See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 14 May 2015
<fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015May/0038.html
<fjh> ScribeNick: anssik
fjh: new members joined the group, welcome
<fjh> Welcome to new members
<fjh> Alexis, Intel https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Mar/0006.html
<fjh> Yong Ding, Huawei https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Apr/0026.html
<fjh> Tobie, Intel https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015May/0002.html
<fjh> ScribeNick: fjh
anssik: alexis has been working on webkit, chromium, working on sensor prototypes
... is based in Brazil may not be able to join calls
<scribe> ScribeNick: anssik
<fjh> Media Capture and Streams" transitioned to Last Call.
<fjh> Feedback on /TR styles requested https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Apr/0036.html
<fjh> continuous change in the planning
<fjh> Approve minutes from 5 March 2015
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 5 March 2015 are approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Mar/att-0003/minutes-2015-03-05.html
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 5 March 2015 are approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Mar/att-0003/minutes-2015-03-05.html
<fjh> Discuss change to WebEx and timing
<fjh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015May/0037.html
<fjh> will use webex for voice only, not chat or screen sharing, will send info, plan to use it instead of zakim for next call
<fjh> Request for review before June 16: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Apr/0038.html
<Claes> Plan to move to community group, any concern, what about DAP?
<fjh> see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Apr/0000.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Apr/0022.html
anssik: from http://www.w3.org/2011/07/DeviceAPICharter: "... based on the current Web browser security model"
<fjh> I've reviewed this and the community group seems like a good approach for now, if the situation changes we can consider moving this into DAP if it makes sense
<fjh> Anssi msg to Microsoft team https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Apr/0028.html
<fjh> Adrian acknowledged
anssik: wanted to make sure no surprises
<fjh> issues: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/
tobie: I was expecting people to contribute via GH issues
... I'm happy to go through the high level bits
... can work on a FPWD too
... we started working on the GH repo around Nov 2014
... a lot of activity within a week or so
... the high level goals
... have been working with Rick Waldron who contributed the initial spec blueprint
... that can be applied to specific sensors being worked on in this group
... issues: understand performance issues, how much the browser is aware of existing sensors
... would like to talk to implementers with regard the issues around performance in particular
<fjh> ScribeNick: fjh
anssik: should connect you with our browser people that work on chromium
... you need to reach out to Google
... Tim Volodine has implemented device orientation, motion
... also Mounir
<anssik> Tim Volodine is working on sensors in Chromium
<anssik> ... also Riju from Intel has implemented Ambient Light
anssik: issues are performance and discovery
tobie: need to know which sensors are available and what is cost, do it sync or async
anssiK: not just entry point issue
tobie: does presence of API imply that sensor exists?
... all same question, need to understand life cycle of sensor vs lifecycle of page
... main issue is knowing whether sensor is there or not
anssik: generic sensor api designed from node.js perspective
tobie: simple API vs performance
Claes: in web of things interest group, what is connection to that group
... using REST APIs
tobie: Dave Raggett (dsr) shared his Munich presentation with me; will look at it
Claes: might help mapping concrete Javascript APIs to generic sensor apis
<Zakim> tobie, you wanted to comment on IoT
tobie: can you please open github issue
Claes: yes
<scribe> ScribeNick: anssik
fjh: producing a draft spec sounds like a good next step
<Claes> Need to drop off now. Bye
fjh: allows us to get feedback from people not on calls, also generate interest by making it concrete
<fjh> will have calls as needed but expect much work will be async, on list. When might we expect a draft Tobie?
tobie: targeting end of May for the draft spec
anssik: feedback from both Node/io.js and browser implementers would be very welcome early in the process
<fjh> ScribeNick: fjh
anssik: tobie if you have list of issues related to performance I could share with our internal team
... issue #9 re event targets is performance consideration
... what are other issues on critical
fjh: suggest you ask about issues on list anssik, tobie can answer on list, so everyone can contribute to it
... I suggest that on a call we review github decisions and resolve them in conjunction with discussing the draft, thus avoiding a purely administrative discussion and linking with real work
fjh: anything new?
anssik: update from Intel QA re tests - looking at root cause for test failures, will report to the list
... not sure if issue is with test harness or test cases, so need to look into it.
... still pending mozilla implementation update as well, no apparent activity
anssik: plan to use sensors abstract spec to revisit Ambient light etc
fjh: Much thanks to Tobie and Anssi for your work
... Reminder, we will continue with calls every other week but cancel as appropriate. Will switch to webex on next call.