See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 04 August 2010
SribeNick: Suresh
<fjh> Erica is able to scribe next week, thanks
<dom> ScribeNick: Suresh
<fjh> TPAC registration and information available (F2F after London F2F, 4-5 November )
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-device-apis/2010Jun/0001.html
<fjh> November 4-5 for a F2F
<dom> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/43696/tpac2010dap/
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/43696/tpac2010dap/
Frederick: please register and fill in the questionnarie
<dom> Actual TPAC Registration form
<fjh> The questionnaire is for WG planning, and can be done anytime, and should be done even if you don't plan to attend.
<fjh> The TPAC registration is essential if you plan to attend
<dom> March 2011 F2F in Seoul
<fjh> March F2F, plan for Seoul Korea, http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/43696/seoul-f2f-dates/
<fjh> dom notes hosting is confirmed
<fjh> Media Capture Working Draft published, 20 July - http://www.w3.org/TR/html-media-capture/
<fjh> Richard Tibbett now at Opera, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Aug/0006.html
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/minutes#draft-minutes
<fjh> please review and indicate corrections
fjh: the approval is deferred until Robin is back from vacation
Bryan: Are there minutes available from the privacy workshop?
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2010/07/12-privacy-minutes.html
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2010/07/13-privacy-minutes.html
<tlr> draft minutes
tlr: Summary report will be available soon
<dom> ACTION-210?
<trackbot> ACTION-210 -- Alissa Cooper to summarize and add issues to ruleset doc -- due 2010-07-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/210
fjh: the group needs to make a decision on how to move the ruleset forward
Bryan: we should continue to discuss this - will take some time to flesh it out...UI aspects
<dom> public-privacy@w3.org mailing list
fjh: next step is to wait for ACTION 210..
John: agreed, it needs more discussion
<fjh> privacy plan - outline issues (ACTION-210), propose means to address if possible, then WG decision on next steps
Suresh: Notification API?
<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/features/
<dom> list for discussions around the chartering of a Web Notification WG
fjh: suggest we remove Notifications from Feature draft at this time
<dom> Thread around the need for a URI for geolocation API in widgets
<dom> (I'm not sure if Notifications are very privacy-invasive in general)
<tlr> (+1 on that, just pointing out the general point)
<fjh> Suggest we avoid discussion of where URIs should be defined, currently keep in Features document so we can have text around the topic, and clarity
<dom> Call for Review: Rich Web Client Activity Proposal - Web Notification Working Group (Member-only)
<fjh> Also suggest we limit to APIs in DAP + Geoloc, as a starting point
tlr: FYI, notification work is being planned in a separate working group
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2010JulSep/0013.html (member-confidential link)
<dom> Proposed W3C Charter: Web Notification Working Group (until 2010-08-23) [public announcement]
fjh: re feature, what is our next steps?
dom: we need to be aware that there are exisiting feature classification, and make sure we take them as input for our work
<fjh> dom notes features can be used in various contexts, policy, widget, also potentially checkPermissions proposal, installable applications manifest
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to send notice on features draft to list and ask for help progressing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-dap-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-244 - Send notice on features draft to list and ask for help progressing [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-08-11].
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to provide notice on tpac questionnaire [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-dap-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-245 - Provide notice on tpac questionnaire [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-08-11].
<Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about WAC
fjh: does anyone know anything on how WAC plans to align with DAP's specs?
... back to Policy, if there is any input please provide it to help progress policy work
<fjh> I suggest members of this WG that are involved with WAC to make sure WAC is aware of WG API work and strive toward alignment
<bryan_sullivan> my comment re Web Notification WG proposal, this seems related to work that I lead in OMA and discussions we have had with HTML WG re Server-Sent Events and OMA Push (including SIP Push). I think this would be better handled as a new spec inside Webapps rather than a new group. AT&T would support this work, but joining another group is problematic.
<fjh> ACTION-218?
<trackbot> ACTION-218 -- Paddy Byers to provide proposal for feature architecture text regarding web and widgets cases for feature document -- due 2010-07-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/218
<fjh> ACTION-241?
<trackbot> ACTION-241 -- Frederick Hirsch to review and update policy requirements -- due 2010-07-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/241
<fjh> action-242?
<trackbot> ACTION-242 -- Paddy Byers to review and update policy requirements -- due 2010-07-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/242
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Aug/0005.html
<fjh> ACTION-222?
