08:27:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #coremob
08:27:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-irc
08:27:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 25
08:27:28 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #coremob
08:27:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
08:27:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
08:27:31 <trackbot> Meeting: Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference
08:27:31 <trackbot> Date: 02 October 2012
08:27:34 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, make logs public
08:27:45 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #coremob
08:27:49 <Josh_Soref> s/Teleconference/Face to Face (Mozilla-London)
08:27:54 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:27:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
08:28:21 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, make logs public
08:28:24 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:28:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
08:29:50 <Josh_Soref> present+ Josh_Soref
08:29:59 <Josh_Soref> present+ Elika_(fantasai)
08:30:06 <Josh_Soref> present+ dom
08:30:13 <Josh_Soref> present+ Jo_Rabin
08:31:46 <Josh_Soref> present+ Bryan_Sullivan
08:31:56 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:31:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
08:33:31 <Josh_Soref> s/dom/Dominique_Hazael-Massieux/
08:36:17 <Wonsuk> Wonsuk has joined #coremob
08:41:24 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Welcome
08:41:30 <Josh_Soref> jo: Since everyone doesn't know everyone
08:41:43 <Josh_Soref> ... it'd be nice if you construct place cards with your names
08:41:53 <Josh_Soref> Jet: We have markers
08:42:36 <Josh_Soref> jo: Good morning everyone
08:42:37 <bryan> bryan has joined #coremob
08:42:40 <Josh_Soref> ... welcome to CoreMob F2F
08:42:47 <Josh_Soref> i/Topic/Scribe: Josh_Soref/
08:43:42 <Josh_Soref> ... Fire assembly point outside with green something
08:43:49 <tobie> tobie has joined #coremob
08:43:52 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Introducitons
08:43:56 <Josh_Soref> s/itons/tions/
08:44:00 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:44:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
08:44:23 <Josh_Soref> jo: I'm Jo, I'm your chair for today+tomorrow... Welcome
08:44:31 <Josh_Soref> Matt: Matt Kelly, Facebookl
08:44:35 <Josh_Soref> XX: FT
08:44:41 <Josh_Soref> Wonsuk: Wonsuk XT
08:44:55 <Josh_Soref> Gavin: Gavin, VodaXZ
08:45:08 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: Josh Soref, RIM, scribe
08:45:42 <mattkelly> mattkelly has joined #coremob
08:45:44 <mounir> mounir has joined #coremob
08:45:46 <Wonsuk> s/XT/Samsung Electronics/
08:46:06 <Josh_Soref> i/Introductions/Jet: don't use the flip chart markers on the whiteboard
08:46:29 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: Elika, Mozilla, scribe
08:46:44 <girlie_mac> girlie_mac has joined #coremob
08:46:55 <fantasai> jwatt: Jonathan Watt, Mozilla
08:47:00 <Josh_Soref> dom: Dominique_Hazael-Massieux, W3C
08:47:06 <Josh_Soref> bryan: Bryan, AT&T
08:47:11 <Josh_Soref> tobie: Tobie, FB
08:47:25 <Josh_Soref> AA: AB
08:47:35 <fantasai> s/AA/hub/ Shuhei Hub, ARC
08:47:37 <Josh_Soref> tomomi: Tomomi, Nokia
08:47:47 <Josh_Soref> GZ: Qualcom
08:47:52 <Josh_Soref> Natasha: Natasha, GSMA
08:48:01 <Josh_Soref> Max: Max1
08:48:02 <dom> Markus_Leutwyler: Markus from HP
08:48:08 <gmandyam> gmandyam has joined #coremob
08:48:26 <Josh_Soref> JenniferLeong: Jennifer Leong, AT&T (bridge)
08:48:44 <Josh_Soref> s/Bryan/Bryan Sullivan/
08:49:36 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: Jean-François Moy, France Telecom
08:49:41 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:49:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
08:50:15 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:50:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
08:50:34 <Josh_Soref> s/Facebookl/Facebook/
08:50:40 <Josh_Soref> s/Matt:/mattkelly:/
08:50:50 <Josh_Soref> s/FB/Facebook/
08:51:52 <Josh_Soref> s/tomomi: Tomomi/Tomomi_Imura_(girlie_mac): Tomomi Imura/
08:52:00 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Good Morning
08:52:07 <Josh_Soref> jet: Good morning, welcome
08:52:11 <Josh_Soref> ... we talked about fire escape
08:52:16 <Josh_Soref> ... i wanted to address the group
08:52:24 <Josh_Soref> ... by coming here today, we're signing up to advance the mobile web
08:52:43 <bryan> are slides available on the web e.g. wiki?
