Summary of Oslo f2f meeting, June 27-28

The Geolocation working group has just finished a two-day f2f meeting in 
Oslo. Here's a short summary of the discussions and links to the meeting 
minutes.

Day 1
Meeting minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/27-geolocation-minutes.html

1. Moving the Geolocation API specification from CR to PR.

Our normative reference to WebIDL has prevented us from moving past CR 
until WebIDL reaches Last Call. WebIDL is now expected to go to LC on 
June 30th, and we decided to keep the reference to that spec instead of 
copying the relevant IDL definitions into the Geolocation spec.

The other requirement for the PR transition is the Implementation 
Report, demonstrating that we have at least two interoperable 
implementations of the API, plus at least two real-world web sites that 
meet the normative requirements in section 4.2 of the spec.
We spent most of day 1 filling out the second part of the IR. A 
preliminary version can be found here:
http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/drafts/API/Implementation-Report.html
(Test results for Opera and Microsoft IE to be filled in shortly)

Day 2
Meeting minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/28-geolocation-minutes.html

1. Device Orientation Events

The transition to FPWD has been approved and we expect the specification 
to be published shortly.

We spent about half the day collecting issues from the mailing list and 
addressing/closing them:
http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/products/3

Issue-88: We have decided to keep the current orientation axes.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011May/0001.html

Issue-89: We'll change the wording to not require listeners to be 
registered for the compasscalibration event to be fired.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jun/0008.html

Issue-90: Change the wording in 4.3 to better reflect the intention, 
which is that the interval at which the event is fired should be a best 
effort based on the underlying hardware interval.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jun/0008.html

Issue-91: We will prefix Acceleration and RotationRate with Device
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jun/0011.html

Issue-92: Should we specify the location of the origin?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011May/0017.html
We're seeking clarification of this issue on the mailing list.

Issue-93: Should we add window.ondevicemotion and 
window.ondeviceorientation?
We're seeking clarification from the HTML5 editor.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jun/0018.html

Issue-94: Implementations should NOT attempt to calculate values that 
are not determined by hardware devices
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jun/0020.html

Issue-95: Separate out compass heading? No decision, requires further 
discussion on the mailing list.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Feb/0039.html

Our goal is to proceed to Last Call with Device Orientation Events well 
ahead of the October/November TPAC f2f meeting.

2. Geolocation API v2

The second half of the day was spent addressing open v2 issues:
http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/products/2

Issue-7: Move heading and speed out of the Coordinates interface?
Rationale: It must be possible to get heading and speed without 
position, and it must be possible to get heading and speed with civic 
address, both without breaking backwards compatibility with v1.
Proposal: Make all attributes of Coordinates optional plus add either a 
new method like getCurrentPosition OR add more attributes to 
PositionOptions.
The details will be posted to the mailing list shortly

Issue-43: Proximity interface. Discussion ongoing on mailing list.

Issue-87: v2 will expose the vertical component of velocity

Issue-96: Should we add a separate API for retrieving the address ?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jun/0019.html
The consensus in the meeting was no:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jun/0037.html

Issue-97: Do we need FunctionOnly attribute on the callback interfaces?
Decision: No, but we won't change it in v1.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jun/0000.html

We plan to update the v2 specification and publish it as a FPWD asap, 
then we aim to move it to Last Call well ahead of the TPAC.

Lars Erik Bolstad
Chair, Geolocation WG

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 18:43:05 UTC