See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 20 February 2013
<scribe> scribe: Josh_Soref
<fjh> Media Capture Task Force F2F 5-7 February, minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013Feb/0034.html
fjh: there wasn't anything particularly surprising at the meeting
... there's good progress being made on recording
... and on audio-video stuff
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/att-0023/minutes-2013-02-06.html
fjh: is there any concern about approving the minutes?
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Draft minutes from 6 February 2013 are approved.
RESOLUTION: Draft minutes from 6 February 2013 are approved.
fjh: we need to decide on a F2F
... and we need to decide the work we're doing
... and we need to lock down a date
... i'm stuck on what to do as a chair
... if we don't do Web Intents
... or something similar, then i'm not sure how we'll progress contacts and similar
<fjh> F2F in June 3-7 or 17-21 in Dusseldorf?
fjh: and then i'm not sure what we need for a F2F
... F2F hosting by dcheng3
... i'd argue we should lock one of those down
<fjh> TPAC 2013: Nov 18-22 in Shenzhen - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Jan/0095.html
fjh: if we don't meet in June, then we'd probably meet earlier
... it's hard to decide if we don't know where web intents is going
... dcheng3, you mentioned you could reserve both and cancel one later?
dcheng3: yes
<fjh> Close all actions on Web Intents ? ACTION-519, ACTION-550, ACTION-551, ACTION-556, ACTION-574, ACTION-591
fjh: ok, let's do that
<fjh> ACTION-519?
<trackbot> ACTION-519 -- Claes Nilsson to add a proposal for hidden disposition. -- due 2012-08-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/519
<fjh> action-550?
<trackbot> ACTION-550 -- James Hawkins to add event for on load to webintents spec -- due 2012-07-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/550
fjh: i think we can close these actions, we can always reopen them later
<fjh> ACTION-551?
<trackbot> ACTION-551 -- James Hawkins to share proposal on list to handle dynamic insertion/removal etc of <intent> tags -- due 2012-07-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/551
<fjh> ACTION-556?
<trackbot> ACTION-556 -- Robin Berjon to set up test repository with example, docs, manifest generation for Web Intents -- due 2012-07-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/556
<fjh> ACTION-574?
<trackbot> ACTION-574 -- Josh Soref to create facebook WebIntents Pick Contacts provider -- due 2012-09-05 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/574
<fjh> ACTION-591?
<trackbot> ACTION-591 -- Greg Billock to work with mounir to create new webintents draft that reflects web activities and issues -- due 2012-11-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/591
<fjh> close ACTION-519
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-519 Add a proposal for hidden disposition..
<fjh> close ACTION-550
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-550 add event for on load to webintents spec.
<fjh> action-551
<trackbot> ACTION-551 -- James Hawkins to share proposal on list to handle dynamic insertion/removal etc of <intent> tags -- due 2012-07-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/551
<fjh> close action-551
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-551 share proposal on list to handle dynamic insertion/removal etc of <intent> tags.
<fjh> close action-556
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-556 Set up test repository with example, docs, manifest generation for Web Intents.
<fjh> close action-574
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-574 Create facebook WebIntents Pick Contacts provider.
<fjh> close action-591
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-591 Work with mounir to create new webintents draft that reflects web activities and issues.
<AnssiK> WebKit Bugzilla entry "remove web intents code" https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109501
fjh: removal of code means no longer part of build, josh notes that code it depends on could change, breaking it if it were to be restored later
AnssiK: suggests there might be a replacement?
fjh: web activities only limited to local device, not web case
AnssiK: mounir and jonas suggested it could be extended to web, but yes currently scoped more toward sysapps
fjh: we're at a point where we must make decisions as a group for what the group does
fjh: i know there's been a lot of list discussion
<fjh> Additional spec updates based on Cathy's latest comments and naming item?
fjh: there were additional spec updates based on Cathy 's comments
... but there are still more required
<fjh> Update introduction to clarify scope, related to thread since last call?
fjh: Cathy made more comments, great, thank you
... send rich email re suggestions
... richt isn't on the call
<fjh> Publish updated WD (previously published 4 Oct 2012)
fjh: Cathy, are we getting to the point where it's worth publishing another draft?
Cathy: yeah, i think if we have the update, then it's a good time to publish another WD
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to check with richt re network service discovery API updates and WD publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/20-dap-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-614 - Check with richt re network service discovery API updates and WD publication [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2013-02-27].
fjh: is there an indication of when you'll be available?
<fjh> Update to editors draft, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0036.html
fjh: there's an update to the ED from mounir
AnssiK: the changes make the interface definition align with modern specs
... nothing that affects implementations
... on testing, i think there's nothing to do
fjh: so we should not need to cycle back to LC and CR
... the test suite is there, waiting for implementations to pass
AnssiK: there's a question of if we do a new LC
... or go straight to CR
... we changed the idl to partial interface
fjh: so it just changed the language for hooking?
AnssiK: yes
... partial interface means no need for [NoInterfaceObject]
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to check with DOM that CR to PR status still ok despite Battery update by member:Mounir [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/20-dap-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-615 - check with DOM that CR to PR status still ok despite Battery update by member:Mounir [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2013-02-27].
<fjh> Tobie suggests providing APIs that offer functionality in efficient manner (e.g. background upload) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0058.html
<fjh> move topic and discussion to "Network-Friendly App and WebApp Best Practices Community Group" or coremob ?
