The Coremob CG requests the HTML WG to move fixing
AppCache to the current version of HTML5

darobin: it's a very good question

... in this case, the problem is serious enough

... browser vendors have indicated they're willing to update it

... we could lobby the HTML WG to reopen

... at the cost of delaying

... we could ask HTML WG to move to a separate document

... but it would allow it to progress on REC track w/o holding things up

tobie: AFAIK,

... HTML5 will probably have a second LC

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The Coremob CG requests the HTML WG to move fixing
AppCache to a separate document and progress apace with moving that document
down Rec Track

tobie: I don't think that particular issue would change timings of the spec

... of course, if everyone asks for changes, that would delay it

vidhya: we know this is important

... we know we need this

... what's being asked for?

tobie: there's an issue filed in HTML WG against the spec for that feature
request

... it was fixed in the WHAT WG spec

... but the issue was closed by the HTML WG as "wontfix" for HTML5 as it's in
LC

... and they don't want to add what they technically consider it to be a new
feature

vidhya: AppCache needs to work, and it needs to work properly

darobin: do we want to leave the somewhat broken in HTML5?

... or delay HTML5?

... or split it up?

vidhya: maybe I don't understand process

... I don't understand what this group can do

darobin: first ...

... can we live with the broken version?

... I think the answer is not

vidhya: I don't think we can live with it

... if we can encourage the group to fix it

darobin: if we can't live with it

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The Coremob CG considers the current version of
AppCache to be damaging and requests that the HTML WG does not progress to Rec
without fixing it

darobin: then we need to negotiate w/ the HTML WG

tobie: is this change in itself sufficient to make AppCache not broken?

... my feeling is "kind of"

... which is another aspect to consider

vidhya: looking at Blogs, how people are talking about this

... people look at this and say "let's not use AppCache at all... because it's
so useless"

... so hosted apps become irrelevant

jo: Robert_Shilston, do you want to add input?

Robert_Shilston: from our perspective

... one vendor, 80% of devices in the wild

... never request the manifest

... so we use appcache for a bootstrap process

... and use it as a bootstrapping which does its own caching in storage

... the spec as it stands is ok

... it's just the implementation

jo: so you're saying you don't agree w/ tobie that it's broken

Robert_Shilston: I agree it could be improved

... but it's perfectly usable as is

... we can build an app today

... an app robustly implemented could work

<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to favor splitting it out of HTML5

Robert_Shilston: I think suggesting AppCache separate from the HTML5 spec is
preferable

... it gives the most flexibility

jo: the shades are

... asking to remove it from the spec

... fixing it in the spec

... leaving as is

... - and quickly coming out with an update

... is it damaging to have what's currently in?

lbolstad: Robert_Shilston: did you mean that there isn't anything wrong with
the spec

Robert_Shilston: the problem we have is an implementation (QoI) detail

lbolstad: mandating some degree of stability to HTML5

... to what extent should this document be very specific

... in addition to mandating support for a spec

darobin: if the requirements we have require that spec to be supported

... there's little reason to go into detail in the spec itself

... outside of the test suite

... the reason AppCache is listed as an issue in the document

... if you look at developer blogs, what they're saying about AppCache is
different from Robert_Shilston's perspective

tobie: Facebook started using AppCache and stopped because of this issue

jo: what support is there in this group for removing AppCache from the current
spec?

darobin: rather than straw poll on the variations

... I'd rather say to the html group is "here is the issue, could you do
something about it?"

tobie: it's an extra feature

... which is why it's a wontfix

darobin: HTML WG is in LC

... and refuses to accept Features since that immediately voids LC

jo: if we ask them to do something that ruins their time scales

Robert_Shilston: tobie is saying Facebook doesn't use AppCache because of the
additional feature they want in HTML5

... adding a feature to HTML5 would enable you to use AppCache in the way we
need

tobie: it's more complicated than that

... this fix fixes some UCs, but not all of them

... we have extra challenges

... as we push new versions of our web site on a daily basis

... we have a lot of servers

... pushing a new version takes time

... on a daily basis we have 2 versions

... you can get into a state where the AppCache thinks it's correctly
synchronized

... but its manifest is v49 and the code is v50

... I don't know that just solving that problem would make it work

... but I know that something like that would make it work for MS Hotmail

... it isn't implemented right now

... if you don't specify the master entry in the spec

... it's always loaded live

... MS solved it for Hotmail

... the app renders the cached index page

... the contents have to be the same

... otherwise you bust the cache

... the app checks the manifest in the background

jo: who does not feel qualified to make a contribution to this discussion?

[ 18 ]

jo: who does feel qualified to discuss this issue?

[ 7 ]

darobin: of people who feel qualified

... who wants to make a suggestion to HTML WG

... can the html spec keep the current version?

