Re: Advisory Committee Presentation

This isn't for the management report, but is a list of topics that could 
be taken up in the future so I thought I may as well post them here.


*depth per pixel as a capability in getUserMedia for video

* exploration of how to permit features, not normally allowed, when user 
has relationship with a site (trusted site or know who you are).  
related - figure out how to know when fingerprinting is not an issue 
because there is a relationship

* way to access hw capabilities that there isn't a standard for.  e.g 
discovery of local services on the device and 2 directional message 
passing provided by the Browser between Web Page JavaScript and  
service.  addresses the long lag between hardware availability and 
standards to expose hw.  native code often has it long before.  this 
would let it use those capabilities by accessing services supplied in 
native code with message passing provided by the Browser.

* being able to run a webworker outside the browser, with message 
passing provided by the browser e.g 1) use a trusted environment; or 2) 
run JavaScript while browser isn't running; or 3) run JavaScript on a 
low power processor.  Provide a means for this out of browser script to 
start up the page it is working with if the Browser isn't running.  also 
perhaps some minimal UI this remote worker could optionally provide for 
minimal interaction with the user outside the Browser - like to tell it 
whether to launch the web page.

* using alternate displays, e.g. display part of the page on a nearby TV


On 6/10/2013 6:16 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was presenting today my summary of our discussions in this task force
> so far to the W3C Advisory Committee (AC), with the double goal of
> informing the AC about the status of our work and getting their input on
> it.
>
> The slides I used to accompany that presentation are available at:
> http://www.w3.org/2013/Talks/dhm-closingthegap/#%281%29
>
> Given the relative lack of answer to my previous message, I took some
> liberties in the presenting the outcome of the task force, while leaving
> plenty of room for us to assess the priorities we want to recommend for
> adoption by the W3C management in July.
>
> Overall, the presentation triggered quite a bit of discussion (which I
> think is a good sign of the importance of the topic), and in general,
> positive feedback on the topics we've raised and the approaches we've
> pursued.
>
> Among the salient points from that feedback:
> * getting off-line right is clearly very high priority, possibly the
> most important one
>
> * the landscape document (which to me is the natural evolution of what
> Scott started) is an important piece in setting up the scene, agreeing
> on a common terminology, and defining the parameters that define the
> continuum of Web apps types, but a continuum that should probably extend
> up to native apps; an interesting point that emerged from this was that
> while it probably doesn't make sense to divide the world between what
> Web apps are for and native apps are for, defining the space in this
> continuum where Web apps are the most likely to gain traction is a good
> way to define our priorities
>
> * relying on the beacon API for deferred uploads is a big faith leap
>
> * the common focus of the Technical Architecture Group (TAG) and our
> work on easing developers input is a good sign to me
>
> Philippe Le Hégaret, who was in charge of the headlight task force
> focusing on performance, also shared the results of their work in slides
> that are also publicly available:
> http://www.w3.org/2013/Talks/0610-performance/
> Given the potential proximity and overlap with our work, I thought I
> would also mention them.
>
> As always, further input and feedback would be great; once I'm back from
> travel (or before that if I find the time), I'll try to gather our focus
> one more time to prioritize our list of ideas in preparation for the W3C
> management meeting in July.
>
> Thanks all for your input so far; be sure that your work was highly
> valued by participants to the meeting (at least in so far as I
> represented it well enough)!
>
> Dom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>