See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 April 2012
<scribe> Scribe: Josh_Soref
<fjh> please note WebIntents session at WebApps
<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note WebIntents slot on May 1 at 1:30pm-2:30pm California time at WebApps interim F2F is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0124.html
<fjh> F2F Minutes (v2) : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Apr/att-0025/minutes-2012-03-20.html
<fjh> known issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Apr/0012.html
<fjh> 4 April draft minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Apr/att-0009/minutes-2012-04-04.html
<mounir> The French Zakim Bridge number should be removed from the agenda...
fjh: we have face to face minutes as well as minutes from last week's call
... the question is can we approve these or do we need more time?
darobin: i recon we can approve them
... people have had a chance to look at the record
... i don't think Josh_Soref's changes are massive or modify what people have said
fjh: i think we need two resolutions
Josh_Soref: i'm missing a link from Claes's presentation
... I wanted a correction for Wonsuk
fjh: i don't think we're in a rush to approve them
... i think people are mostly fine with the minutes
... Josh_Soref, why don't you clean them all up and we'll approve them next week
RESOLUTION: 4 April minutes are approved
fjh: it's only fair to let people see what they're approving
... i'll send a message to Claes asking for the link
<fjh> Please take all NFC discussion to new mail list, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Apr/0014.html
fjh: if you're interested in that discussion and able to participate, then you should probably join
dsr: we could set up a CG for this
... but it seemed simpler to set up a mailing list and a wiki
... without a patent policy commitment
... after a minimal discussion we can work that into a CG or WG
... with a charter...
fjh: there's two possible meetings coming up
... possibly week of 9 july
darobin: we should have a WBS with a short decision time
... on weeks in july
... we have an offer to host from vodafone in Dusseldorf
... they had originally looked into late June
... but it'd be good to have a decision very soon
... because we're running into the deadline
fjh: i don't know if Nokia could be able to host
... i suspect it would be problematic
darobin: at some point, richt had suggested Oslo could be an option
fjh: that might be useful as well
... it depends on the other offer
... what about TPAC
... I don't know which groups we want to overlap with or not
darobin: historically, we've avoided overlapping at all costs with webapps
... html5 is ok to overlap
... we have more shared participation with webapps
... i think we'll need to meet at TPAC
... if all goes according to plan, we'll have enough progress to justify meeting
fjh: and we need to do Intents work which justifies the July F2F
darobin: is XML Security meeting at TPAC?
fjh: no, we're just doing list work
... dsr, you have a problem with Friday at TPAC?
dsr: yes
fjh: anyone else have thoughts/comments?
darobin: should i set up a form?
Deep: i just want to add that the week of 9 july will conflict with an OMA meeting
... so perhaps we could do the week following
darobin: that's useful information
... we do try to avoid clashing, but sometimes there's no alternative
fjh: we could put the week of the 9th and the week of the 16th into the questionaire
... are we doing 2 or 3 days?
darobin: i think it makes sense to do 2 1/2 maybe 3 days
fjh: i'd suggest midweek
darobin: people tend to prefer traveling on weekdays
fjh: for me, it would be best if it were Wednesday, Thursday, Friday
<fjh> prefer wed-fri
darobin: I don't have a big problem
fjh: number of people should be 50-60 [based on past experience]
... for TPAC
... i was thinking about the TPAC questionaire
<fjh> Updated draft with discovery removed - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/sensor-api/Overview.html (Dzung Tran)
<fjh> Sensor wiki for issue review, please update: http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/Sensor_Issues
fjh: we got comments from marcos
... i don't think there's anything we can do on the call
fjh: i'm not sure what to do next
... AnssiK, do you have thoughts about next steps?
AnssiK: about energy?
fjh: yes
AnssiK: i don't consider myself an expert on that
Josh_Soref: is it possible to punt to v2?
<fjh> Bryan for next step on network information discussion of last week
dsr: i had an action to schedule a call
... are we ready?
fjh: AnssiK, did we have an update for vibration?
... i thought we were good to go for both
<AnssiK> commit log: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2009/dap/vibration/Overview.html
fjh: i remember we had a bit of post decision comments/discussion
AnssiK: we removed the exception items
fjh: but that was old
... i think we're good to go
dsr: did we have a RESOLUTION?
fjh: I believe we did, but i'd have to find it
... we could do two now
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Bring Battery API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features
darobin: there's a minimum bar to give people time to implement
... it's the reverse of the LC criteria
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Bring Battery API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features and not exiting CR before July 1
darobin: to give people time to comment
... we don't need to make it long because we already have implementations
fjh: is July 1st ok?
