W3C

Device APIs Working Group Teleconference

19 Sep 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Frederick_Hirsch, Anssi_Kostiainen, Lisa_DeLuca, Claes_Nilsson, Tatsuya_Igarashi, Dominique_Hazael-Massieux, Cathy_Chan
Regrets
Josh_Soref, Jean-Claude_Dufourd, Rich_Tibbett
Chair
Frederick_Hirsch
Scribe
fjh

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 19 September 2013

trackbot, start telecon

<trackbot> Meeting: Device APIs Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 19 September 2013

<scribe> ScribeNick: fjh

Welcome, agenda review, scribe selection, announcements

IBM joined group, Lisa Seacat DeLuca, welcome.

ldeluca: interested as there is interest in Device APIs and possible relationship to Cordova

fjh: possibility of participating in testing, interop

ldeluca: maybe later, especially interested in vibration

dom: I've been looking into possible convergence with Cordova, so it is great to have you in the group

… have been talking with people at adobe on this topic

<dom> Apache Cordova (Phonegap opensource face)

Minutes approval

Approve minutes from 4 September 2013

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Sep/att-0013/minutes-2013-09-04.html

RESOLUTION: Minutes from 4 September 2013 are approved

Proximity and Light

CfC concluded, next step is to publish

<ldeluca> http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/3.0.0/ that's the url to the cordova APIs

fjh: I will send transition requests for CR today

anssi: am preparing drafts ready for CR publication, have updated with implementation links, running link checker and pub rules, should have later today

… what should crEnd be

fjh: doesn't really matter since we know it will take longer to exit CR but 9 weeks is fine

dom: used to be needed to set implementer deadline expectations but not really a concern here, 9 weeks should be fine

fjh: can we plan to have transition call next week

dom: need transition request first, if we wait it will be longer

fjh: will send after meeting

anssik: will set date for 1 Oct for now

dom: exact date not essential for approval

Vibration API

already in CR but getting comments

fjh: I believe AnssiK you are still reviewing these items

ISSUE-146?

<trackbot> ISSUE-146 -- Add vibration strength control -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/146

ISSUE-149?

<trackbot> ISSUE-149 -- handling of long vibration list - truncate or no vibration at all -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/149

ISSUE-150?

<trackbot> ISSUE-150 -- Should vibration be additive when multiple instances, e.g. iframes -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/150

fjh: I believe we've agreed to defer ISSUE-146 to v.next

… but need to formalize that and be clear that is correct

anssik: looking at spec to see if ISSUE-149 already allowed

fjh: text may need explicit clarification

anssi: not sure whether it is better to fail or succeed with clarity

fjh: alternative is graceful degradation

… I think Daniel has a good point

anssi: getting something rather than silence might be better, agreed

fjh: think it might be simpler for applications

anssik: fairly simple to modify text to say this
... only return false if page hidden , daniel suggests we prune pattern length and entry length

fjh: seems partial failure better than absolute failure

<scribe> ACTION: dom to review ISSUE-149 get input on tradeoff of either failing or offering partial result (not all of request) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/19-dap-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-658 - Review issue-149 get input on tradeoff of either failing or offering partial result (not all of request) [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2013-09-26].

ISSUE-150?

<trackbot> ISSUE-150 -- Should vibration be additive when multiple instances, e.g. iframes -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/150

fjh: I think this was resolved on list to be a union
... I believe next step is to update spec

… and share a diff

fjh: I don't think we need to go back to LC, only if substantive change that impacts implementions
... we should revisit once changes are in spec, but suspect we don't need another LC

anssik: dealing with under specified edge cases are clarifications, no need for LC

dom: agree

Network Service Discovery

fjh: we've been working on WD publication, have been doing various publication corrections, expect to publish soon

Web & TV IG review, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Aug/0063.html

fjh: will share once we publish
... expect that we might not meet every of their requirements, would like to see them review and indicate if any significant concerns

ISSUE-130?

<trackbot> ISSUE-130 -- Enable variety of protocols (e.g. UPnP, Bonour) with protocol independent developer code -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/130

discussed earlier need to continue on list

ISSUE-131?