<trackbot> ACTION-222 -- Thomas -- -- Roessler to review the Messaging -- -- security section -- due 2010-08-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/222
<fjh> tlr notes will do today
<tlr> action-221?
<trackbot> ACTION-221 -- Maria Angeles Oteo to draft a security section for Messaging -- due 2010-07-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/221
fjh: we should publish FPWD
tlr: +1
+1 from Suresh
RESOLUTION: To publish FPWD of Messaging API - 10 Aug 2010
<dom> ACTION: Dom to request approval for FPWD for messaging and prepare publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-dap-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-246 - Request approval for FPWD for messaging and prepare publication [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2010-08-11].
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to send transition request for Message API FPWD publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-dap-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - Send transition request for Message API FPWD publication [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-08-11].
<fjh> ACTION-247 will be done by Dom, reassign
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Aug/0002.html
<fjh> Bryan will work on editorial items, anticipate completion mid-August
<fjh> ISSUE-92?
<trackbot> ISSUE-92 -- Sysinfo, permissions for get vs monitor; -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/92
<fjh> "Should the privacy prompts/indications for operators that are permanent (watch) vs one-shot (get) differ? "
<fjh> ACTION: jmorris to provide a proposal relevant to ISSUE-92, sysinfo privacy prompts for operators get vs watch [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-dap-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-248 - Provide a proposal relevant to ISSUE-92, sysinfo privacy prompts for operators get vs watch [on John Morris - due 2010-08-11].
<dom> (wouldn't monitor be equivalent to get then?)
I see that there are no exceptions for monitor(), should we consider adding exceptions?
<dom> (I suggest sending this as a question to the editors before raising an issue)
<fjh> ISSUE: some properties of sysinfo are static so monitor might not make sense
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-96 - Some properties of sysinfo are static so monitor might not make sense ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/96/edit .
<fjh> action-203?
<trackbot> ACTION-203 -- Bryan Sullivan to add proposal from John Morris re buckets to sysinfo, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0322.html -- due 2010-07-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/203
Suresh to send a note to the list re ISSUE-96
<fjh> action-211?
<trackbot> ACTION-211 -- Alissa Cooper to make proposal on list for sysinfo privacy section -- due 2010-07-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/211
<fjh> action-212?
<trackbot> ACTION-212 -- Bryan Sullivan to incorporate proposal from ACTION-211 into SysInfo draft -- due 2010-07-21 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/212
<fjh> action-211 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-211 Make proposal on list for sysinfo privacy section closed
<fjh> action-212 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-212 Incorporate proposal from ACTION-211 into SysInfo draft closed
<dom> (I think that's done; but Alissa will review it as part of ACTION-210)
<richt> correct. will review sysinfo after the edits
<fjh> Expect that ACTION-213 and ACTION-243 will be done after edits complete, Bryan please notify the WG when complete
<fjh> assume also for ACTION-214
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Aug/0007.html (richard)
<fjh> Richard plans to update over the next two weeks
<fjh> ACTION-215?
<trackbot> ACTION-215 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to write up issues with write/delete access for Contacts APIs -- due 2010-07-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/215
tlr: coordination between OMA CAB and IETF vCard
<fjh> tlr link on vcard4, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jul/0142.html
<dom> Write-access difficulties (for contacts and other APIs) — for ACTION-215
tlr: OMA initial response was to have W3C align with OMA work
... we need to get IETF people involved as well
<richt> Agree with fjh. We will need another working draft for Contacts API and Contacts Writer API in the very near future, which was mentioned before and during the f2f.
<fjh> suggest we publish another WD in mid-August of Contacts without delay, then allow review of other materials etc. Need to think about when Last Call might happen
Bryan: I can facilitate the information from OMA CAB
<richt> I'd like to set a schedule for Last Call for Contacts.
<fjh> me too
<fjh> sounds to me that we risk a large delay in reaching DAP Contacts last call, given various other parties
<richt> ...and last call sooner rather than later, with inputs from vcard, oma and any other external groups before that time. (1 or 2 months from now?)
<fjh> suresh notes that OMA might provide an official liaison to DAP
<fjh> suresh notes that OMA schema is much more detailed, closer to vcard than DAP contacts
<richt> I'd like input from OMA, vcard on the public mailing list and propose to set the schedule for last call in one month.
