W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > June 2016

Draft minutes - DAS 16 June Teleconference

From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:02:42 -0400
To: W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <33AFF2CB-552C-4CD3-B460-D00E879F02AA@fjhirsch.com>
Attached are minutes from today's Devices and Sensors teleconference. Thanks Dom for scribing.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Chair, W3C Devices and Sensors WG



# Device and Sensors Working Group Teleconference

## 16 Jun 2016


See also: [IRC log][4]

## Attendees


    Frederick_Hirsch, Dom, Andrey_Logvinov, Anssi_Kostiainen






## Contents

  * [Topics][5]

    1. [Welcome, scribe selection, agenda review, announcements][6]

    2. [Minutes approval][7]

    3. [Battery][8]

    4. [HTML Media Capture Update][9]

    5. [Vibration PER][10]

    6. [Sensor][11]

    7. [Wake Lock API][12]

    8. [Other Business][13]

    9. [Adjourn][14]

  * [Summary of Action Items][15]

  * [Summary of Resolutions][16]

* * *

### Welcome, scribe selection, agenda review, announcements

<scribe> ScribeNick: dom

<fjh> TPAC 2016 registration - [https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-

FJH: reminder of TPAC registration; not sure I'll be able to make it myself

... We had an updated WD of wake lock

<fjh> WakeLock API published as WD [https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public

### Minutes approval

**RESOLUTION: Minutes from 2 June 2016 are approved

<anssik> +1 to approve

### Battery

<fjh> updated tests [https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-

FJH: what's the status on battery?

Anssi: Firefox was failing a couple of tests; we thought the problem was in
Firefox, but it turned out that our test case was wrong

... (Chrome was thus wrong)

... we've updated the test case and the test results

... and we can conclude the failure is not related to the battery API, but a
broader issue with Chrome

... so I don't think it should block

<fjh> dom: Boris is still commenting that test case has issue due to race

<fjh> dom: where is the implementation report?

<fjh> anssik: new person taking on work, so need to follow up

<fjh> **ACTION:** anssik to get new updated test report [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-762 - Get new updated test report [on Anssi
Kostiainen - due 2016-06-23].

<fjh> [https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-

Dom: once I have the updated report, I'll proceed with the next step for the
Battery API Proposed Rec

<fjh> anssik: latest test report update is 13 May

<anssik> [https://github.com/w3c/test-

<fjh> anssik: so we have confirmed, test report needs an update

FJH: what will be needed from me for this?

Dom: not sure yet

### HTML Media Capture Update

<fjh> [https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-

-> [https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-
apis/2016Jun/0036.html][23] Anssi's update on implementations of HTML Media

Anssi: we don't have a second implementation (at least not a widely shipping

... so we basically need to keep monitoring

Frederick: we have an open candidate rec with a call for implementation, so
let's wait until we get the required level of implementation

Anssi: there was some interest from Ted@Apple? to add new feature to this spec

... although that discussion kind of died out

... maybe this will find more implementation and we can move forward

Frederick: we'll review this on a regular basis (e.g. every 6 months)

... but I don't think there is any harm in keeping this open

### Vibration PER

<fjh> dom: talked with Phillippe Le Hegaret, plan to have revision of Page
Visibility, couple of weeks

<fjh> dom: need to decide what to do

<fjh> dom: in favor of waiting for a few weeks

<fjh> fjh: will they be doing PER

dom: no, they want to make substantive changes as well, so that'll need a full
rec-track cycle

<fjh> dom: no, need to go through REC track starting at FPWD, but FPWD might
be enough for us

dom: but referring to FPWD would likely be acceptable in this case

<anssik> [https://github.com/w3c/vibration/issues/7][24]

<fjh> dom: ok to fix this

<fjh> general agreement on call to go with approach of watiing for FPWD
related to Page VIsibility, not removing this, and going forward with PER,
relying on Philliipe’s judgement on risk (which we agree with)

<fjh> dom: will provide pull request

<anssik> [https://github.com/w3c/vibration/issues/10][25]

anssi: andrey suggested requiring permission for vibration in a new issue

<fjh> dom: wif we did this would not have implementations, would prefer to
defer and and do PER, save for v2

anssi: obviously this isn't what existing implementations do, so would require
a substantive change (not PER compatible)

<fjh> Andrey_Logvinov: agree

anssi: so it sounds like more a v2 suggestion

<fjh> +1 to PER without this, and then v2

<fjh> makes sense to align with current implementations

fjh: makes sense to me as well

anssi: I'll tag it with v2

fjh: add a comment too

anssi: done

### Sensor

fjh: So Tobie is taking up another spec

Anssi: yes, WebIDL

fjh: who can take over his work?