08:52:47 <Josh_Soref> ... i hope the group will come together and leave with a shared vision
08:53:07 <Josh_Soref> [ Jet will drop a link ]
08:53:26 <Gavin_> Gavin_ has joined #coremob
08:53:48 <Josh_Soref> s|s/AA/hub/ Shuhei Hub, ARC||
08:54:02 <Josh_Soref> s/AA: AB/hub: Shuhei Hub, ARC/
08:54:24 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:54:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
08:54:59 <Josh_Soref> s/Tomomi_Imura_(girlie_mac)/girlie_mac/
08:55:02 <Josh_Soref> present+ Tomomi_Imura_(girlie_mac)
08:55:12 <Josh_Soref> present+ Matt_Kelly
08:55:27 <Josh_Soref> present+ Shuhei_Hub
08:55:42 <moystard> moystard has joined #coremob
08:55:49 <Wonsuk> Present+ Wonsuk_Lee
08:56:15 <moystard> moystard has left #coremob
08:56:35 <Josh_Soref> present+ Gavin_Thomas
08:56:39 <jfmoy> jfmoy has joined #coremob
08:56:42 <fantasai> http://junglecode.net/coremob/coremob.html
08:57:16 <Josh_Soref> present+ Tobie_Langel
08:57:47 <Josh_Soref> s/GZ/Gavin_/
08:57:53 <jfmoy> present+ Jean-Francois_Moy
08:58:11 <Josh_Soref> s/Qualcom/Gavin Thomas, Qualcomm/
08:58:40 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:58:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:00:03 <Josh_Soref> s/Gavin_: Gavin Thomas, Qualcomm/gmandyam: Giridhar Mandyam, Qualcomm/
09:00:26 <Josh_Soref> s/Gavin: Gavin, VodaXZ/Gavin_: Gavin Thomas, Vodafone/
09:00:34 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:00:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:01:52 <Josh_Soref> present+ Giridhar_Mandyam
09:03:58 <tobie> Another Canvas HTML5 benchmark: http://html5-benchmark.com/
09:04:10 <Josh_Soref> s/XX: FT/Robert_Shilston: Robert Shilston, Financial Times/
09:05:14 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:05:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:09:05 <Josh_Soref> present+ Jonathan_Watt
09:09:13 <bryan> present+ Bryan_Sullivan
09:09:29 <Josh_Soref> present+ Markus_HP
09:09:51 <Josh_Soref> present+ Jennifer_Leong
09:10:18 <Josh_Soref> s/Max1/Max, NTT Docomo/
09:10:27 <Josh_Soref> present+ Max_NTT
09:10:38 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:10:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:11:54 <fantasai> Tobie: Do you think we should work on benchmarks or test suites?
09:12:02 <Josh_Soref> present+ Natasha_GSMA
09:12:11 <fantasai> Jet: I think both are useful.
09:12:21 <tobie> s/Tobie/Dom/
09:12:43 <fantasai> Jet: The W3C test suites we use aren't very user-friendly. They take hours to run, and the results are not very digestible.
09:13:17 <Josh_Soref> s/Markus from/Markus Leutwyler/
09:13:28 <Josh_Soref> s/Markus_HP/Markus_Leutwyler/
09:13:37 <hptomcat> hptomcat has joined #coremob
09:14:18 <hptomcat> hello ... Markus from HP (webOS Developer Relations) here
09:14:27 <fantasai> [discussion of browsers changing over time]
09:15:04 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:15:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:15:17 <fantasai> Wonsuk: ... Mozilla have to conform the compat of web application across different vendors product, right?
09:15:33 <fantasai> Wonsuk: For compliance, they provide some kind of test suite like CTS compliance test cases
09:15:44 <fantasai> Wonsuk: ... develop product based on Android, have to validate their product
09:15:49 <fantasai> Wonsuk: by Google
09:15:59 <fantasai> Jet: We're trying to sidestep that by being an open web stack
09:16:06 <fantasai> Jet: don't have to recompile, e.g.
09:16:25 <fantasai> Jet: Practically speaking, features get added, deprecated, security fixes change things, etc.
09:16:28 <fantasai> Jet: ... 
09:16:32 <Josh_Soref> present+ Robert_Shilston
09:16:46 <fantasai> Wonsuk: For browsers, ap developer is responsible for app compatibility
09:16:56 <fantasai> Wonsuk: So you mean this context would be for Firefox OS as well?
09:16:58 <fantasai> Jet: Yes
09:17:01 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:17:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:17:11 <fantasai> Wonsuk: So app developer is responsible for compatibility
09:17:18 <Josh_Soref> Chair:  Jo_Rabin
09:17:21 <fantasai> ... vendors \n Jet: My hope is you don't relaly have to do that
09:17:41 <Josh_Soref> s/relaly/really/
09:17:43 <lbolstad> lbolstad has joined #coremob
09:17:44 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:17:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:17:47 <fantasai> Jet: Our hope is that there will be very little additional testing, by virtue of using a web OS
09:18:11 <fantasai> Rabin: Some things struck me about that presentation, esp. wrt perf
09:18:34 <fantasai> Rabin: At Palo Alto f2f, we resolved that although perf was important, we would focus on functional compatibility before we did that
09:18:55 <fantasai> Rabin; We also got a little confused, b/c day 1 we said absolute perf measurements, day 2 said relative were better
09:19:02 <Josh_Soref> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/Meetings/F2F_2012-10-02_and_03/Agenda
09:19:11 <fantasai> Rabin: There are other groups working on perf, so we can leverage what they're doing
09:19:14 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:19:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:19:29 <dom> s/Rabin;/Rabin:/
09:19:49 <fantasai> Rabin: I want us to have a quick look at the agena now, so that we can be clear on what we're going to cover
09:19:55 <dom> s/agena/agenda/
09:20:07 <Josh_Soref> s/Rabin:/jo:/G
09:20:14 <fantasai> Rabin: First, we have a discussion of objectives. Seems there is still great uncertainty as to what this group is going to do.
09:20:25 <fantasai> Rabin: Why are we here, what's our relationship with e.g. Ringmark etc.
09:20:34 <fantasai> Rabin: So let's discuss that this morning
09:20:49 <Josh_Soref> i/I want us/Topic: Agenda/
09:20:53 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:20:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:21:01 <fantasai> Rabin: We need to think about what are our actual deliverables
09:21:13 <fantasai> Rabin: And what is a realistic timeline for these
09:21:48 <fantasai> Rabin: I will keep returning to the issue of resources. We won't make any progress without that.
09:21:58 <fantasai> Rabin: Reality check.