Josh_Soref: if we leave it alone, could we publish a doc explaining how to
work around it, based on Rob's solution

lbolstad: are the only options a change or not

... or maybe create a test suite demoing the behavior

... as we go through specs

... some may be averse to changes

... the next, MC, easier to change

... Geolocation is unreceptive

... talking to that group isn't going to help

darobin: never has

[ laughter ]

lbolstad: do we always resolve by talking to the WG?

darobin: no

... sometimes it's a QoI item

... we write a test, and show people

... sometimes it's a relatively mature spec

... where we might want a spec change

... we won't have this discussion for each item

tobie: which is why we don't want to go meta

darobin: I think AppCache is broadly classified as broken

... do we ask for a change or live with it?

jo: even those of us who aren't qualified from a technical perspective

... may feel that we have input to this question

... yada yada yada

darobin: i.e. Everyone can/should vote

vidhya: +1

bkelley: can we live with it *and* lobby for a fix

darobin: if you ask the html WG to change it

... you're still allowed to have a hack in your app

Josh_Soref: HTML.next already has a fix for this

jo: do we as a group for substantive technological or reputational reasons

... think it'll obstruct the web

jfmoy: at TPAC in Nov

... that was the biggest problem on the mobile web

... personally I think pushing for that in HTML5 is important

... it's really important that it's fixed ASAP

darobin: who votes in favor of leaving it as is?

[ Hands ? ]

jo: who votes in favor of asking for a change?

[ 17 ]

Robert_Shilston: can we distinguish between finding AppCache not specified as
is

... some people are able to use it

... others find it not fit for their purpose

vidhya: I don't quite agree with that formulation

... you can make a lot of things work

... that doesn't mean

... - This thing is not right

tobie: +1

**RESOLUTION: CoreMob notes that many developers find AppCache as currently
specified to be broken for their requirements or to require workarounds and
requests that the HTML WG consider resolving this issue before shipping
(either by fixing it in the specification, or by splitting it off to a
separate specification that can be fixed standalone)**

### HTML Media Capture

tobie: MC (DAP+WebRTC) is working on this in a TF

... it looks bad initially

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to talk to the HTML WG about fixing/splitting
AppCache [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action06][39]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Talk to the HTML WG about fixing/splitting
AppCache [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-02].

tobie: but the more you look at it, the better it seems to be

... it's the spec that enables camera access

... there are 2 issues

... it's a WD

... there's a bug against HTML5 spec for direct inclusion

darobin: I'd ignore the merge into html

... it might happen, but it'll happen later

Josh_Soref: +1

darobin: if it's adopted

... whatever is done will be integrated

... the reason it's a WD is we're waiting on implementer feedback

... once we get feedback

... we'll move forward

... we've started getting feedback, notably from webkit

... and it can quickly move to REC

... I don't know if lbolstad has been working on it

lbolstad: why is it a problem that it's a WD?

darobin: the concern is that it might change

fantasai: if the concern is that you need feedback, why not issue an LC?

darobin: it's an option

... would implementers be concerned with an LC

wesj: we have an accept attribute

tobie: mounir+jonas are working on Accept

darobin: I'm happy to ask DAP to issue a LC

Josh_Soref: I've a feeling that you sent it to the wrong list

... You sent it to DAP

some confusion over mailing lists and stuff

jo: What do we ask the group?

tobie: Is the fact that it's WD an issue?

darobin: Depends, in some cases it's an issue and others not

Josh_Soref: different vendor classes care differently about status of specs

jo: Proposed to close issue 3

**RESOLUTION: Close issue 3 wrt media capture being a WD**

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to ask DAP to push HTML Media Capture to LC
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action07][40]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Ask DAP to push HTML Media Capture to LC [on
Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-02].

<jo> trackbot: close ISSUE-3

<trackbot> ISSUE-3 HTML Media Capture is just a Working Draft closed

tobie: HTML Media Capture introduces the 'capture' attribute

... let's developer specify what kind of capture device to present to the user

... take a picture, record something, etc.

... Currently in the spec this is mentioned as a hint

... Feel that if this is a hint, spec has not much meat, so started a thread
on DAP group about this

... Suggest to change that requirement is stronger

<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note to tobie that UAs will let users select
files (i need to reply to your thread)

Josh_Soref: So supporting capture attr is fine and dandy, but for device that
doesn't have such an input device, or user who wants to take an existing file,
should allow file picker

... I've been worried about how things are written, that might overspecify

tobie: If this change is made to the document, no need to say anything here

**RESOLUTION: Drop note about capture attribute**

<darobin> close ISSUE-4

<trackbot> ISSUE-4 HTML Media Capture `capture` attribute is just a "hint"
closed

jo: One thing we discussed over lunch is devices that don't fundamentally
support a feature

... so have to think about that

... E.g. a TV likely doesn't have file storage or a camera, so what's
conformance for that device on capture?

### SVG

tobie: using SVG 1.1....

jo: I've got SVG rocks, they're uncomfortable to sit on

... is everything in SVG

... SVG requirements will point to the MANDATORY SVG elements

... are we sure we want to point to the whole thing?

darobin: having wasted 5 years on SVG

... subsetting it

... I think we want to take the whole thing

<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to warn about SVG tiny subsetting

<darobin> ISSUE: We need to have a way to express how conformance interacts
with the availability of hardware

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-20 - We need to have a way to express how conformance
interacts with the availability of hardware ; please complete additional
details at [http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/20/edit][41] .

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to come up with some text for ISSUE-20 [recorded
in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action08][42]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Come up with some text for ISSUE-20 [on Robin
Berjon - due 2012-07-02].

**RESOLUTION: we take all of SVG 1.1. ed2**

### meta viewport

darobin: can we have a meta discussion about that?

tobie: it's describing the viewport with a weird syntax

... inside the meta element

... using meta elements for that is specified in HTML5 or HTML@HTMLWG

... with a reference to a HTML Wiki

... which references a CSS WG page

... which is marked as exploratory

... it's awkward

... everyone building for the mobile web strongly relies on it

... but the specification is very lousy

... I want to bring it up because of that problem

... I'd argue against objections to this requirement

... since we have a CSS WG liaison here

... fantasai

... do you have anything to say about this

fantasai: sorry, what?