... i want it before the F2F
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Bring Vibration API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features and not exiting CR before July 1
darobin: sounds reasonable
... we need existing implementations
... and they need to pass the test suite
<darobin> +1
<AnssiK> +1
RESOLUTION: Bring Battery API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features and not exiting CR before July 1
<inserted> [ This line intentionally left blank to make the scribe scripts happy ]
RESOLUTION: Bring Vibration API to CR with no features at risk and exit criteria of two interoperable implementations of all features and not exiting CR before July 1
fjh: I'm going to be away next week
dsr: in that case, i'll liase with darobin on the official request
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/open
fjh: we were kind and didn't do this at the F2F
<dtran> +1
fjh: i think it'd be nice if people could look through their own items
... Travis: you have one for Network Information, i think it's done
<fjh> ACTION-474?
<trackbot> ACTION-474 -- Travis Leithead to make a proposal for Network Information API -- due 2011-11-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/474
Josh_Soref: I thought that was getting feedback from Microsoft Teams
... and I think it's still worth doing
fjh: richt: you have an action to consider
<fjh> ACTION-513?
<trackbot> ACTION-513 -- Richard Tibbett to consider updating Contacts specification to add WebIntents section -- due 2012-03-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/513
richt: i don't remember that action
... i'm thinking about it
fjh: Josh_Soref: you have a bunch
<darobin> ACTION-483?
<trackbot> ACTION-483 -- Josh Soref to send proposal to list for how Contacts will move forward -- due 2011-11-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/483
darobin: i don't think that matches my recollection of what the action should be
... i think this was an action to rewrite Contacts as an Intent
<darobin> ACTION-482?
<trackbot> ACTION-482 -- Josh Soref to contacts find() may be replaced with Intents -- due 2011-11-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/482
<fjh> +1 to darobin interpretation
darobin: it's related to several actions that Josh_Soref has
... i believe that Josh_Soref worked with greg on a proposal
Josh_Soref: that's right...
... i'll share it to richt
... and i'll try to be happy with it and then share it out to the list
richt: that'd be great
darobin: Josh_Soref, that'll clear up a bunch of your actions
<darobin> ACTION-528?
<trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Richard Tibbett to provide more use cases. -- due 2012-03-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/528
<richt> what am I supposed to be providing more use cases for?? (ACTION-528)
<richt> fyi, I've closed "ACTION-528: Provide more use cases" on me since I can't work out what the action relates to.
<richt> fyi again. updated ACTION-528 and re-opened it.
<fjh> note that there were a number of actions on James and Greg in the F2F minutes, prefixed by AI.
<darobin> there's also:
<darobin> ACTION-527?
<trackbot> ACTION-527 -- Frederick Hirsch to send emial to other WG li -- due 2012-03-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/527
<fjh> ACTION-532?
<trackbot> ACTION-532 -- Dave Raggett to collect use cases for qrcodes in web context -- due 2012-03-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/532
darobin: the QR code action is related to rechartering
... maybe there's something useful in QR space that could be added to the charter
<fjh> ACTION-523?
<trackbot> ACTION-523 -- Anssi Kostiainen to work on test cases for battery and vibration -- due 2012-03-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/523
darobin: i think this was coremob stuff
... don't spend much time on it
... a lot of it is going to be dropped anyway
... most of it is feature testing
... skeleton testing
... not actual testing
AnssiK: i noticed that
darobin: we'll have to build our own tests
... since you and i have action items, we should coordinate
AnssiK: webkit has tests
... there's an ongoing effort to make the layout test work with the test harness
... i'd like to avoid extra work
<darobin> [last I checked Mozilla didn't have much in the way of battery tests]
AnssiK: i assume the browser vendors have their own test suites
darobin: yes
... a lot of the tests rely on features of their own browser
... e.g. mozilla relies on features of ecmascript not implemented elsewhere
... often they can be easily adapted
... for vibration, we have some tests, but we need more
... but they're not easy to write as they require user interaction
... i'd start with the same framework/setup as battery
... you can copy it over
AnssiK: do we have any tool for functional testing?
darobin: you can use testmonkey
<fjh> ACTION-516?
<trackbot> ACTION-516 -- Josh Soref to propose Security Considerations section on SSL for Intents sepc -- due 2012-03-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/516
AnssiK: maybe we can move this to the list
fjh: Josh_Soref, since there's a meeting soon, it'd probably be good if you sent an item on that one
Josh_Soref: yeah, i need to review the entire spec
... soon
fjh: regrets for next week
... Josh_Soref, you'll send out a new copy of the F2F minutes, making it clear it's the final version
trackbot, end meeting