09:22:13 <fantasai> Rabin: We owe a debt of gratitude to Tobie, for producing tangible stuff
09:22:31 <fantasai> Rabin: I know ppl contribute to discussions, but that is not the primary output of this group.
09:23:12 <fantasai> Rabin: Some criticism of this group as being driven by FB, but as long as only FB is doing any work, that perception will not change.
09:23:46 <fantasai> Rabin: 3 other major objectives
09:24:00 <fantasai> Rabin: Coremob-2012 spec, that Tobie's been diligently working on
09:24:14 <fantasai> Rabin: I would like us to come to some firm conclusions on that.
09:24:31 <fantasai> Rabin: Fundamental decisions about what gets left in / out of that spec, based on what we see the point of that spec is.
09:24:37 <fantasai> s/is/being/
09:24:51 <fantasai> Rabin: What would it mean to conform to Coremob-2012
09:25:10 <fantasai> Rabin: Would like us to resolve to publish this document
09:25:21 <fantasai> Rabin: by the end of this meeting, preferably by end of this day
09:25:58 <fantasai> Rabin: Tomorrow, we'll discuss a test framework, and then tests to run in the framework
09:26:01 <jet> jet has joined #coremob
09:26:20 <fantasai> RabiN; I think I was recorded on the last teleconference  as saying it's like the difference btw roads and vehicles that run on the roads
09:26:25 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:26:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:26:29 <Josh_Soref> s/RabiN;/Jo:/
09:26:35 <fantasai> Rabin: Tobie has written a document which he will introduce tomorrow
09:26:40 <jet> Josh_Soref: slides: http://junglecode.net/coremob/coremob.html
09:26:46 <fantasai> Rabin: Those are the objectives for this meeting. Anyone have anything to add?
09:27:11 <Josh_Soref> s/slides:/->/
09:27:16 <Josh_Soref> s/.html/.html Certifying The Core Mobile Web/
09:27:21 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:27:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:27:29 <fantasai> Rabin shows off his proposed schedule
09:27:50 <Josh_Soref> s/Josh_Soref: //
09:28:03 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:28:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:28:55 <Josh_Soref> s/Rabin shows/[ jo /
09:29:00 <Josh_Soref> s/schedule/schedule ]/
09:29:27 <Josh_Soref> jet: surrounding meeting rooms are available for breakouts
09:30:08 <fantasai> tobie: There's a small project FB HP and Nokia are working on, I'd like to present tomorrow afternoon
09:30:51 <fantasai> Topic: Objectives: Uncertainties as to what this group is here to do
09:31:42 <fantasai> Rabin: There's a big thing missing from our writeups, which is in plain language, why did God put Coremob here on this Earth?
09:31:53 <fantasai> Rabin: I don't think that question is clearly address.
09:32:10 <fantasai> Rabin: There's a history here, coremob came out of FB effort with Ringmark
09:32:46 <fantasai> tobie: Matt started at FB, we started talking to some of our partners, e.g. Samsung
09:33:01 <fantasai> tobie: Given the traction we're seeing behind it, decided to bring it to a CG
09:33:07 <fantasai> tobie: That's pretty much what coremob is
09:33:22 <fantasai> tobie: Ringmark is a test suite that was developed on the side, as a parallel project, with the intent of giving it to the group
09:33:29 <fantasai> tobie: and maybe seeding the group's test suite with it
09:33:49 <DKA> DKA has joined #coremob
09:33:56 <fantasai> Matt: Before we launched this at Mobile Web Congress, we'd been working with a doze dev to build on top of FB apis
09:34:11 <fantasai> Matt: Working with Zynga, Huffington Post, etc. to build mobile apps that had deep social integration
09:34:18 <fantasai> Matt: Decided as a group that best way was to build on the Web
09:34:26 <fantasai> Matt: Allows us to build quickly and deploy across many devices
09:34:36 <fantasai> Matt: Major feature of the platform is usable everywhere
09:34:44 <fantasai> Matt: worked with them for about a year
09:34:58 <fantasai> Matt: altogether, ~14 mobile web apps built from scratched
09:35:08 <fantasai> Matt: It quadrupled the mobile web ap ecosystem
09:35:20 <fantasai> Matt: Along the way we learned a lot, one being that the Web is really hard, for a bunch of reasons
09:35:28 <DKA> DKA has joined #coremob
09:35:35 <fantasai> Matt: Particularly, esp from Zynga's standpoint, development was straightforward and simple
09:35:51 <fantasai> Matt: But trying to get it to run across all Android devices at the time, b/c behind the curve,
09:36:00 <fantasai> Matt: Half the project was figuring out why things were so slow, or why couldn't be built
09:36:10 <fantasai> Matt: Once we launched we had a bunch of mobile web apps out there
09:36:15 <fantasai> Matt: Decided a bunch of issues to make this a reality
09:36:24 <fantasai> Matt: Our APIs work everywhere, so would be great if these apps could work everywhere
09:36:37 <fantasai> Matt: We also have our own incentive to build our own app and have it work everywhere
09:36:50 <fantasai> Matt: We took these issues and started talking to Samsung and other OEMs
09:37:01 <fantasai> Matt: And that's the basis behind coremob, and the priorities we decided were important for the mobile web
09:37:25 <fantasai> Matt: Ringmark was a separate but parallel effort, these are the top things that are important to web developers
09:37:30 <fantasai> Matt: Hopefully coremob takes it over
09:37:47 <fantasai> Matt: So I think that's the full history, where we're coming from and what our priorities are
09:37:56 <JenniferLeong> q+ Re: purpose: We're here to improve the mobile web experience for developers and end users
09:38:06 <fantasai> Matt: One important note, we launched ~14 apps, and looking at how many are still live and running... only ~3 are.