<dom> +1 on intermediate draft showing removal of write access
tlr: based on the discussion, I would support publishling a ordinary public draft
<fjh> plan to publish WD when current round of edits is done, then review convergence and plan schedule for Last Call
<bryan_sullivan> Link to the OMA CAB address book schema spec: http://member.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/COM/COM-CAB/Permanent_documents/OMA-SUP-XSD_cab_address_book-V1_0-20100309-D.zip
<Zakim> richt, you wanted to ask whether we are just publishing Contacts API working draft (not writer api)?
<tlr> bryan, is the spec relating to this XSD available?
<tlr> in fact...
<fjh> richard asks whether we want to publish writer at same time as contacts, so material is lost
<tlr> that xsd defines an element <address-book> and doesn't say anything about the data model
that's right, the schema is still TBD
<dom> (I'm not sure about publishing contacts writer, but I wouldn't object to it)
i will try to send the link to the actual spec or maybe better to have it through the OMA liaison
<tlr> suresh, thanks
<fjh> ACTION-215?
<trackbot> ACTION-215 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to write up issues with write/delete access for Contacts APIs -- due 2010-07-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/215
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jul/0112.html
<scribe> ACTION: Suresh to review OMA CAB, vCard work and provide a summary on how we may progress [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-dap-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-249 - Review OMA CAB, vCard work and provide a summary on how we may progress [on Suresh Chitturi - due 2010-08-11].
<bryan_sullivan> Further link to the spec which describes the CAB address book schema as an object accessible via an OMA XML Document Management Service (XDMS): http://member.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/COM/COM-CAB/Permanent_documents/OMA-TS-CAB_XDMS-V1_0-20100722-D.zip
<fjh> ACTION: richard add issue to contact writer corresponding to Dom's email for ACTION-215, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jul/0112.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-dap-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-250 - Add issue to contact writer corresponding to Dom's email for ACTION-215, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jul/0112.html [on Richard Tibbett - due 2010-08-11].
<dom> ACTION-230?
<trackbot> ACTION-230 -- Wojciech Maslowski to specify "add to calendar" based on ICS-objects opening -- due 2010-08-05 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/230
<fjh> ISSUE: Write-access difficulties (in contacts and other APIs), see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jul/0112.html
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-97 - Write-access difficulties (in contacts and other APIs), see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jul/0112.html ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/97/edit .
<dom> (regarding contacts, there was also discussion around <input type="contacts"/>)
<dom> ACTION-224?
<trackbot> ACTION-224 -- Wojciech Maslowski to look into <input type="contacts"> options for contacts API -- due 2010-08-05 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/224
fjh: the plan is to publish a read-only draft in mid-August after edits, and FPWD of contact writer later
<richt> correct, dom, but nothing much to say on that on this call :-(
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jul/0142.html
<fjh> calConnect, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jul/0143.html
<fjh> OASIS WS-Calendaring
tlr: no active work in IETF re calendar
<fjh> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ws-calendar
the open question is how can we be compatible with other calender services over the wire
<fjh> tlr notes will need use cases for lunisolar calendars and help on working on that if needed
<fjh> ACTION-227?
<trackbot> ACTION-227 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to compare iCalendar recurrence model with current Calendar API -- due 2010-07-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/227
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jul/0115.html
+1 to work on the gregorian for the moment
<richt> we have a way forward now on Calendar with the resolution to continue with what we have now (smaller scope than lunisolar support)...
<richt> ...and having a TimezonedDate proposal that is nearly complete
dom: we need to take a look at my comments...
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Aug/0004.html
<richt> dom, we do need to address your comments on Calendar Recurrence rules. Will do that on the mailing list.
<fjh> "how do we properly reference
<fjh> external IDLs (after we moved e.g. FormatData into external spec
<fjh> HTMLMEDIACAPTURE)?"
<dom> (I'll respond to him on the list)
<fjh> ACTION-235?
<trackbot> ACTION-235 -- Ingmar Kliche to polish Media Capture -- due 2010-07-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/235
<richt> RE: referencing external widls. perhaps we should be defining modules as in the WebIDL spec. AFAICS, modules can be referenced across specs like ::module1::submodule1 (etc)
<fjh> ACTION-210 stays open
<fjh> ACTION-211?
<trackbot> ACTION-211 -- Alissa Cooper to make proposal on list for sysinfo privacy section -- due 2010-07-21 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/211
<fjh> ACTION-213, ACTION-243, ACTION-214 open, await update of Sysinfo before review
<fjh> ACTION-216?