... CSS-ADAPTATION

... what's holding back is a review of the spec

... to give us some confidence that it has been reviewed

... and is in a good state

... I think Opera and IE might have exploratory impls

... it's pretty unstable

... but if people want it to progress

darobin: I think people wants everything in that spec except CSS syntax

fantasai: I don't know how that is

... it depends on how much the spec matches implementations

darobin: css-syntax probably matches only experimental implementations

jo: it seems like

darobin: a test suite on the html bits

... there's a suite of examples by Andreas Bovens (Opera)

... which we could steal

<darobin> [simple HTML pages with various viewport and media query
settings][43]

Josh_Soref: we could send review feedback

... and test resources/reports

... to help CSS have confidence to move it forward

<darobin> close ISSUE-5

<trackbot> ISSUE-5 CSS-ADAPTATION spec currently marked as exploratory closed

**RESOLUTION: we don't care that CSS-ADAPTATION is marked "exploratory" as it
will happen anyway**

### App Config

tobie: App Config is something I've been trying to push for, for a while

... it's metadata

... name, icons

... there's a different standard for everything

... each vendors has done their own

Josh_Soref: the PlayBook actually uses this for its apps

tobie: Widget is a silly name, and in a language everyone loves to hate

Josh_Soref: +1

tobie: the idea is to move WebApps to JSON, because everyone loves JSON

... it would pretty much piggy back on the existing work

... there's a lot of movement in that area

... nothing much to point to

... we could have a resolution to close

lbolstad: what's the reason this group can't point to widgets spec

tobie: this group doesn't believe it's the right solution going forward

... mostly, most vendors don't agree to implement it

... outside of Opera

... Nokia's WebKit

Josh_Soref: RIM's WebWorks implemented this

darobin: there are 40-80 implementations of widgets implementation

... it has failed to get market traction

... most major browser vendors haven't implemented and don't plan to implement

... it also has issues defining runtime

... I say this as an author of this

... specification

... there's no vendor behind it

... no implementation plans

... putting this in the spec will not make it happen

tobie: and it has a silly name

darobin: I don't think there's any point in pushing it

jo: it isn't in any sense desirable for browser vendors to support it

darobin: it'll come out of web apps "pretty much soon"

jfmoy: so you're confident that this will be ready before we're done

vidhya: I agree

**RESOLUTION: the group asks the editor to update ISSUE-6 to mention that
there is replacement technology on the way and that we'll point to it**

[ Break for Coffee ]

### View orientation

<tobie> [Orientation Lock Use Cases and Requirements][44]

tobie: depending on the level/support

... it could end up a property of a config file

... it's important, but there's no spec

... it's similar

... to Full Screen

### Fullscreen

tobie: we had a discussion on the list w/ chaals

... about splitting full screen and chromeless-ness

fantasai: there are specs

tobie: the problem is that they don't do what we need

... what fits best is "floating"

... which doesn't make sense to me

... and it won't fare well w/ devs to suggest "floating" for mobile-web apps

darobin: I don't think floating was meant to do that

tobie: the outcome

... of my discussion w/ chaals

... is to have distinct things

fantasai: there's two things

... "my thing should be in"

... "is my thing in"

tobie: this is signaling a preference

darobin: we already have a way to ask for is-my

... what's missing is a way to say "i would like to run chromeless"

tobie: similar to apple's mobile-web-app-capable meta tag

fantasai: it's similar to viewport-meta

darobin: we'd like a WebApps Application Configuration to be able to express
the preference

Robert_Shilston: wondering about SSL/browser padlocks

jo: Robert_Shilston, do you have a proposal?

Robert_Shilston: no

Josh_Soref: "it's a bad idea to have this discussion here, or anywhere else"

<Wonsuk> Concerning to View Orientation, there is a WD of The Screen
Orientation API, [http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-
file/tip/Overview.html][45]

darobin: WebAppSec had this discussion and lost 3 years

... I'd rather leave that as a QoI for implementers

Josh_Soref: +1

darobin: I don't think the padlock worked in the first place

jo: it's a legitimate concern

... but it seems like we can delegate that to WebApps

... or Native Web Apps

Robert_Shilston: could we pass a REQUIREMENT to the WebApps group to ensure
they consider PCI requirements

<darobin> proposed RESOLUTION: CoreMob asks WebApps to include
"chromelessness" in its configuration document, and to take PCI requirements
into account there

**RESOLUTION: CoreMob asks WebApps to include "chromelessness" in its
configuration document, and to take PCI requirements into account there**

Josh_Soref: the SSL only item could be suggested to DAP for its best-practices
document...

jo: do we want to take a resolution that View Orientation/Full-screen be
listed as essential

darobin: not full-screen, but chromeless

<darobin> proposed RESOLUTION: both View Orientation and Chromeless are
essential requirements and we would like WebApps to include them in
configuration

**RESOLUTION: both View Orientation and Chromeless are essential requirements
and we would like WebApps to include them in configuration**

### Style

<darobin> **ACTION:** Tobie to s/full-screen/chromeless/ [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action09][46]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - S/full-screen/chromeless/ [on Tobie Langel - due
2012-07-02].