09:38:26 <fantasai> Matt: Some were killed off b/c didn't think the user experience was good enough, too slow, etc., couldn't expand in ways good for users.
09:38:30 <fantasai> Matt: Some companies went bankrupt
09:38:47 <fantasai> Matt: Others maintenance costs was more than revenue
09:38:55 <fantasai> Matt: You see the current market conditions, they're not quite right yet.
09:39:19 <Josh_Soref> jo: the group is grateful for its genesis from the Facebook initiative
09:39:22 <Josh_Soref> ... it isn't tied to it
09:39:27 <Josh_Soref> ... it treats all input equally
09:39:37 <Josh_Soref> ... as i've observed, Facebook is the biggest contributor, so it has the biggest group
09:39:47 <Josh_Soref> ... it must change.. in order for the group to be successful
09:39:54 <Josh_Soref> ... I think we have been extremely unclear
09:40:04 <Josh_Soref> ... there is no Idiots Guide to CoreMob
09:40:05 <tobie> s/has the biggest group/has the biggest voice/
09:40:09 <Josh_Soref> ... we do need a simple statement
09:40:24 <Josh_Soref> ... I'd like to write a statement in 5 minutes
09:40:44 <Josh_Soref> ... In simple terms: CoreMob is here for making the Mobile Web a reasonable platform for developing Mobile Applications
09:40:54 <Josh_Soref> ... it is not that today, it's much too hard
09:40:58 <Josh_Soref> ... with limited exceptions
09:41:01 <tobie> q+
09:41:13 <natasha> natasha has joined #coremob
09:41:24 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it's important to bring a set of features minimally needed to produce an application
09:41:29 <Josh_Soref> ... we made a start on this route
09:41:45 <Josh_Soref> ... with thanks for bryan/AT&T for pushing that
09:41:54 <fantasai> s/biggest group/biggest voice/
09:42:44 <hptomcat> q+
09:42:59 <dom> -> http://people.w3.org/~dom/archives/2010/08/what-is-a-web-application/ Dom's (handwavy) view on "what is a Web application"
09:43:03 <Josh_Soref> ack JenniferLeong 
09:43:03 <Zakim> JenniferLeong, you wanted to purpose: We're here to improve the mobile web experience for developers and end users
09:43:23 <Josh_Soref> ack tobie 
09:43:29 <rob_shilston> rob_shilston has joined #coremob
09:43:34 <rob_shilston> q+
09:43:43 <Josh_Soref> tobie: this start is literally word for word the beginning of the charter
09:43:50 <Josh_Soref> ... but we're having real issues communicating that
09:43:57 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm wondering if a writeup is a good solution
09:44:06 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm wondering if the W3C community tool is awful
09:44:31 <Josh_Soref> jo: do you have a recommendation for W3C to make it better?
09:44:42 <Josh_Soref> tobie: I think we could have our own page
09:44:50 <Josh_Soref> ... we could use the coremob domain to point to it
09:44:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm happy to cede the name
09:45:03 <bryan> action Jen Leong to propose text summarizing the discussion on the list, and what we propose as the "mobile web app" characteristuics etc
09:45:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find Jen. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/users>.
09:45:43 <bryan> ack JenniferLeong
09:45:48 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: once you start producing things that are interesting
09:45:55 <Josh_Soref> .. it'll be much clearer what you do
09:46:00 <Josh_Soref> ... if you just talk about what you want to do
09:46:08 <Josh_Soref> s/.. it'll/... it'll/
09:46:18 <Josh_Soref> ... if you're just talking, it's less clear
09:46:27 <Josh_Soref> ... but once you produce things, it'll be clear what you do
09:46:39 <Josh_Soref> jo: i've had discussions with people interested in joining
09:46:49 <Josh_Soref> ... but they're unclear about what it's trying to achieve
09:46:52 <bryan> action JenniferLeong to propose text summarizing the discussion on the list, i.e. what we propose as the "mobile web app" characteristics
09:46:52 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find JenniferLeong. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/users>.
09:47:01 <Josh_Soref> dom: you only need to define it as much as you're trying to do
09:48:13 <Josh_Soref> rob_shilston: surely it's far easier for people to say that CoreMob is the output of what the industry thinks is needed
09:48:26 <Josh_Soref> ... and people should be able to follow its output to know what could work
09:48:27 <bryan> Josh can you create the action for me? I note the link <http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/users> gets a 404
09:48:41 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it's easy for small companies
09:48:48 <Josh_Soref> ... but it's hard for others
09:48:55 <Josh_Soref> ... if we want more resources from members
09:49:28 <Josh_Soref> ... we need something they can bring to their companies
09:49:52 <Josh_Soref> q?
09:50:04 <rob_shilston> q-
09:50:14 <Josh_Soref> markus: how do we differ from SysApps?
09:50:23 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it's a Working Group
09:50:29 <Josh_Soref> ... it produces new technologies
09:50:42 <Josh_Soref> markus: do we focus on mobile technology in the web browser?
09:50:59 <Josh_Soref> tobie: the key difference in layer in the stack
09:51:04 <Josh_Soref> ... Sys Apps WG is lower in the stack
09:51:14 <Josh_Soref> ... we're focusing applications
09:51:20 <rob_shilston> I said: "We've recently been asked to share our product roadmap with a prospective tool supplier.  I countered that as a tool supplier, the best thing for them to strategically do is follow the coremob 2012 spec as that captures the distilled requirements of mobile developers. "
09:51:26 <Josh_Soref> ... they're focusing on applications that sit in a native-web system
09:51:46 <Josh_Soref> dom: CoreMob references existing specifications that a Web Browser would implement
09:51:55 <Josh_Soref> ... whether CoreMob could reference a Sys App spec
09:51:59 <rob_shilston> Tobie then suggested "That's fine for small companies, but many of the people round the table are big companies, and need to work out how to convey back to our organisations what coremob is"
09:52:23 <Josh_Soref> ... do we focus on Sys Apps APIs too?
