See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 24 August 2011
<bryan_sullivan> Bryan
<fjh> ScribeNick: richt
fjh: Announcement on creation of the AR community interest group
... ....on the mailing list
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0037.html
<fjh> also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0040.html
fjh: ongoing discussion with the relationship between WebRTC/DAP. Agenda item on todays call.
... Mozilla WebAPI announced on the list by Dom, should look at this
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0051.html
fjh: Any other announcements?
<no announcements>
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/att-0026/minutes-2011-08-17.html
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 17 August 2011 are approved
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 17 August 2011 are approved
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0042.html
fjh: New charter announced. Dom sent out email to list.
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2011/07/DeviceAPICharter.html
dom: Other potential participants want to have seperate mailing lists for different topics
... We've also added Device Discovery in the charter. This might grow to more than DAP can manage...
... depending on how that goes we might create a seperate working group to tackle that.
... in the mean time DAP will work on this topic.
... Second part: since there are new deliverables all the participants need to rejoin the group.
<dom> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/43696/join
dom: Please make sure your AC representative goes through that process for you. In 40 days you will otherwise be automatically removed from the list.
... Officially we are now the "Device APIs Working Group".
<dom> https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/43696/status
<dom> https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=43696
dom: link above shows who has rejoined the group to date.
<dom> if you're on that page, https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/43696/discrepancies you need to take action
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0032.html
darobin: do we need to maintain list between priority list and the others?
dom: does the separation between prio/non-prio make sense
fjh: I think it seems helpful
<AnssiK> [the last updated is an indication of priority]
darobin: priorities may be flexible.
fjh: we can adjust as we go.
<AnssiK> darobin: cannot it be automated?
<AnssiK> dom: or make it dynamic even!
ACTION Frederick to update the home page with priority/work-on specs.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-447 - Update the home page with priority/work-on specs. [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2011-08-31].
<dom> AnssiK, it's partly automated already (i.e. it gets updated each time someone makes a commit to an editors draft)
<AnssiK> dom, that's cool!
fjh: Some discussion on WebRTC list on the relationship of that group with DAP.
... ...wondering whether we should discontinue the Media Capture API specification
dom: One thing that is confusing is our stance on the Media Capture API.
... ...from the WebRTC chairs I understand that an API like the Media Capture API would be of interest
... ...we had a prototype from Microsoft on this API.
... ...so there's still interest but we don't have any active editors on it right now.
... ...we do need to clarify our plans for that spec.
... ...and whether WebRTC should pick it up
<darobin> [yes, it's an update to that previous discussion]
<darobin> [or a continuation]
I sent an email in June discussing the work of DAP to the WebRTC mailing list
dom: this is a coordination issue
fjh: so we need a discussion on the list to see where we go with this.
bryan_sullivan: Does WebRTC consider a capture API within their scope?
dom: they have more difficult things to deal with.
<fjh> DAP WG needs to determine how it plans to progress Media Capture (or not)
<fjh> richt mentions some of this is covered by a WHATWG proposal
dom: I think it's possible to use WebRTC to do the media capture api but it comes with its own problems.
... e.g. you need to grant access to stream even if it's just taking a picture
... ...it's also more costly on device resources
<darobin> [you'll get really crap quality compared to a real sensor used properly too]
richt: Is this about opening the native controls?
dom: yes, it could be used like that.
... I'll send an email to the DAP list to see if we can clarify this further.
<AnssiK> for the record, here's MS's proposal to extend Capture API: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Mar/att-0001/microsoft-api-draft-final.html#capture_api_extensions
dom: ...whether anyone wants to take editorial ownership.
fjh: Anssi made some changes recently.
<AnssiK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0030.html
AnssiK: I tried to incorporate all the changes discussed on the list
<fjh> ISSUE-113?
<trackbot> ISSUE-113 -- AddEventListener in Battery Status has side effects -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/113
<AnssiK goes through feedback email>
<fjh> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0030.html
ISSUE-114?
<trackbot> ISSUE-114 -- Battery spec should note relative ordering of battery low versus battery critical in terms of criticality -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/114
ISSUE-115?
<trackbot> ISSUE-115 -- Do you get the batterylow event when you're charging and cross that boundary? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/115
<fjh> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0050.html
ACTION-426?
<trackbot> ACTION-426 -- Robin Berjon to draft the proposed design of getting rid of battery{low,critical} and adding a field that indicates state=ok/low/critical -- due 2011-07-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/426
<AnssiK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0056.html
<darobin> [scribe pauses while details from the email are being exposed]
AnssiK: Would like some review and know if everyone agrees with these changes / they address the concerns raised on the mailing list.
<fjh> All, please review specification and comment on list, or note agreement
AnssiK: Please go to the latest editors draft to view the changes.
<dom> +1 on great work!
<darobin> [I'll provide review; thanks a lot for the work]
AnssiK: We can always revert if there are objections
fjh: Thanks a lot for your work AnssiK
... Not in a position to do anything on this call but we'll review on the list.
fjh: lgombos, you here?
... lgombos is not here.
<fjh> ACTION-436?
<trackbot> ACTION-436 -- WonSuk Lee to provide an example for Permissions -- due 2011-07-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/436
<fjh> close ACTION-436
<trackbot> ACTION-436 Provide an example for Permissions closed
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Aug/0036.html
fjh: took an action to review the issues and respond to them
... some of these issues really belong to the service provider not the UA
... A couple of those issues could therefore be closed.
fjh: Some activity on other APIs e.g. Contacts. darobin, you want to discuss now or next call?
darobin: just catching up after vacation. maybe next call unless you have specific topics to bring up
fjh: let's regroup on other APIs next week
fjh: Remember to remind your AC rep to add you back to the list.
... Any other business?
<nope>
dom: Do we want to touch on WebAPI in this call quickly?
fjh: Just that we want to look in to it more I guess
<darobin> [and B2G]
dom: Announcement from Mozilla that they will develop APIs to Device features.
<AnssiK> [do we have any Moz people in this WG yet?]
dom: We should know more about their plans for bringing this to W3C standardization in the coming days/weeks
... not much more to share on this right now though
fjh: would be good to have them join but no further information just yet.
<AnssiK> darobin: would be great to get them onboard
fjh: That's it for this weeks call.
... Thank you.
Meeting adjourned