tobie: I don't do as much CSS as I used to

... thankfully

... slightly more rusted

... help is welcome

... we split the sections into Core, Layout, Typography, Animations and
Transitions

### Style - Core

jet: how many pages is CSS2.1?

fantasai: something like 300

... anyone developing web sites today

... assuming all of 2.1 is implemented everywhere

... excluding page breaks

... people will probably depend on most of it

jet: is it reasonable to expect printing

... which is a chunk of 2.1

... to work

... I've never seen a phone try to print

fantasai: that might be an exception

jet: could we say it's not a requirement

darobin: if your phone is able to print

... should it not support pages media?

lbolstad: there are UCs for paged media other than printing

jo: a tablet could be paged medium

Josh_Soref: I know that Mozilla has the ability to generate PDFs, and other
groups are capable as well

... While printing to a dead tree is slightly more rare, printing to a
persistent medium and push it off somewhere else isn't a useless requirement

... I have a number of cases where I want to do that

... E.g. a receipt generated on the fly

darobin: or printing your boarding pass

Josh_Soref: precisely that

<darobin> **ACTION:** Tobie to document that we have printing use cases in the
UC&R document [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action10][47]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Document that we have printing use cases in the
UC&R document [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].

<tobie> **ACTION:** tobie to add subsection numbers. [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action11][48]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Add subsection numbers. [on Tobie Langel - due
2012-07-02].

tobie: CSS3 backgrounds and borders

... if you have something to say, please speak up

fantasai: people will depend on most of those

... the exception is box-decoration-break

... which is AT-RISK

jo: objections?

[ None ]

tobie: CSS Color?

... straightforward

jo: objections?

[ None ]

tobie: CSS Values?

fantasai: Values and Units will go to CR once we finish DoC

... what would be useful to the CSS WG is

... if people took a stab at figuring out prioritization

... and addressed UCs

... this is a collection of features that can be independently in any order

... if CoreMob has feedback on implementation order

darobin: we want rem and calc()

fantasai: what about viewport units?

darobin: nice to have, but less important

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to propose priorities for CSS Values parts, get
agreement from CG, send to CSS WG [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25
-coremob-minutes.html#action12][49]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Propose priorities for CSS Values parts, get
agreement from CG, send to CSS WG [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-02].

tobie: Image Values and Replaced Content

fantasai: again, a handful of features implementable in any order

... would be helpful to have a prioritized list to focus testing efforts,
lobbying efforts

darobin: we want gradients

fantasai: yeah, I think that's on everyone's list

<darobin> **ACTION:** Robin to propose priorities for CSS Image Values and
Replaced Content parts, get agreement from CG, send to CSS WG [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action13][50]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Propose priorities for CSS Image Values and
Replaced Content parts, get agreement from CG, send to CSS WG [on Robin Berjon
- due 2012-07-02].

tobie: Media Queries

... I think that reached REC two days ago

issue-11?

<trackbot> ISSUE-11 -- No spec effort around momentum scrolling -- raised

<trackbot> [http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/11][51]

tobie: a core request is momentum scrolling

... probably 100 libraries that fake that

darobin: poorly

tobie: there's no spec effort at this point

fantasai: I do :)

... one would be to start a thread on www-style explaining what you want

... we don't have any open requests on the list

... so the ability to turn on momentum scrolling somehow

darobin: without scripting

fantasai: said a note

<ming> we need to check whether momentum scrolling has anything to do with
patent

wesj: can you explain this

... how does this different from overflow:scroll

Robert_Shilston: on iOS, you need two fingers

... instead of 1

wesj: is that a bug?

darobin: it's the difference between panning and scrolling

wesj: in our implementation, we try to figure it out

<darobin> **ACTION:** Tobie to send use cases about overflow scrolling to www-
style [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action14][52]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Send use cases about overflow scrolling to www-
style [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].

tobie: as far as I'm concerned, it can be an implementation issue

Dehghan: I think hardware issues will influence what can be done

<darobin> ISSUE-11?

<trackbot> ISSUE-11 -- No spec effort around momentum scrolling -- raised

<trackbot> [http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/11][51]

<darobin> ISSUE-11: Tobie has ACTION-14 on this

<trackbot> ISSUE-11 No spec effort around momentum scrolling notes added

<darobin> ACTION-14: this relates to ISSUE-11

<trackbot> ACTION-14 Send use cases about overflow scrolling to www-style
notes added

<darobin> ISSUE-9: Robin has ACTION-10 on this

<trackbot> ISSUE-9 CSS Values is still a WD notes added

<darobin> ISSUE-10: Robin has ACTION-13 on this

<trackbot> ISSUE-10 CSS Image Values is a CR notes added

jfmoy: I have a comment on MQs

... as a developer, I'd like to be able to have a way for resources not to be
downloaded

... for inactive MQs

tobie: are you saying implementations should only be downloading stuff that's
in the MQ that's active?

darobin: that's a thorny issue

... imagine you have a MQ that triggers off rotation

... you now need to load stuff for landscape

... for wrong res resources

... you don't want that

... on the other hand, if your device is 800x600, know you won't need
resources for sizes above that

... This is probably a quality of implementation issue

<tobie> [What features are your top priorities to have in mobile
browsers?][53]

Josh_Soref: why not just ask consumers two specify resources once in a preload
area