<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Support UPnP device discovery by Device Type? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/131

we have proposal on the list, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Sep/0025.html

cathy: agree with proposal, still have some additional details

fjh: need to check with Rich to see if any other concern

cathy: if Igarashi is good with it I think we are ok

… we also need jean-claude to look at it

fjh: I'll ping them on the list
... is there anything else cathy that we should discuss today

cathy: no we are waiting on actions, jean-claude has one, we also need spec update

fjh: which spec updates needed

cathy: service name with friendly nick needs to be done

fjh: if you can share a list of outstanding spec updates on the list that would help

issues list http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/open

Web Notifications Last Call

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Sep/0024.html

fjh: would anyone like to volunteer to review this?

<scribe> ACTION: fjh to review Web Notifications Last Call specification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/19-dap-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-659 - Review web notifications last call specification [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2013-09-26].

fjh: will see if others not on the call are interested as well

Action Review

ACTION-523?

<trackbot> ACTION-523 -- Anssi Kostiainen to Work on test cases for battery, vibration, and HTML Media Capture -- due 2012-08-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/523

anssik: progress is happening, our developers are submitting patches against submitted test cases

dom: has marcos responded to suggestions from your team?

anssik: have not seen anything

dom: using marcos fork

… could make pull request against marcos fork

… also could merge marcos submission as is and work on top of it

… process is not quite entirely clear so we can do what we need to

… maybe you should see what your team suggests

anssik: started with submitting pull request

… need to get marcos involved

fjh: i suggest you start by getting marcos involved

dom: pull request against my fork...

anssik: i instructed qa person to go against dom fork

dom: ok but if that doesn't work then I'll help

anssik: once we've done this we need to update instructions

ACTION-642?

<trackbot> ACTION-642 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to Review proximity and ambient light test cases -- due 2013-09-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/642

dom: still open

anssik: our team is also doing this

ACTION-645?

<trackbot> ACTION-645 -- Frederick Hirsch to Share Network Service Discovery editors draft with PING -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/645

fjh: deferring involving PING until I feel the draft is sufficiently stable
... we probably should first clarify the model and boundaries of reveiw

ACTION-652?

<trackbot> ACTION-652 -- Anssi Kostiainen to Make proposal on list regarding multiple vibration api invocations in frames for vibration -- due 2013-09-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/652

ISSUE-150?

<trackbot> ISSUE-150 -- Should vibration be additive when multiple instances, e.g. iframes -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/150

ACTION-654?

<trackbot> ACTION-654 -- Jean-Claude Dufourd to Propose text for network service discovery to define wildcard api and feature detection -- due 2013-09-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/654

ACTION-655?

<trackbot> ACTION-655 -- Anssi Kostiainen to Update test for light :https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/916dbd5920d8 -- due 2013-09-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/655

ACTION-656?

<trackbot> ACTION-656 -- Anssi Kostiainen to Update proximity test for https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/a6ad49819c41 -- due 2013-09-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/656

anssik: our qa is looking at these both and will have to do pull requests, still open

<anssik> https://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/submissions/126/ambient-light/

anssik: do we need to link to submissions in CR draft

fjh: we need link to test case and interop document/wiki, can expect changes

… does not need to be in CR draft itself but linked document

dom: needs to be in interop document, can be mostly empty at this time

http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/Main_Page

ACTION-657?

<trackbot> ACTION-657 -- Anssi Kostiainen to Revise battery tests for idlharness, find qa person to help -- due 2013-09-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/657

anssik: have qa person working on this

ACTION-646 closed

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-646.

ACTION-653 closed

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-653.

ACTION-646?

<trackbot> ACTION-646 -- Frederick Hirsch to Organize joint call with web and tv group re network service discovery -- due 2013-08-21 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/646

ACTION-653?

<trackbot> ACTION-653 -- Frederick Hirsch to Create issues for vibration questions -- due 2013-09-11 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/653

Issue Review

I believe all issues are recorded, if not please add issue or indicate on list

Network Information API

reviewing whether or not to shelve, please indicate if any input

anssik: we would like to look at it

<scribe> ACTION: anssik to determine interest in progressing Network Information API or not [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/19-dap-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-660 - Determine interest in progressing network information api or not [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2013-09-26].

anssik: will get some feedback within a couple of weeks

Other Business

None

Adjourn

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: anssik to determine interest in progressing Network Information API or not [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/19-dap-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: dom to review ISSUE-149 get input on tradeoff of either failing or offering partial result (not all of request) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/19-dap-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: fjh to review Web Notifications Last Call specification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/19-dap-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

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