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/community/networkfriendly/
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/
fjh: the networkfriendly CG has been active for a while
<AnssiK> +1 to push the work to CoreMob
fjh: i think coremob is probably where the Document should go
... i suggest Bryan propose this to coremob
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0033.html (Frederick)
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0067.html (Wonsuk)
<fjh> defer discussion to list?
<fjh> ACTION-612?
<trackbot> ACTION-612 -- Frederick Hirsch to review SysApps and DAP overlap and discuss with SysApps chairs -- due 2013-02-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/612
<gmandyam> Question on Action 612
gmandyam: we mentioned Pick-Contact
... i thought when we talked with SysApps, we were talking about resurrecting the old Contacts-API
... what exactly is the overlap
... the webintents dependent stuff, or the old stuff?
fjh: i think it's the definition of the data
... whether you use the SysApps API or the Pick-Contact API
... you'd get back a vCard object
... i think we should separate that out
gmandyam: as a joint deliverable?
fjh: either joint or as a deliverable of this group
<fjh> close ACTION-612
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-612 Review SysApps and DAP overlap and discuss with SysApps chairs.
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0022.html
fjh: i can't figure out how to close the LC comments because i haven't gotten a response from dougt
Josh_Soref: isn't that dom's job?
fjh: I think we are all set on comments, but almost all set
... dom said if you don't get a response in reasonable time...
AnssiK: i volunteered to help rick draft his proposal
... but i haven't heard back
fjh: does it make sense to pursue that?
AnssiK: it sounds like he doesn't have immediate cycles
fjh: it doesn't seem like there was support for doing it
AnssiK: i haven't heard support for rick's proposal from others
... especially implementers
... who support the existing work
fjh: he had some privacy stuff?
AnssiK: the privacy comment was orthogonal to the design discussion
... i think that's in the agenda
... we can close that issue, there was no support for improving the privacy
... i'll send an email to him
<fjh> ACTION-565?
<trackbot> ACTION-565 -- Josh Soref to propose text for HTML Media Capture to allow for alternative capture device if specified device not available -- due 2012-08-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/565
Josh_Soref: probably moot
fjh: falls back to file, no
Josh_Soref: not sure about video
... actually, i think i need to send a note
... because if you were asked for video/*, the UA should also allow a mic- input if you don't have a video- input
<fjh> action-592?
<trackbot> ACTION-592 -- Niklas Widell to provide draft sensors landscape document -- due 2012-11-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/592
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to send message to Niklas re ACTION-592 then close [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/20-dap-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-616 - Send message to Niklas re ACTION-592 then close [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2013-02-27].
<fjh> ISSUE-125?
<trackbot> ISSUE-125 -- Capabilities API compatibility with web privacy and security, assuming untrusted, fingerprinting risk -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/125
fjh: believe this can be closed, sounds sysapps api specific?
<fjh> close ISSUE-125
<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-125 Capabilities API compatibility with web privacy and security, assuming untrusted, fingerprinting risk.
Josh_Soref: we should be careful to make clear that DAP supports security and privacy through user interaction as opposed to policy mechanism
dcheng3: i can add a note to the youtube video in the comments section
fjh: adding a note that user interaction drives things, is good
<fjh> ISSUE-126?
<trackbot> ISSUE-126 -- Should DAP review and take advantage of SysApps security models -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/126
fjh: suggest we close this, as DAP will not overlap sysapps in this area
<fjh> close ISSUE-126
<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-126 Should DAP review and take advantage of SysApps security models.
<fjh> ISSUE-127?
<trackbot> ISSUE-127 -- Status section of Battery CR draft should include exit criteria and at-risk items -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/127
fjh: this material should have been in status section
<fjh> maybe we should republish CR draft to incorporate Mounir's change and an update to the status section
fjh: need to be clear on exit criteria
Josh_Soref: i think that TPAC is the correct place for discussing "how does one progress a spec to REC if the only rendering engine being developed is WebKit"
AnssiK: the exit criteria is 2 implementations
<fjh> no features at risk
AnssiK: do Safari, Chrome, and future Opera count as possibly 2?
fjh: you were silent on this?
AnssiK: yes
Josh_Soref: for this spec, there's a Firefox impl too
... so this isn't relevant to us for this spec
AnssiK: what makes an implementation
... Firefox the browser is an implementation
... is FirefoxOS an implementation?
fjh: given that we rely on Browser security model
... i don't think we can count things that don't include the security model
... i know we said no experimental implementations
... we need to document the exit-criteria
... if we don't have them documented, then someone from team will flag it when we try to exit
... i think Vibration has the same issue
... the status section should have exit-criteria
<fjh> ISSUE-128?
<trackbot> ISSUE-128 -- Need more description on how bandwidth should be estimated -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/128
Josh_Soref: i'd like to move vibration forward
... but the vibration tests are only contributions
AnssiK: i need a device
Josh_Soref: ok, i'll try to get dev-rel to send you one
fjh: we need two implementations
Josh_Soref: i'm pretty sure Gecko has an implementation
fjh: so you should be asking for a Gecko device too
AnssiK: yeah, sure
... i've been looking for Firefox OS devices, but they're in short supply
fjh: thanks everyone
[ Adjourned ]
trackbot, end meeting