09:52:31 <Josh_Soref> tobie: CoreMob doesn't produce new technology
09:52:34 <bryan> or a question of when? for sysapps - I think the question of "whether it's in scope" should be yet at some point
09:52:36 <Josh_Soref> markus: "we could test it?"
09:52:54 <Josh_Soref> tobie: testing is supposed to be done by the group that produces the spec
09:52:58 <Josh_Soref> q?
09:53:01 <bryan> s/yet at/yes at/
09:53:08 <dan> dan has joined #coremob
09:53:37 <rob_shilston> I replied "Maybe coremob should act as a broker.  If you're a small developer who needs things, then get those suggested to coremob.  If you're a big company / vendor / supplier and here at coremob as your company's representative, then you can go back to your company and say 'Coremob is the route by which developers and the community are telling us what they need'.  That's why coremob is important - it's brokering information between developers, vendor
09:53:42 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Our target audience is web developers, and sysapps is not actually producing things that will be available through the web. So no.
09:53:50 <dom> (I think the answer is "not yet")
09:53:51 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: That could change, but at least for the next 2 years, it's a no
09:53:55 <bryan> q+
09:53:58 <rob_shilston> @tobie: Did I capture that right?
09:54:11 <Josh_Soref> ack hptomcat 
09:54:17 <tobie> rob_shilston: yup
09:54:28 <dom> ack bryan
09:54:34 <dom> s/ton:/ton,/
09:54:53 <Josh_Soref> q+ hptomcat 
09:54:53 <Josh_Soref>  bryan: i think it's a matter of when
09:54:53 <Josh_Soref> ... but we should avoid looking too far down the horizon
09:55:16 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:55:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
09:55:40 <bryan> focus on what is short term achievable based upon the web baseline in web browsers particularly focused on mobile use cases
09:55:40 <JenLeong> JenLeong has joined #coremob
09:55:45 <Josh_Soref> dom: how do we communicate this effectively?
09:55:58 <dom> s/bie:/bie,/
09:56:00 <mattkelly_> mattkelly_ has joined #coremob
09:56:28 <Josh_Soref> jo: i think the document needs to say what the group is not
09:57:10 <hptomcat> hptomcat has joined #coremob
09:57:32 <Josh_Soref> ... saying what it's is, and what it isn't are both important
09:57:32 <Josh_Soref> ... perhaps an FAQ style document to accompany it would be useful
09:57:32 <Josh_Soref> ... I'll make a draft proposal
09:57:32 <Josh_Soref> ... 1. our objective is...
09:57:58 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref has joined #coremob
09:58:14 <Josh_Soref> ... - constituencies are other groups in W3C and other Standards bodies
09:58:22 <Josh_Soref> ... - then constituencies who build things on W3C standards
09:58:26 <Josh_Soref> ... these two overlap
09:59:30 <Josh_Soref> ... - say we're here to represent the voice to groups who need it
10:00:06 <dan_> dan_ has joined #coremob
10:00:32 <jet> q+
10:00:40 <mounir> present+ Mounir_Lamouri
10:01:36 <Josh_Soref> q?
10:01:36 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: there's 2 directions that you're trying to broker
10:01:36 <Josh_Soref> ... industry and what they want
10:01:36 <Josh_Soref> ... communicating that to the WG/Vendors who are building the platform
10:01:40 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref has joined #coremob
10:01:46 <hptomcat> q-
10:01:57 <Josh_Soref> ... the aspirational set isn't helpful to people building content today
10:02:08 <Josh_Soref> ... the working set isn't useful to people building the platform today
10:02:22 <Josh_Soref> jo: the aspirational part not helping developers today
10:02:30 <Josh_Soref> ... i agree it's true
10:02:44 <Josh_Soref> ... but i think other groups are building that document
10:02:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we can say "caniuse is doing a good job"
10:03:00 <bryan> q+ to suggest that the "what is supported" aspect is being addressed by public sites, and the toolset and directional influence that CoreMob can bring is the key value
10:03:00 <Josh_Soref> ... why repeat their work
10:03:21 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: if all you want is aspirational, then you don't need a test suite
10:03:40 <Josh_Soref> ... a test suite is for things that are designed
10:03:48 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it's important to ensure the implementations get it right
10:03:57 <Josh_Soref> dom: test suites used right can be a pressure tool
10:04:08 <Josh_Soref> q?
10:04:27 <tobie> q+
10:04:42 <Josh_Soref> bryan: the experience we had in WAC
10:04:46 <Josh_Soref> ... in trying to define a baseline
10:04:51 <Josh_Soref> ... developing test suites to validate
10:05:04 <Josh_Soref> ... we decided we shouldn't make vendors implement features which aren't coming from Mozilla/WebKit
10:05:21 <Josh_Soref> ... in the process, defining a baseline becomes a useless exercise
10:05:33 <Josh_Soref> jo: so it's a useless exercise?
