Re: Updated plans for face to face meeting, and results of questionnaire

I wonder why Idle (power management, keep the display on etc) has so little
interest. There is a lot of developer interest in that, judging from
feedback on mailing lists etc, and we definitely need something like that
in Crosswalk/Tizen (we have a Tizen extension today).

Kenneth


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

> First of all, sorry for the delay with the details of the proposed meeting
> on the trust/permissions for web applications and work items for a
> rechartered SysApps working group.
>
> Given the delays Wonsuk Lee and I are now looking at the beginning of
> September,  either 2nd or 3rd, or 3rd and 4th, as Wonsuk is on vacation the
> following week. Would these work for you?  Wonsuk would prefer the meeting
> to take place in Europe since this is where most of the current SysApps
> participants are located. We are now looking for a host for a venue within
> easy reach of a major airport.
>
> As a reminder, the focus of the meeting would be on discussing the
> trust/permissions model for access to extended capabilities for the Open
> Web Platform, and to discuss proposals for work items for the rechartering.
>
> Many thanks for responding to the questionnaire.  There was strong support
> for each of the following:
>
>    a) web apps need access to more advanced capabilities and features than
> they currently have
>    b) users should have control over the capabilities available to apps,
> along with the means to revoke these rights
>    c) asking the user for permission at the time of use is promising,
> although not appropriate for all capabilities
>    d) asking the user for consent up front when the app is "installed" or
> first run is also of value
>    e) app manifests should be one of the preconditions for apps to gain
> access to richer capabilities
>
> There was weak interest in the potential for digital signatures as part of
> attestation for hosted apps on the Open Web Platform. We didn't get many
> suggestions on ideas for future work other than for Bluetooth profiles
> support, and for continued work on the trust/permissions model as an
> extension of existing practice on the Open Web Platform.
>
> Here are the numbers for which APIs people have plans to implement, and
> which APIs people would like to see widely deployed. The third number is
> the sum of the previous two and gives a broader feel for the level of
> interest:
>
> App URI                4    5    9
> TCP UDP Sockets        4    4    8
> Task Scheduler         2    5    7
> Bluetooth              3    4    7
> Media Storage          3    4    7
> Network Interface      4    3    7
> App Lifecycle          3    3    6
>
> Contacts               2    3    5
> Data Store             2    2    4
> Device Capabilities    2    2    4
> Idle                   2    2    4
> Secure Elements        2    1    3
>
> Calendar               1    1    2
> System Settings        1    1    2
> Messaging              1    -    1
> Telephony              1    -    1
>
> We would be likely to drop the bottom group of specifications as they
> wouldn't be able to satisfy W3C's criteria for exiting the Candidate
> Recommendation phase.  The middle group are at risk, but the top group have
> strong support. The general idea is to identify capabilities that would
> have broad appeal to web developers as part of the Open Web Platform.  In
> principle, there could be new capabilities beyond those listed above and
> these could come from new participants to the working group, however,
> rechartering with a modest scope would seem like a good plan.
>
> Many thanks for your help, and please get in touch if you would be
> interested in hosting the meeting.
>
> --
>   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>
>
>


-- 
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation.
Phone  +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