Robert_Shilston: why not ask for a way to a specify "only download if X is
active"

darobin: that's what I was thinking

... but I don't think we want that to be normative

... I think we can publish a NOTE

... if you want to take an ACTION to draft something like that

... it doesn't have to be long

... maybe a two page document describing how this can work

... I can help

... circulate it among implementations

jo: I don't think it's this group's responsibility to do it

... we could suggest app producers to do things server side to suggest
preloading

... from the CSS WG perspective, is "Core" the right word

... is there a preferred term?

fantasai: I don't understand what you're trying to say

tobie: I bucketed layout, typography, animation

... and had something left over

fantasai: I don't see Selectors 3

... it's a Core thing, it's done

<darobin> **ACTION:** Shilston to draft a non-normative document with
Implementation Notes about how to load assets depending on MQs that can never
become true (with help from Robin) [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25
-coremob-minutes.html#action15][54]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Draft a non-normative document with
Implementation Notes about how to load assets depending on MQs that can never
become true (with help from Robin) [on Robert Shilston - due 2012-07-02].

fantasai: it's a REC and has been a while

... I think you can split this into Graphical and Processing

... values, units, selectors, MQs are processing

... color, backgrounds and borders, image values are graphical

<jo> **ACTION:** Tobie to split section 3.1 per fantasia's suggestion
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action16][55]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-16 - Split section 3.1 per fantasia's suggestion [on
Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].

fantasai: I split things in CSS3 into graphical, typographic, layout,
processing

<jo> **ACTION:** Tobie to add CSS-3 selectors to section 3.1 [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action17][56]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - Add CSS-3 selectors to section 3.1 [on Tobie
Langel - due 2012-07-02].

tobie: => chairs, and add Selectors, which is an oversight

<fantasai> These are the categories I had in a presentation I wrote:

<fantasai> Processing Power, Decoration, Typography & Internationalization,
Layout

issue-17?

<trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- Resolution-friendly image format (for responsive
images) -- raised

<trackbot> [http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/17][57]

<fantasai> (Animations might be another category)

<darobin> ACTION-15: jfmoy also wants to participate

<trackbot> ACTION-15 Draft a non-normative document with Implementation Notes
about how to load assets depending on MQs that can never become true (with
help from Robin) notes added

tobie: I pasted a link on IRC from Paul Irish on Chrome

... asking for input from web developers

... asking what they were missing in mobile browsers

... one thing missing was

... a way to have pictures

... different size/resolutions selected automatically

... there was a CG that worked on it

... what came out was a proposal overloading src

fantasai: Flexbox should be in CR by end of July

... w/ 4 implementations by end of the year

tobie: "srcset"

jo: what do you want from this group?

tobie: this is something developers are requesting as something they really
need

... members of this group have expressed the network info API could be a
solution

... I don't think it is

Josh_Soref: it isn't <period>

tobie: it's an issue developers are facing

... given the scope of this group

Josh_Soref: tobie could write an informative note explaining what network info
won't help

<darobin> **ACTION:** Tobie to write up an informative note about why Network
Information API does not solve the responsive images issue [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action18][58]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Write up an informative note about why Network
Information API does not solve the responsive images issue [on Tobie Langel -
due 2012-07-02].

### Layout

tobie: CSS Flex Box

Robert_Shilston: can we add CSS3 Regions to this?

fantasai: I don't think you want to do that.

tobie: haven't 2d and 3d transforms been merged into the same spec?

fantasai: yes, they have

... and they're moving forward

... there doesn't seem to be consensus in CSS WG that regions in the current
state is what we want

... so I'm not sure it's a good idea to include it here

tobie: I'm not sure what the status of flexbox is

... my understanding is Mozilla implemented and speced a while back

... it was sent to W3

... and then redone by webkit

fantasai: the spec was sent to w3 a while back

... a couple of years ago Tab from Google and Alex from MS have been working
on it

... LC will be ending next week

... comments need to be sent now

... Opera, Mozilla, WebKit, MS are all implementing

... expect Impls and CR by end of year

<jo> close ISSUE-12

<trackbot> ISSUE-12 Flexbox is a WD closed

lbolstad: since 3d transforms is part of the same spec

... is it intentional to reference it as required in the same way as 2d?

tobie: I don't have an opinion

jo: anyone have an opinion?

... would 3d be performant on the devices that interest us?

lbolstad: 3d transforms have other requirements on underlying hardware

tobie: I think 3d transforms are in there

... I think originally only 2d transforms were in there

<jo> ISSUE: Is 3D in scope under 3.2 Layout?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-21 - Is 3D in scope under 3.2 Layout? ; please
complete additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/21/edit][59] .

tobie: when I was writing the document

... I saw it was going to be folded in there

... so I saw an easy solution to just reference the single document

### Typography

tobie: CSS Fonts, WOFF, CSS Text

... there's an issue w/ CSS Text

... darobin and I looked at it

... the only thing we needed was text-shadow

fantasai: I recall ringmark also wanted word-break

... I'm wondering why that wound up in ringmark

... maybe it's a typo for word-wrap

tobie: I don't know

<darobin> ISSUE-13?

<trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- CSS Text is in WD -- raised

<trackbot> [http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/13][60]

fantasai: I think subsetting CSS Text is what you want to do

<darobin> ISSUE-13: do we need word-break as in the tests?

<trackbot> ISSUE-13 CSS Text is in WD notes added

Josh_Soref: Does Ringmark know why it's adding tests for something?