Anssi: I can contribute, and we have 2 new intel contributors from the
Chromium implementation side

... Our plan is to upstream the implementation and give feedback to the group
based on that

... and update the spec based on clarifications that emerge

... there will be feedback coming in very soon, based on issues already
identified in their implementation work

<Zakim> dom, you wanted to ask about wide review

dom: should we start the wide review process without tobie around?

anssi: I don't feel pressed to start it right now; the feedback we'll get will
be in the order of clarifications

<fjh> if we are getting feedback from Intel contributors we should probably
incorporate that first

anssi: When we get to CR we need to satisfy having completed wide review

fjh: it seem more logical to see feedback integrated first before starting
first review

... esp if it's in the short term

anssi: sounds reasonable

... the idea is to make sure the spec reflects the implementation, that is
both precise and reflects reality

... so it would make better use of reviewers time

... I think we should aim at initiating wide review ahead of TPAC

dom: main issue is that TPAC is in September, which follows August that is
always quiet

... maybe we could start end of August?

Frederick: I was thinking earlier, in July

Dom: sounds even better to me if that's compatible with Anssi's timeline

Anssi: we already got a review from the TAG

... not sure the horizontal groups need the fine tuning to make useful reviews

Dom: agreed re other horizontal groups

... TAG would probably benefit from seeing the latest refinements

Anssi: so we can stage the reviews

Frederick: I'm not sure we need staging if a final doc is only a couple of
weeks away

Dom: I guess it depends on the timeframe of getting these refinements in, and
how confident we are of this timeframe

frederick: can you ask estimates from your colleagues Anssi?

Anssi: they'll raise issues as they implement; I'll ask for an estimate

Frederick: let's plan for generic wide review first week of July

... if we're not ready for general wide review, we can start a staged review

<fjh> lets try to have wide review early july, incorporating changes, then
stage as needed

<fjh> note that Dom and Anssi will not be available mid July until end August

### Wake Lock API

<Andrey_Logvinov> [https://github.com/w3c/wake-lock/issues/64][26]

Andrey: still one open issue about restricting wake lock requests to top level

<Andrey_Logvinov> [https://github.com/w3c/wake-lock/issues/51][27]

Andrey: I have created a PR to address it

... not sure how this works with permissions

... inheritance

... In Chromium, there is a proposal that the top level browsing context need
to delegate permissions explicitly

Frederick: it sounds that permissions is a work in progress that is being

... while same origin is already available today

... is that correct?

Andrey: if so, maybe we should merge the PR

Dom: I think we should merge the PR and ask specific feedback from WebAppSec
in our wide review

Frederick: yes; we should add a note to call attention on the discussion on

Andrey: OK, will create another PR with that note then

dom: once that done, we should start the wide review process as previously

Frederick: yes

### Other Business

<fjh> fjh: we should look at our schedules, possible cancel meetings in
July/August, given a number of people are on summer holiday.

<fjh> fjh: I have conflict 28 July

<fjh> fjh: also have conflict 30 June, can you chair Dom?

<fjh> dom: yes

### Adjourn

## Summary of Action Items

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** anssik to get new updated test report [recorded in

## Summary of Resolutions

  1. [Minutes from 2 June 2016 are approved http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-dap-

[End of minutes]

* * *

Minutes formatted by David Booth's [scribe.perl][30] version 1.144 ([CVS

$Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 $

   [1]: https://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home

   [2]: http://www.w3.org/

   [3]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-

   [4]: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/16-dap-irc

   [5]: #agenda

   [6]: #item01

   [7]: #item02

   [8]: #item03

   [9]: #item04

   [10]: #item05

   [11]: #item06

   [12]: #item07

   [13]: #item08

   [14]: #item09

   [15]: #ActionSummary

   [16]: #ResolutionSummary

   [17]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-

   [18]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-

   [19]: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-dap-minutes

   [20]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-

   [21]: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/16-dap-minutes.html#action01]

   [22]: https://github.com/w3c/test-

   [23]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-

   [24]: https://github.com/w3c/vibration/issues/7

   [25]: https://github.com/w3c/vibration/issues/10

   [26]: https://github.com/w3c/wake-lock/issues/64

   [27]: https://github.com/w3c/wake-lock/issues/51

   [28]: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/16-dap-minutes.html#action01

   [29]: #resolution01

   [30]: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

   [31]: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2016 15:03:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:33 UTC