10:05:40 <tobie> q-
10:05:56 <tobie> q+
10:05:57 <Josh_Soref> bryan: it'd be very useful to build a tool that could do testing
10:06:01 <Josh_Soref> ack jet 
10:06:03 <dom> ack bryan
10:06:03 <Zakim> bryan, you wanted to suggest that the "what is supported" aspect is being addressed by public sites, and the toolset and directional influence that CoreMob can bring is the key
10:06:06 <Zakim> ... value
10:06:13 <Josh_Soref> jet: i was hoping we could get resolution on the technology transfer from Facebook
10:06:24 <Josh_Soref> ... that would clear up Ringmark is/is-not CoreMob
10:06:29 <Josh_Soref> ... and also the coremob.org
10:06:34 <Josh_Soref> ... let's not start from 0
10:06:43 <Josh_Soref> jo: let's talk about that tomorrow afternoon
10:06:53 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we should be open to taking tests from a number of sources
10:06:58 <DKA> DKA has joined #coremob
10:07:04 <Josh_Soref> ... that requires are test architecture we'd discuss tomorrow morning
10:07:11 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #coremob
10:07:15 <Josh_Soref> ... right now the bit on the wiki is caveated
10:07:21 <Josh_Soref> jet: we should do that on this meeting
10:07:23 <jfmoy> jfmoy has joined #coremob
10:07:33 <Josh_Soref> jo: we should establish criteria for tests
10:07:34 <dan_> +q
10:07:37 <Josh_Soref> ... not all tests are equal
10:07:42 <Josh_Soref> s/+q/q+/G
10:07:49 <Josh_Soref> tobie: there's more to talk about on that
10:07:52 <Josh_Soref> q?
10:07:56 <Josh_Soref> ack tobie 
10:08:13 <Josh_Soref> tobie: we noticed when mattkelly + I started working on this project
10:08:27 <Josh_Soref> ... mobile browsers, unlike desktop browsers, have a lot more relation to the hardware they're on
10:08:33 <Josh_Soref> ... one thing we've noticed
10:08:43 <Josh_Soref> ... is there's little agreement between OEMs, Chipmakers, Carriers, Vendors
10:08:46 <Josh_Soref> ... about what to focus on
10:08:49 <JenLeong> q+ 
10:08:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i think that's also a way this group could be very effective
10:09:00 <Josh_Soref> ... it's important
10:09:05 <fantasai_> fantasai_ has joined #coremob
10:09:07 <Josh_Soref> .. its goal is to acknowledge we should think about it
10:09:15 <Josh_Soref> ... "Focus on the same things across the industry"
10:09:34 <Josh_Soref> jo: so, broaden the scope to those groups?
10:09:50 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i think it's one of the big differences between mobile and desktop
10:09:52 <Josh_Soref> ack dan_ 
10:10:00 <Josh_Soref> dan_: i think the test suite is more urgent
10:10:08 <Josh_Soref> ... we all agree there's no good/comprehensive test suite
10:10:34 <Josh_Soref> ... if we could evaluate the best test suite for a given area
10:10:42 <Josh_Soref> ... identifying that would be helpful
10:10:48 <Josh_Soref> jo: i agree with that
10:11:07 <dom> -> http://www.w3.org/2012/08/mobile-web-app-state/ The State of Web Apps techs for mobile has some info on W3C test suites availability
10:11:12 <Josh_Soref> ... if CoreMob 2012 is "features needed to build a minimal set of applications running on the framework"
10:11:22 <Josh_Soref> ... then we have 3 parts moving at different speeds
10:11:31 <Josh_Soref> ... some bits which we need tests for will never have tests
10:11:40 <Josh_Soref> ... we should ensure we have a consistent view in this group
10:11:50 <Josh_Soref> ... i haven't talked about:
10:11:55 <Josh_Soref> ... we need a statement of what's required
10:11:59 <Josh_Soref> ... we need a framework
10:12:06 <tobia> tobia has joined #coremob
10:12:15 <Josh_Soref> ... we need tests to verify things running in the framework to verify things are implemented
10:12:30 <Josh_Soref> ... what that framework looks like, we'll talk about tomorrow morning
10:12:42 <Josh_Soref> ... where tests come from, and how to assess whether they're any good
10:13:09 <Josh_Soref> ... one things fantasai + Josh_Soref emphasized was that test suites could be wrong
10:13:14 <Josh_Soref> ... and send things in bad directions
10:13:21 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to focus on why we're here
10:13:25 <Josh_Soref> ... focusing on tobie 's document
10:13:39 <Josh_Soref> [ time check ]
10:13:53 <Josh_Soref> bryan: we'd like the test system be able to collect data on a per-device basis
10:14:27 <bryan> we would like to ensure that test results can be collected and published on a per-device basis
10:17:02 <rob_shilston> @bryan note that it's also important for people to be able to privately run tests on devices / firmware which might not yet have general-availability.
