See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 06 April 2011
<richt> fjh, I seem to have a scheduling issue and may not be able to make the call today.
<fjh> ScribeNick: lgombos
<fjh> June/July DAP F2F questionnaire, conclude this week: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/43696/juljun-f2f/
<fjh> fyi, HTML 5 license, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Mar/0152.html
<fjh> WebApps testing, request for feedback, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Mar/0147.html
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Mar/att-0138/minutes-2011-03-30.html
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 30 March 2011 are approved
<fjh> updated charter from Dom , http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Apr/0011.html
<fjh> discussion, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Apr/0026.html
<fjh> all please review draft charter and send comments on the list
fjh: focus on deliverables for the draft charter review
dom: regarding sysinfo - concrete api for battery and network, discussion ongoing for other sensors (generic vs. specific apis)
<Suresh> I think we agreed to also have a generic API for static properties
<dom> ACTION-361?
<trackbot> ACTION-361 -- Bryan Sullivan to provide use cases for device characteristics access -- due 2011-03-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/361
<fjh> Dom noted that we do not necessarily have agreement on a generic API for static properties but are looking for use cases
Claes: Is it ia requirement to have a draft to include APIs in the charter ?
<fjh> we need to be clear on scope and intent of deliverables
dom: not a requirement, but good to have a draft/proposal
<fjh> ACTION-343?
<trackbot> ACTION-343 -- Richard Tibbett to propose better wording for System information and events api in new charter -- due 2011-03-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/343
<fjh> ACTION-344?
<trackbot> ACTION-344 -- Frederick Hirsch to propose concrete text for privacy and feature permission for draft charter -- due 2011-03-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/344
Suresh: Use cases for static properties were screen and input charactersitcis of the device
dom: some of these are already available in CSS3
<fjh> HTML Media Capture
dom: update sent to the spec
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Apr/0013.html
dom: looking for feedback
<fjh> need feedback on questions noted in this message, and draft
<darobin> +1 for quick publish
<fjh> please review will plan to agree to publish next way
<fjh> Message draft based on alternative URI based approach
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Apr/0015.html
<fjh> Maria no longer editing Messaging, request for new editor
<fjh> updated Messaging draft -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Apr/0028.html
<fjh> "major weakness of that new approach is that it doesn't
<fjh> allow for feature detection per protocol"
<Suresh> Would the previous draft also made available along with this draft? I think we agreed so?
dom: proposal publish as is, highlight the problem
<darobin> +1 to publish
<fjh> previous version available in TR space -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-messaging-api-20110120/
<fjh> suggest including link to previous alternative version in SOTD of draft
<fjh> decision, wait a week for feedback, then pubiish WD next week
dom: proposal: wait 1 week and then publish
<fjh> Contacts
<darobin> ACTION-271?
<trackbot> ACTION-271 -- Robin Berjon to figure out the event loop stuff for contacts -- due 2011-03-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/271
<fjh> ACTION-522?
<trackbot> ACTION-522 does not exist
<darobin> close ACTION-271
<trackbot> ACTION-271 Figure out the event loop stuff for contacts closed
<fjh> Robin noted that he is editing Contacts for editorial cleanup, completed ACTION-271, discussed with Rich. Additional edits from Rich coming then can be published.
<fjh> Calendar
dom: added a note about the known issue re timezone..
<darobin> http://www.w3.org/mid/74604A2C-5DEA-46DC-B38E-4E80B26A7582@berjon.com
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to publish Calendar [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-dap-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-378 - Publish Calendar [on Robin Berjon - due 2011-04-13].
RESOLUTION: Publish FPWD of Calendar specification
<fjh> API Requirements note
<fjh> ACTION-281?
<trackbot> ACTION-281 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to take a stab at updating the API Requirements documents -- due 2011-05-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/281
<fjh> initial editors draft, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Apr/0004.html
<AnssiK> var handler = function (event) {
<AnssiK> console.log(event.level);
<AnssiK> window.removeEventListener('batterystatus', handler, true);
<AnssiK> }
<AnssiK> window.addEventListener('batterystatus', handler, true);
<AnssiK> the above example is a refined one-shot usage example
<AnssiK> to address Suresh concern re one-shot API behavior
<fjh> +1 to early publication
darobin: any reason not to publish this soon ?
<AnssiK> I don't see the benefit in exposing the battery status via navigator
<AnssiK> a new DOM event type should be enough
AnssiK: no specific objections
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Publish FPWD of Battery Status Event Spec
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to publish Battery Status [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-dap-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-379 - Publish Battery Status [on Robin Berjon - due 2011-04-13].
RESOLUTION: Publish FPWD of Battery Status Event Spec
<Dzung_Tran> I want to make sure we address all the questions on the email thread before publish
<fjh> Publication will be after outstanding comments addressed in draft
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to CfC Battery Status [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-dap-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-380 - CfC Battery Status [on Robin Berjon - due 2011-04-13].
<AnssiK> darobin: sure, will send note to list when edits complete
<fjh> Anssi will note on list when edits complete, then Robin will send CfC, will publish next week
<Suresh> The event model is good but a light weight model mkaes sense as well without the dependency on the event model for simple use cases
<fjh> ACTION-294?
<trackbot> ACTION-294 -- Richard Tibbett to create an editors draft for new proposed network connection API -- due 2010-11-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/294
<dom> Suresh's proposal for Network API
<darobin> the draft
<fjh> suresh: comments re multiple connections, not much support due to added complexity
<fjh> close ACTION-294
<trackbot> ACTION-294 Create an editors draft for new proposed network connection API closed
Suresh: we could consider roaming info
<Zakim> darobin, you wanted to talk about ConnectionChange event
darobin: Should there be an event if connection changed ?
<dom> +1 on specifying it in there
dom: triggering online event on ConnectionChange is what is done in the Android implementation
darobin: Spec should be specific on this
lgombos: would the event fire from going from 2G to 3G ?
<dom> yes
fjh: next step is to update the spec with the eventing mechanism
<dom> Suresh, http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/offline.html#event-online is the place where the online event is defined
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to send a CfC for Network when Suresh is done integrating the edits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-dap-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-381 - Send a CfC for Network when Suresh is done integrating the edits [on Robin Berjon - due 2011-04-13].
TOPIC Action reviews
<darobin> ACTION-251?
<trackbot> ACTION-251 -- John Morris to review privacy text related to ISSUE-78 for capture -- due 2010-10-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/251
<darobin> ACTION-307?
<trackbot> ACTION-307 -- Richard Tibbett to send email to list with resolutions for open issues against contacts, clarifying status -- due 2010-11-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/307
<darobin> ACTION-330?
<trackbot> ACTION-330 -- John Morris to review SysInfo privacy considerations section, and ISSUE-64 on "generic" -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/330
<darobin> ACTION-323?
<trackbot> ACTION-323 -- Bryan Sullivan to update sysinfo related to power discussion -- due 2011-01-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/323
<darobin> ACTION-339?
<trackbot> ACTION-339 -- Laszlo Gombos to go through existing DAP APIs to see if there are use cases there for Feat Perms (or if the existing approaches work better) -- due 2011-02-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/339
<fjh> ISSUE-101?
<trackbot> ISSUE-101 -- Should we define a default audio (video?) codec for capture? if so, which? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/101
<fjh> ISSUE-101: discussed at F2F, agreed to not specify codec in DAP
<trackbot> ISSUE-101 Should we define a default audio (video?) codec for capture? if so, which? notes added
<fjh> close ISSUE-101
<trackbot> ISSUE-101 Should we define a default audio (video?) codec for capture? if so, which? closed