<trackbot> ACTION-216 -- WonSuk Lee to reformulate gallery API to look like contacts API -- due 2010-07-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/216
<fjh> ACTION-218?
<trackbot> ACTION-218 -- Paddy Byers to provide proposal for feature architecture text regarding web and widgets cases for feature document -- due 2010-07-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/218
<fjh> ACTION-222?
<trackbot> ACTION-222 -- Thomas Roessler to review the Messaging security section -- due 2010-08-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/222
<fjh> today
<fjh> ACTION-238?
<trackbot> ACTION-238 -- Bryan Sullivan to inform OMA groups of our status -- due 2010-07-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/238
<fjh> Bryan will provide an update
<fjh> ISSUE-92?
<trackbot> ISSUE-92 -- Sysinfo, permissions for get vs monitor; -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/92
<fjh> ISSUE-78?
<trackbot> ISSUE-78 -- Capture has a minimisation problem with EXIF data (e.g. it could be Geotagged) -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/78
<dom> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-html-media-capture-20100720/#security has text around it
<fjh> ISSUE-78: http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-html-media-capture-20100720/#security has text around it
<trackbot> ISSUE-78 Capture has a minimisation problem with EXIF data (e.g. it could be Geotagged) notes added
<dom> "For instance, embedding the user's location in a captured media metadata (e.g. EXIF) might transmit more private data than the user might be expecting"
<dom> "Implementations must not embed information in the EXIF header which could be used for non-intended purposes (such as geolocation or device id). " http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/Overview-API.html#security
<fjh> ISSUE-78: draft security text is "For instance, embedding the user's location in a captured media metadata (e.g. EXIF) might transmit more private data than the user might be expecting"
<trackbot> ISSUE-78 Capture has a minimisation problem with EXIF data (e.g. it could be Geotagged) notes added
jmorris: perhaps a description in the privacy/security may help
<fjh> ACTION: jmorris to review privacy text related to ISSUE-78 for capture [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-dap-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-251 - Review privacy text related to ISSUE-78 for capture [on John Morris - due 2010-08-11].
<fjh> action251: "Implementations must not embed information in the EXIF header which could be used for non-intended purposes (such as geolocation or device id). " http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/Overview-API.html#security
<dom> ACTION-251: review both in html-media-capture and media-capture-api (current texts differ)
<trackbot> ACTION-251 Review privacy text related to ISSUE-78 for capture notes added
<dom> action-251: "Implementations must not embed information in the EXIF header which could be used for non-intended purposes (such as geolocation or device id). " http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/Overview-API.html#security
<trackbot> ACTION-251 Review privacy text related to ISSUE-78 for capture notes added
<dom> ACTION-251: draft Capture security text is "For instance, embedding the user's location in a captured media metadata (e.g. EXIF) might transmit more private data than the user might be expecting"
<trackbot> ACTION-251 Review privacy text related to ISSUE-78 for capture notes added
<fjh> ACTION-251: draft Capture security text is "For instance, embedding the user’s location in a captured media metadata (e.g. EXIF) might transmit more private data than the user might be expecting"
<trackbot> ACTION-251 Review privacy text related to ISSUE-78 for capture notes added
<fjh> ISSUE-36?
<trackbot> ISSUE-36 -- How far can we go with domain based trust model given constraints of HTML5 security model -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/36
<dom> (this was raised back in November 2009 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Nov/att-0017/minutes-2009-11-02.html#item04 )
<fjh> bryan notes how do you determine the origin, for browser clear, for widget less clear, interaction of models
<fjh> ISSUE-26?
<trackbot> ISSUE-26 -- How to refer to API -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/26
<fjh> ISSUE-26: WG agrees to use URIs for features to refer to APIs
<trackbot> ISSUE-26 How to refer to API notes added
dom: with features we can close issue 26
<fjh> ISSUE-26 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-26 How to refer to API closed
<dom> ISSUE-26: http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/features/ API features draft
<trackbot> ISSUE-26 How to refer to API notes added
<fjh> Bryan notes that need positive statements to enable testability
Bryan: re EXIF minimization problem, we could say that the implemention should expose "these" data as opposed to "only these"
tlr: not comfortable controlling what gets exposed or not...and support jmorris idea of describing privacy related text
Bryan: it was only a suggestion, was just tyring to say how to make it a useful requirement
<dom> regrets from me for next week