... Can we have an explanation of why things are added?

tobie: I think this is best asked tomorrow morning

... with mattkelly answering

<girlie_mac> word-break is needed for Asian chars, probably?

<Dong-Young> I don't think word-break is needed for Asian chars

### Animations and Transitions

jet: same comments as lbolstad apply for animations

<jo> ISSUE: do we consider 3D in scope under 3.4 Animations?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-22 - Do we consider 3D in scope under 3.4 Animations?
; please complete additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/22/edit][61] .

Robert_Shilston: could people think about how we'd test performance on
animations?

### Scripting

tobie: are we ok w/ ECMAScript 5.1?

### DOM

tobie: are we ok w/ DOM4?

... are we ok w/ Selectors?

jet: Touch Events had a PAG

tobie: I believe the PAG concluded

darobin: those patents were /mocked/

tobie: ... as non-essential

darobin: I'd like to add a section "for each thing that is hardware dependent"

Robert_Shilston: this SHOULD is for hardware-dependence?

[ Yes ]

darobin: you don't want SHOULDs because otherwise you'd need a should for CSS
in case a monochrome couldn't support 'red'

### Storage

DanSun: can we expand storage to include quota management?

<darobin> **ACTION:** Tobie to throw in Quota API [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action19][62]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Throw in Quota API [on Tobie Langel - due
2012-07-02].

Josh_Soref: I believe some browser vendors don't agree with direction
filewriter is going in

... There are several specs evolving in diff directions that not everyone
agrees with

... What are they trying to do, do we need all of them

tobie: Should be trivial to implement on top of IndexedDB

... Would like to pose this as an area where there is no agreement in terms of
what spec is going to do what and what implementers are going to do

jo: Is your suggestion that we should include, or should come back to it when
it becomes clearer?

DanSun: What's the alternate solution?

jo: Let's raise an issue then on including file writer API or an alternate
solution in this spec

<darobin> **ACTION:** Tobie to include FileWriter or an alternative to the
spec [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action20][63]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Include FileWriter or an alternative to the
spec [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].

<darobin> ISSUE: is there an alternative to FileWriter? FileSaver? Something
else?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-23 - Is there an alternative to FileWriter?
FileSaver? Something else? ; please complete additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/23/edit][64] .

Josh_Soref: There are at least 3 APIs running around

tobie: Any other issues with this section?

... Moving to 4.4 Networking

... i.e. XHR

... Opened an issue because there used to be 2 specs, L1 and L2. They're
folded together in the editor's draft

... not reflected in /TR yet

... it's an editing issue

... Question about web sockets

... Not that many use cases for it that have been brought up

... A lot of .. among implementations due to protocol problem

... I still stand that it's great to do demos at this point, but I don't think
there's a compelling use case for mobile apps today

... However if every implementation has it, and agreement on the spec, could
add it. Don't have a strong opinion

wesj: Seemed useful for mobile gaming and multiplayer apps, chat, etc.

<fantasai> **ACTION:** Wesley Jonston to do something useful [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action21][65]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Jonston to do something useful [on Wesley
Johnston - due 2012-07-02].

<darobin> **ACTION:** Wesley to provide use cases for WebSockets [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action22][66]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Provide use cases for WebSockets [on Wesley
Johnston - due 2012-07-02].

vidhya: Notifications used for activity streams etc., I've written code to do
that. Haven't done it with mobile, but you can.

... Whatever you say here, it will be widely supported. Will be de facto
capability

tobie: 2s background on why this is not in the spec

... We were targeting existing browsers, and those don't support websockets

... We picked up features not supported yet

... Some things that are de facto standards didn't make it in

... If there are ubiquitous in near future, then yes should be in the spec

vidhya: It's de facto now

... Think it's much more in gaming. It's only one use case.

jo: interest of time...

tobie: web messaging API and web workers

... I have an issue with webworker mostly because of shared webworkers

... I'm not sure.. I thought there were some issues with implementing shared
workers ~ security

... Not sure there are plans to implement them or not

... Feedback on that would be useful

jo: Noted that Tobie would like feedback on that. Anything else to say on
that?

... Not sure what's the difference between networking and network here, and
can we include online state and network information?

darobin: Network info API? If people want it...

jo: Seems useless to me

tobie: It was in L1 before, but removed from spec

... use cases, other than an app that tells you what your network status is,
better solved by other things

darobin: doesn't even tell you [...]

tobie: there was a Mozilla proposal and another, confusing on which would do
what

... if there was consensus on what to ship, will add. But if not, want use
cases

jo: I asked for use cases and nobody came up with any

Josh_Soref: You can't give something particularly useful on average

... The quality of service I have to one service and to another service might
be totally different.

... We talk in the US about Net Neutrality

... it's relevant to this

... If I'm on a network that's fast, doesn't mean my connection to a
particular service is fast.

... The only way to get a relevant answer is timing your own traffic

DanSun: From ? perspective, in certain perspectives, want to pick network you
want traffic to go out on

Josh_Soref: This API doesn't help at all

darobin: you'd want something at the sysapps level

... currently DAP has dropped what kind of network you're on

... dropped pretty much everything except notion of bandwidth, which is
useless

... and also notion of metered which is also useless

... because roaming might be expensive in e.g. Europe, but cheap in Africa

... Wouldn't include it here, because don't know where it's going

tobie: only use case I've heard is switching to 3G to get location info for
payments

Josh_Soref: That's the use case??!

jfmoy: Not only use case, also about ...