10:18:20 <DKA> DKA has left #coremob
10:19:46 <natasha> natasha has joined #coremob
10:22:49 <DKA> DKA has joined #coremob
10:28:45 <natasha> natasha has joined #coremob
10:44:04 <jet> jet has joined #coremob
10:45:10 <Josh_Soref> topic: Dinner
10:45:19 <Josh_Soref> jo: straw poll... how man for dinner (6:30pm)
10:45:23 <Josh_Soref> [ 20 people ]
10:45:26 <fantasai> RRSAgent: here
10:45:26 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-irc#T10-45-26
10:45:51 <lbolstad> lbolstad has joined #coremob
10:45:51 <Josh_Soref> Topic: What we are
10:46:06 <Josh_Soref> jo: purpose - a forum for developers to express their needs
10:46:31 <Josh_Soref> ... to produce a document, either by amendment or by a further version
10:46:40 <jfmoy> jfmoy has joined #coremob
10:47:00 <Josh_Soref> ... with a note about capturing current state
10:47:08 <Josh_Soref> ... my own view is that we don't really have the resources to do that
10:47:12 <Josh_Soref> ... even if we wanted to
10:47:19 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to address which other groups are relevant to our work
10:47:30 <Josh_Soref> ... and whether we should establish formal/informal liasons
10:47:42 <Josh_Soref> ... other initiatives might include CanIUse, RoboHornet
10:48:02 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: when we come up with this spec, it'll feed into WGs
10:48:12 <Josh_Soref> s/mattkelly_/mattkelly:/G
10:48:20 <Josh_Soref> ... Orientation Lock is half backed
10:48:26 <Josh_Soref> s/backed/baked/
10:48:33 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: Modernizer
10:48:37 <Josh_Soref> ... HTML5Test.com
10:48:49 <gmandyam> +q
10:48:54 <Josh_Soref> tobie: some specs are really good
10:49:05 <Josh_Soref> ... but it's unclear to developers about what they should use it for
10:49:10 <Josh_Soref> ... HTML 5 Capture
10:49:26 <Josh_Soref> ... some have said "it sucks", "use getUserMedia instead"
10:49:35 <Josh_Soref> ... but for some things, it's the right thing
10:50:01 <Josh_Soref> ... it seems someone could write explanations to help developers understand when they should use a Spec
10:50:12 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: i think having UCs would help identify when to use a Spec
10:50:31 <Josh_Soref> ... saying "GetUserMedia wouldn't be targeting this UC" could be valuable
10:50:41 <Josh_Soref> ... beyond that, a test suite
10:50:54 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i think the project i'll describe tomorrow kind of addresses that
10:51:00 <Josh_Soref> girlie_mac: BrowserScope.org
10:52:53 <Josh_Soref> jo: aside from tobie, who's in W3 WGs?
10:52:58 <Josh_Soref> jet: CSS
10:53:05 <Josh_Soref> gmandyam: DAP, Audio, GeoLoc
10:53:09 <Josh_Soref> tobie: WebApps
10:53:13 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: DAP
10:53:18 <Josh_Soref> bryan: DAP, WebApps, HTML
10:53:30 <Josh_Soref> dom: DAP, WebRTC
10:53:34 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: CSS, I18n
10:53:37 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: DAP
10:53:56 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: GeoLoc
10:54:06 <Josh_Soref> Wonsuk: DAP, WebApps, HTML, SysApps
10:54:15 <Josh_Soref> mounir: DAP, WebApps, HTML
10:54:23 <Josh_Soref> s/HTML/HTML, SysApps/
10:54:33 <Josh_Soref> jo: DAP seems to win
10:54:50 <Josh_Soref> jo: Who is participating/has active knowledge in RoboHornet?
10:54:55 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: (me)
10:55:07 <Josh_Soref> tobie: TestTheWebForward
10:55:16 <bryan> other CG member from AT&T active in WebRTC and WebAppsSec (Dan Druta)
10:55:19 <Josh_Soref> jet: +1
10:55:23 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: +1
10:55:25 <Josh_Soref> dom: +1
10:55:34 <dom> s/+1/+0.5/
10:55:37 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: CanIUse
10:56:03 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: BrowserScope
10:56:04 <Josh_Soref> tobie: +1
10:56:16 <bryan> What about http://mobilehtml5.org/ ?
10:57:42 <Josh_Soref> Gavin_: MobileHTML5
10:57:48 <Josh_Soref> tobie: +1
10:58:16 <Josh_Soref> tobia: Tobia Canisky, Bonjourno, part of Docomo
10:58:24 <Josh_Soref> ... working on a marketplace creating with HTML5
10:58:35 <Josh_Soref> ... developers can monetize with direct operator connection
10:58:42 <Josh_Soref> ... i work on the front end side, software architect
10:58:49 <Josh_Soref> ... my first time @w3, my pleasure being here
10:59:00 <tobia> Tobia Caneschi :)
10:59:06 <Josh_Soref> present+ Tobia_Caneschi
10:59:10 <Josh_Soref> s/Canisky/Caneschi/
10:59:22 <Josh_Soref> Topic: CoreMob 2012 Document
10:59:29 <Josh_Soref> tobie: document hasn't moved much in the last month
10:59:39 <Josh_Soref> ... if you looked recently, there shouldn't be many surprises
10:59:46 <Josh_Soref> ... once we've gone through the document today
10:59:54 <Josh_Soref> ... we should discuss how and when to publish
11:00:04 <Josh_Soref> ... with our main goal being to improve the overall platform
11:00:15 <Josh_Soref> ... this is a strategic decision
11:00:29 <Josh_Soref> ... we had a number of Action Items/Issues tied to the document
11:00:29 <bryan> link to current version?
11:00:34 <Josh_Soref> ... i think i've fixed all/most of them
11:00:55 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we went over it on the telco a few weeks ago, with things approved in bulk
11:01:00 <Josh_Soref> ... changes i
11:01:08 <Josh_Soref> s/i/i've made/
11:01:10 <Josh_Soref> ... section 2
11:01:46 <bryan> http://coremob.github.com/coremob-2012/
11:01:46 <Josh_Soref> [ jo projects ]
11:02:01 <Josh_Soref> tobie: the box is a bug in the tool
11:03:22 <Josh_Soref> ... the tool/database may have moved, so i lost track of where to go to get it fixed
11:03:30 <gmandyam> q+
11:03:31 <Josh_Soref> bryan: i have a question about getting that fixed out to darobin
11:03:43 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i added a conformance section
11:04:12 <Josh_Soref> ... you can't ask for a browser to be conformant to something which is impossible
11:04:25 <Josh_Soref> ... e.g. color on a black-and-white display
11:04:38 <Josh_Soref> q?
