Device APIs and Policy Working Group Teleconference -- 09 Feb 2011

<trackbot> Date: 09 February 2011

Administrative

<fjh> Will also include last week's agenda, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Feb/0002.html

<dom> [our charter says "To be successful, this Working Group is expected to have 10 or more active participants for its duration, and to have the participation of the industry leaders in fields relevant to the specifications it produces. "]

<darobin> can we close down and declare victory?

<manyoung> I think so

<fjh> Seoul F2F and workshop planning

<fjh> please complete registration page, http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/43696/seoul-f2f-reg/

<fjh> UK/French dial in access; calling zakim via voip, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-device-apis/2011Feb/0000.html

<fjh> Messaging API draft update published, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-messaging-api-20110120/

<fjh> Web Introducer prototype update, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Jan/0096.html (Claes)

<darobin> Scribe: Laszlo

<darobin> ScribeNick: lgombos

<fjh> TAG on minimization

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda.html#apis (Draft TAG minimization draft)

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0059.html (comment, Frederick)

<fjh> implementer feedback? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Feb/0020.html

<fjh> "Mobile Develop for Privacy Challenge"

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0067.html

Minutes Approval

<fjh> Approve 2 February minutes

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Feb/att-0037/minutes-2011-02-02.html

RESOLUTION: Minutes from 2 February 2011 approved.

Contacts

<fjh> Draft updated, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Jan/0091.html

<fjh> clarification of non-supported field vs empty array, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Feb/0027.html

<fjh> variety of scripting approaches to contact interface invocation, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Feb/0018.html

richt: Feedback collected from list, will put in the spec in the next few days

fjh: timeframe ?

<dom> AFAIK, the obstacles to Last Call are utcOffset issue (ISSUE-106), and defining PendingOp (in Core device or elsewhere)

<dom> ISSUE-106?

<trackbot> ISSUE-106 -- Does Contacts API having a timezone field make sense, should it be utfOffset or utcOffset and tz to better match vCard? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/106

<fjh> plan to publish updated public working draft soon?

<Zakim> AnssiK, you wanted to ask about ContactName.formatted and ContactAddress.formatted

AnssiK: what is formatted fields are for ?

richt: get the full contact in a single string

<fjh> Using agenda from last week at this point - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Feb/0002.html .

<fjh> ISSUE-106?

<trackbot> ISSUE-106 -- Does Contacts API having a timezone field make sense, should it be utfOffset or utcOffset and tz to better match vCard? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/106

<Zakim> dom, you wanted to respond

<fjh> using terms family name, given is clearer that first last, internationally?

<dom> dom: formattedName allows to take into account that depending on countries you would address someone with "familyName givenName" and not with "givenName familyName"

<dom> ... so doesn't duplicate info, adds an additional bit, important I18N-wise

<richt> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/contacts/#search-cardinality

<dom> [I wonder how we're planning to make progress on ISSUE-106: any volunteer to draft a proposal to resolve that issue?]

<darobin> [right, I'd like people to take actions and go do them :)]

<darobin> [and if that includes someone other than I doing PendingOp, it's even nicer]

<dom> ACTION: Richard to draft a proposal for utcOffset based on mailing list feedback (re ISSUE-106) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-dap-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-333 - Draft a proposal for utcOffset based on mailing list feedback (re ISSUE-106) [on Richard Tibbett - due 2011-02-16].

<fjh> ACTION: richt to propose resolution for ISSUE-106 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-dap-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-334 - Propose resolution for ISSUE-106 [on Richard Tibbett - due 2011-02-16].

<dom> ACTION-334: dup of ACTION-333

<trackbot> ACTION-334 Propose resolution for ISSUE-106 notes added

<dom> close ACTION-334

<trackbot> ACTION-334 Propose resolution for ISSUE-106 closed

<Zakim> AnssiK, you wanted to comment on Search Qualifiers: when zero-length, returns nothing or array of empty objects (having length of matched objects)? and to

<fjh> anssi asks about extended properties

AnssiK: what is the difference between MUST and SHOULD

richt: we can try MUST
... SHOULD is just a guideline, MUST would be better

<AnssiK> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/contacts/#extended-contact-properties-and-parameters

AnssiK: what about other DAP specs ?

<fjh> ISSUE: should Contacts API have MUST instead of SHOULD for extended attributes, is this a general issue for all specs?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-108 - Should Contacts API have MUST instead of SHOULD for extended attributes, is this a general issue for all specs? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/108/edit .

<fjh> laszlo notes Optionally can extend spec, but if you do you must do it a certain way

<fjh> +1 to that approach

<dom> [I suggest using the same approach/wording other specs do this, e.g. the CSS specs]

<darobin> +1 to using the same wording as elsewhere

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Jan/0106.html

<Zakim> darobin, you wanted to PendingOp

darobin: We do not have a device and servcie object spec
... what about navigator.contacts instead of navigator.service.contact ?

richt: finds cool that one could cancel a pending op

darobin: could be confusing of a picker is cancelled/discarded programatically

lgombos: PendingOp only usefull if HW resources are involved

RESOLUTION: remove PendingOp from Contacts

<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: remove PendingOp from Contacts