DanSun: What about online state?

darobin: it's in HTML5

Robert_Shilston: That should be deprecated. We should advocate that that be
deprecated.

<darobin> **ACTION:** Shilston to draft a proposal to drop online events from
HTML5 [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action23][67]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Draft a proposal to drop online events from
HTML5 [on Robert Shilston - due 2012-07-02].

Robert_Shilston: HTTP1.1 has proxy-switching features

... that could be used for some of these use cases

<darobin> **ACTION:** Jean-Francois to send a note with the actual real use
cases for Network Information (with help from Dan Sun) [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action24][68]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Send a note with the actual real use cases for
Network Information (with help from Dan Sun) [on Jean-Francois Moy - due
2012-07-02].

tobie: Sensors should be pretty straightforward.

darobin: There are no two browsers that will return the same info for
DeviceOrientation, and none of them matches the spec

DanSun: Can we include the proximity sensor?

Josh_Soref: There's a spec for that in DAP

tobie: what are vendors going to do about that?

...

darobin: it's about not pressing buttons when on a call

tobie: not valid use cases

<darobin> ISSUE: Should we require Proximity Events?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-24 - Should we require Proximity Events? ; please
complete additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/24/edit][69] .

Josh_Soref: I question whether either use cases was used for app as opposed to
runtime/device

### Multimedia

tobie: 2 items: canvas2d API and timing animations API

... quality of implementation issues there

darobin: I would rather not rat hole in the note, deal as part of testing

DanSun: web audio APIs?

darobin: I don't think they have anything that's anywhere near stable enough

Josh_Soref: does any implementer plan to implement it?

DanSun: 2 levels - 1 is prioritizing features for the browsers, another is to
prioritize features for w3c to make a spec

darobin: The web audio WG has as its one and only priority to do this

... reason not more finalized is because it's actually a hard problem. They've
been working reasonably fast, but will take 1-2 years before what they have is
anywhere near ready

... gathering a lot of implementation experience, moving forward, but not
mature enough

... Everything in that spec will change over the next few months and years

DanSun: Contacts and calendar?

tobie: new proposal a day and a half ago, didn't have time to look into it

darobin: Just to be clear, in this case we would not include support for
calendar or ?, because all UA needs to do is support WebIntents

... question is, do we want to include that in L1

tobie: a lot of questions around that spec

... Mozilla shipped proposal just 1.5 weeks ago on web activities

DanSun: ... still think it's super early to include it in there and hope to
have implementations within the timeframe of the spec

fantasai: What is the timeframe for the spec?

tobie: Q4

fantasai: And implementing the spec?

tobie: Q4

<darobin> ISSUE: Should Level 1 include Web Intents?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-25 - Should Level 1 include Web Intents? ; please
complete additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/25/edit][70] .

fantasai: Seems like you might want to revisit some of these, especially ones
that you're including that don't have a spec

...

darobin: For notification vibrations, you don't want vibration API -- that's
for games. For notifications you want the notification API

<darobin> ISSUE-25: use cases include contacts and calendar for instance

<trackbot> ISSUE-25 Should Level 1 include Web Intents? notes added

darobin: that being said, vibration API might be something to consider

tobie: consider implementation state

darobin: in webkit and gecko already, don't know about Opera

tobie: ok, let's open an issue and try to get developer feedback

<darobin> ISSUE: Should we include the Vibration API?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-26 - Should we include the Vibration API? ; please
complete additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/26/edit][71] .

<darobin> ISSUE-26: we should ask developers

<trackbot> ISSUE-26 Should we include the Vibration API? notes added

<darobin> ISSUE: Should Level 1 include SSE?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-27 - Should Level 1 include SSE? ; please complete
additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/27/edit][72] .

tobie: one thing not in there, don't remember why, is event source

darobin to track it

tobie: No comments on this section? Move on to network?

... this is the last section

... if anyone can help me find the OMA mmsto spec, that'd be helpful

jo: I think we need to look at HTTP1.1 in more granularity

Josh_Soref: data is a problem

... there's a number of browsers get things wrong with it

... need testcases

... but can't assume it'll be fixed quickly

jo: HTTP1.1 tests will be hard to write

darobin: but that won't be solved by referencing HTTP1.0

Josh_Soref: reference bis

... and SPDY / HTTP 2

jo: Do we want to mandate the whole of 1.1?

Josh_Soref: I am concerned about testing difficulty of writing tests

tobie: I think that's not a reason to include/exclude a thing that devs need

... whether it's hard to test is orthogonal to whether it's required to build
a certain app

jo: conformance is measured by conformance test suite of referenced spec

... There isn't one here. And a lot of HTTP that isn't necessary here

... I don't want to spend any more of my life on that rfc...

<darobin> **ACTION:** Jo to write something about conforming to HTTP/1.1
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action25][73]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Write something about conforming to HTTP/1.1
[on Jo Rabin - due 2012-07-03].

