- From: Vincent Scheib <scheib@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:17:12 -0700
- To: Farhah Kamaruzzaman <farhah.zm@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>, public-web-bluetooth <public-web-bluetooth@w3.org>, Julien Racle <jracle@logitech.com>, "Web NFC (W3C)" <public-web-nfc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK-EfXnZcfGZWyCZdsYnbThB7keiWhuyW7NxNZq9SV5Xr4nZ8A@mail.gmail.com>
Web Bluetooth Community Group Meeting at TPAC 2016, September 19 Recorded 1 hour, 43 minutes: https://youtu.be/Vty9FsTTOoI Introductions: - TPAC room - Anssi (Intel) - Kenneth Rohde Christiansen (Intel) - Zoltan Kis (Intel) - Tomoyuki Shimizu (KDDI Japanese mobile network operator) - [interested in how smartphones and devices can be connected] - Rijubrata Bhaumik (NFC & Generic Sensors API) - ? (Toshiba) - [Highspeed NFC] - ? - Dominique Hazael Massieux - W3C Staff, WebRTC, Device & Sensors group - Tobie Langel (Intel) - Jeffrey Yasskin (Google) Web Bluetooth Spec editor - Vincent Scheib (Google) - Giovanni Ortuño (Google) - François Beaufort (Google) [Developer Relations] - Stanley (Malaysian government) - Julien Racle (Logitech) Implementation Status & Plans: https://youtu.be/Vty9FsTTOoI?t=7m57s Only Google implementers present. Web Bluetooth publishes implementation status here: https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/blob/master/implementation-status.md Chrome implementation reviewed, notably lacking iOS & Windows support. Servo has many JS components implemented Servo is bringing up platform implementations Firefox had a start but stopped, as far as we can tell because of lack of staffing. Other vendors have no activity that we are aware of. Julien: Concern raised regarding WebKit implementation being started, and lack of support in long term in Safari if not started. Group discussed, Apple would also need to approve and adopt the feature but, yes it would need to have implementation in WebKit and no group is working on that now. Additional implementations would help the specification process. Further through the process at least 2 implementations will be required. Servo's implementation would be unlikely to be sufficient for this, clearly in for market needs, but also in W3C process. Reviewing issues: Milestone:"Initial GATT Communication": https://youtu.be/Vty9FsTTOoI?t=22m1s https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/milestone/1 Reviewing issues: Milestone:"Complete GATT Communication": https://youtu.be/Vty9FsTTOoI?t=49m22s https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/milestone/2 Discussing Spec changes: We should be strongly encouraging origin trial members to join the public web-bluetooth list so that as specification changes are being announced and discussed we have input from developers Entering working group: https://youtu.be/Vty9FsTTOoI?t=1h6m4s Could create a working group, but that isn't a preferred option. Could attempt to join HFC, USB, Bluetooth. Being added to existing WG Web Platform would provide much more exposure, if able to make the entry cost of being added to an already large charter. Device group would be easier because there is a clear overlap with the scope of the group. NFC is seeking another browser vendor to be invested before entering a working group jyasskin notes that waiting for another implementation to be invested seems good Anssi notes that some implementations may not start until a spec is in standards track. One motivation to move to a WG sooner is a requirement for minimal time for implementation process time. dom guessting 150 days. Some discussion on testing: scheib: how have other device specs tested? Anssi: vibration, the human notices the effect Another note: Chrome only implements a subset of the entire specification. Anssi recommends flagging the portion of the spec not implemented, e.g. so that following implementations can see that there is less work to follow. Tobie Langel arrives, to have coffee with jyasskin ;), ask about permissions: https://youtu.be/Vty9FsTTOoI?t=1h33m25s In sensors, thinking over how to handle permissions for things which are very similar do we try to group them? Could we do permissions with an object, instead of a string? Web apps sec will discuss permissions later this week at TPAC TPAC meeting is over. Recording available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vty9FsTTOoI and notes above I'll summarize and see published to email list. Recording stops at 1:43:30
Received on Monday, 19 September 2016 17:18:13 UTC