W3C

Device APIs and Policy Working Group Teleconference

23 Feb 2011

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Frederick_Hirsch, jerome_giraud, Dominique_Hazael-Massieux, Kyung-Tak_Lee, Anssi_Kostiainen, Harald_alvestrand, John_Morris, Suresh_Chitturi, Dzung_Tran, Cathy_Chan, bryan_sullivan
Regrets
Robin_Berjon, Maria_Oteo, Claes_Nilsson
Chair
Frederick_Hirsch
Scribe
Suresh

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 23 February 2011

<scribe> ScribeNick: Suresh

Seoul F2F and workshop planning

<fjh> Seoul F2F , please complete registration page, http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/43696/seoul-f2f-reg/

fjh: what about dial-in?

Dom: Will look into to it

<fjh> ACTION: dom to reserve zakim line for f2f [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-dap-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-341 - Reserve zakim line for f2f [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2011-03-02].

<dom> ACTION: Dom to reserve zakim bridge for DAP F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-dap-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-342 - Reserve zakim bridge for DAP F2F [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2011-03-02].

<dom> close ACTION-342

<trackbot> ACTION-342 Reserve zakim bridge for DAP F2F closed

<fjh> http://www.w3.or.kr/DAP2011/

workshop planning: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Feb/0099.html

Subsequent F2F planning

fjh: F2F after Seoul will be possibly June or July. We were planning on Europe, but need a host. If you can offer please let us know.

Minutes approval

<fjh> Approve 16 February minutes

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Feb/att-0097/minutes-2011-02-16.html

RESOLUTION: Minutes from 16 February 2011 approved

<dom> fjh: we need hosting offers in Europe for our next F2F, in June/July timeframe

Rechartering

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/DeviceAPICharter.html

<fjh> Privacy, security deliverables?

fjh: reminder to everyone to provide comments to the charter

System Information

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Feb/0091.html

<fjh> how should this be chartered?

<dom> +1 on need to rework sysinfo

richt: the feedback is that is not ideal for implementers

<dom> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/DeviceAPICharter.html

richt: it needs to be simpler than the current model

<fjh> richt: need clarity that won't deliver specification as is, but simpler approach, in charter

dom: sys info needs to more work e.g. define how network information is made available

<fjh> richt: not able to edit, would need an editor for a new spec

Suresh: It is not clear what needs to be changed, is it the set of the properties or the model

richt: it is deep, and more complex...probably making it small for easy implementations

Suresh: one way is to cut down the properties that are non-controversial such as battery, codecs, etc..

<fjh> summary - rather than create a framework for all possibilities, start with simpler spec for specific purposes, then grow as needed

<fjh> this approach makes privacy concern easier

<dom> ACTION: Richard to propose better wording for System information and events api [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-dap-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-343 - Propose better wording for System information and events api [on Richard Tibbett - due 2011-03-02].

<fjh> should the charter be more specific than "System Information"

Suresh: we need to be explicit if we believe something should not be in scope, but not sure if we should be too specific on the supported properties

Bryan: not against generic property access

<fjh> bryan agrees that if change in approach should have different new spec with different name

fjh: should we have a new spec instead of the current spec, to be clear on scope etc?

Messaging

Other API status

Suresh: We had the timezone issue?

<dom> ACTION-333?

<trackbot> ACTION-333 -- Richard Tibbett to draft a proposal for utcOffset based on mailing list feedback (re ISSUE-106) -- due 2011-02-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/333

Richt: prefer to talk about it over the list

<Dzung_Tran> Wait, I sent a message asking Rich about System Info, but I got no response

<Dzung_Tran> I rather discuss System Info, before doing anything drastic to it

<Dzung_Tran> I don't mind editing it, if I know what are the specifics

<Dzung_Tran> No, I am not on the call - only on IRC today

<bryan_sullivan> To clarify my earlier comments on sysinfo: if the intent is to focus on discrete APIs for sensors and property access than that is fine, but I would propose to drop the current sysinfo spec so that as it evolves, it does not conflict with similar implementations in the market, i.e. we need to avoid fragmentation in APIs for the same purpose, which will br brought to W3C as work in the near future.

<richt> +1 from me bryan

fjh: we should probably discuss this on the list
... we should try to reuse the work already done

hta: do we have defintion of success?

fjh: adoption and implementation

<dom> the draft new charter says "To advance to Proposed Recommendation, each specification is expected to have two independent implementations of all features defined in the specification.

<dom> APIs that cannot be demonstrated to be implementable securely within the default browser context will not be released."

<dom> as part of the success criteria

I guess we need to define "default browser context" ....

Adjourn

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Dom to reserve zakim bridge for DAP F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-dap-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: dom to reserve zakim line for f2f [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-dap-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Richard to propose better wording for System information and events api [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-dap-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009-03-02 03:52:20 $