<Dong-Young> this seems to be mmsto spec: [http://openmobilealliance.org/techn
ical/release_program/docs/uri_schemes/v1_0-20080626-a/oma-ts-uri_schemes-
v1_0-20080626-a.pdf][74]

<darobin> ISSUE: Should the HTTP11 reference go to bis?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-28 - Should the HTTP11 reference go to bis? ; please
complete additional details at
[http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/28/edit][75] .

jo: Let's thank authors of this document for preparing it so that we could
review it

**RESOLUTION: thanks for the authors**

jo: would like to also thank our wonderful scribes for today and look forward
to their scribing for tomorrow

... ditto hosts

**RESOLUTION: thanks to our wonderful scribes, we look forward to more of
their scribing tomorrow**

[http://www.openmobilealliance.org/Technical/release_program/docs/URI_Schemes/
V1_0-20080626-A/OMA-TS-URI_Schemes-V1_0-20080626-A.pdf][76]

**RESOLUTION: many thanks for Facebook for excellent hosting**

[ Meeting closed. ]

## Summary of Action Items

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Jean-Francois to send a note with the actual real use
cases for Network Information (with help from Dan Sun) [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action24][68]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Jo Rabin: Short document on how to get an L0 out and
what it might mean [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action01][27]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** jo to ACTION mattkelly to circulate his research on
types of apps requiring types of features [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action02][29]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** jo to start a discussion on "what is the meaning of
mobile web applications?" [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action03][31]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Jo to write something about conforming to HTTP/1.1
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action25][73]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to ask DAP to push HTML Media Capture to LC
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action07][40]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to come up with some text for ISSUE-20 [recorded
in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action08][42]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to propose priorities for CSS Image Values and
Replaced Content parts, get agreement from CG, send to CSS WG [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action13][50]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to propose priorities for CSS Values parts, get
agreement from CG, send to CSS WG [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25
-coremob-minutes.html#action12][49]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Robin to talk to the HTML WG about fixing/splitting
AppCache [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action06][39]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Shilston to clarify on the wiki that the active L1 spec
document is on github, and describe when things should be discussed on the
wiki and when Github issues are used to further the discussion. [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action04][36]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Shilston to draft a non-normative document with
Implementation Notes about how to load assets depending on MQs that can never
become true (with help from Robin) [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25
-coremob-minutes.html#action15][54]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Shilston to draft a proposal to drop online events from
HTML5 [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action23][67]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to add a conformance section to Level 1 that
explains what it means to say "User agents MUST support Foo [FOO]" [recorded
in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action05][37]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to add CSS-3 selectors to section 3.1 [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action17][56]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** tobie to add subsection numbers. [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action11][48]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to document that we have printing use cases in the
UC&R document [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action10][47]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to include FileWriter or an alternative to the
spec [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action20][63]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to s/full-screen/chromeless/ [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action09][46]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to send use cases about overflow scrolling to www-
style [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-
minutes.html#action14][52]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to split section 3.1 per fantasia's suggestion
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action16][55]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to throw in Quota API [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action19][62]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Tobie to write up an informative note about why Network
Information API does not solve the responsive images issue [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action18][58]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Wesley Jonston to do something useful [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action21][65]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Wesley to provide use cases for WebSockets [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action22][66]]


[End of minutes]

* * *

Minutes formatted by David Booth's [scribe.perl][77] version 1.135 ([CVS
log][78])

$Date: 2009-03-02 03:52:20 $

   [1]: http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home

   [2]: http://www.w3.org/

   [3]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-irc

   [4]: #agenda

   [5]: #item01

   [6]: #item02

   [7]: #item03

   [8]: #item04

   [9]: #item05

   [10]: #item06

   [11]: #item07

   [12]: #item08

   [13]: #item09

   [14]: #item10

   [15]: #item11

   [16]: #item12

   [17]: #item13

   [18]: #item14

   [19]: #item15

   [20]: #item16

   [21]: #item17

   [22]: #item18

   [23]: #item19

   [24]: #item20

   [25]: #item21

   [26]: #ActionSummary

   [27]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action01

   [28]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/Specs/Coremob_Level_1

   [29]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action02

   [30]: http://coremob.github.com/level-1/

   [31]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action03

   [32]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/18/edit

   [33]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/19/edit

   [34]: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc

   [35]: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot

   [36]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action04

   [37]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action05

   [38]: http://jsfiddle.net/v7C4a/

   [39]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action06

   [40]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action07

   [41]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/20/edit

   [42]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action08

   [43]: https://github.com/andreasbovens/understanding-viewport

   [44]: http://tobie.github.com/ORIENTATIONLOCK-UCR/

   [45]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/Overview.html

   [46]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action09

   [47]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action10

   [48]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action11

   [49]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action12

   [50]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action13

   [51]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/11

   [52]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action14

   [53]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10XvzfAOVx2di22xtvs9TXXNH4d3tmDtGg
8XiKScnR7E/edit?pli=1

   [54]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action15

   [55]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action16

   [56]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action17

   [57]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/17

   [58]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action18

   [59]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/21/edit

   [60]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/13

   [61]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/22/edit

   [62]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action19

   [63]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action20

   [64]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/23/edit

   [65]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action21

   [66]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action22

   [67]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action23

   [68]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action24

   [69]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/24/edit

   [70]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/25/edit

   [71]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/26/edit

   [72]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/27/edit

   [73]: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html#action25

   [74]: http://openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/docs/uri_sche
mes/v1_0-20080626-a/oma-ts-uri_schemes-v1_0-20080626-a.pdf

   [75]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/28/edit

   [76]: http://www.openmobilealliance.org/Technical/release_program/docs/URI_
Schemes/V1_0-20080626-A/OMA-TS-URI_Schemes-V1_0-20080626-A.pdf

   [77]: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

   [78]: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/




Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 12:16:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:08 UTC