11:04:49 <fantasai> Jo: Should we say something wrt conforming to a spec vs. passing tests ?
11:04:53 <Josh_Soref> ack gmandyam 
11:05:05 <Gavin_> Gavin_ has joined #coremob
11:05:06 <dom> (technically, a device without a touch screen conforms to the Touch Event specs by virtue of the truth of predicates applied to the empty set)
11:05:13 <Josh_Soref> gmandyam: i see references to specifications in different stages
11:05:22 <Josh_Soref> ... what's the overriding philosophy
11:05:29 <Josh_Soref> ... GeoLoc is in CR
11:05:47 <Josh_Soref> ... DD is DD1
11:05:53 <Josh_Soref> ... File is Draft
11:06:09 <Josh_Soref> tobie: W3 has strict rules
11:06:26 <Josh_Soref> dom: a related issue
11:06:36 <Josh_Soref> ... do we only refer to the spec as a whole or a subset?
11:06:51 <Josh_Soref> jo: the resolution at last meeting was in almost every case: As a whole
11:07:04 <Josh_Soref> tobie: the slicing should be the work of the WG and not us
11:07:17 <mattkelly_> q+
11:07:42 <Josh_Soref> present+ Lars_Erik_Bolstad
11:09:09 <Josh_Soref> jet: Compass
11:09:22 <Josh_Soref> tobie: like device orientation?
11:09:28 <Josh_Soref> jet: a device can do something
11:09:37 <Josh_Soref> ... but the OS doesn't allow privileged access
11:10:35 <Josh_Soref> jet: the device is not necessarily the gatekeeper
11:10:48 <Josh_Soref> jo: so expand the definition to include system libraries
11:10:59 <Josh_Soref> ... this wording straight from a CSS spec
11:11:15 <Josh_Soref> tobie: with the caveat that the only word changed was "device"
11:11:26 <Josh_Soref> jo: if we tweak "device" to "device and associated software"
11:11:55 <Josh_Soref> tobie: are we making developer's lives easy
11:12:01 <Josh_Soref> ... or make vendor's lives easy
11:12:26 <Josh_Soref> ... Do we handle a Gaming device w/o SMS
11:12:32 <Josh_Soref> ... a Kindle that isn't a Gaming device
11:12:49 <Josh_Soref> dom: i think we wait to tweak until someone wants to conform, but can't because of the wording
11:13:27 <Josh_Soref> dom: i'm suggesting to leave it as is, until someone brings a real life problem
11:13:58 <Josh_Soref> jo: change Device to Device and Associated Runtime and raise an issue?
11:14:03 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i'm not sure i agree with that change
11:14:14 <Josh_Soref> ... if both Safari and Chrome run on the same system
11:14:22 <Josh_Soref> ... and Safari has access to hidden apis
11:14:38 <Josh_Soref> ... the capabilities of Safari and Chrome on the device are very different
11:14:42 <Josh_Soref> ... that should be communicated
11:14:50 <bryan> its a matter of choice; if chrome had a choice to implement then its a nonconformance if they do not
11:15:02 <Josh_Soref> jo: you're saying it's important to name+shame
11:15:32 <Josh_Soref> dom: i think anything below the browser is a black box
11:15:39 <Josh_Soref> mounir: if you use an API from iOS
11:15:53 <Josh_Soref> ... then if you everything you can do, but the API doesn't work
11:16:00 <Josh_Soref> ... then you shouldn't be able to say "that's conforming"
11:16:10 <Josh_Soref> ... if i can't do touch events because the device doesn't have touch
11:16:24 <Josh_Soref> ... if the UA does everything possible, then it is
11:16:30 <Josh_Soref> ... i agree with fantasai 
11:16:37 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: if Google has a problem, they should Shame Apple
11:17:00 <Josh_Soref> tobie: is it better for the group's end goal
11:17:04 <bryan> or negotiating the access they need in order to remove the nonconformance?
11:17:07 <Josh_Soref> ... for Chrome to be able to claim conformance
11:17:12 <Josh_Soref> ... or better to be able to complain
11:17:24 <fantasai> ... that they can't conform because the APIs are not open
11:18:09 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: ultimately it's because developers can build an experience
11:18:20 <Josh_Soref> ... if i can't get the camera api and i'm building instagram
11:18:30 <Josh_Soref> ... google building Chrome on iOS, can't get the access
11:18:37 <Josh_Soref> ... they can't conform, they should shame apple
11:18:48 <Josh_Soref> tobie: that was my initial view
11:18:50 <bryan> so a capability that is not exposed to after-market browsers can be a non-conformance? we might need at least a way to explain the non-conformance e.g. a reason code in the test results database
11:18:57 <Josh_Soref> ... but last time the pendulum swung the other way
11:19:02 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i think the text is fine as is
11:19:21 <Josh_Soref> jo: do we want a conformance section in our document?
11:19:30 <Josh_Soref> ... saying it's aspirational
11:19:36 <JenLeong> q-
11:19:38 <Josh_Soref> ... these are the features device managers, browser vendors
11:19:48 <Josh_Soref> ... should bare in mind
11:19:59 <Josh_Soref> ... this document will be ready before a test framework is ready
11:20:08 <mattkelly_> q-
11:20:08 <Josh_Soref> ... before the tests, even before the spec
11:20:16 <Josh_Soref> ... conformance to this document is moot right now
11:20:48 <Josh_Soref> ... it lives in Cloud-Cuccuo land
11:20:51 <bryan> would removing conformance take any motivation away from development of the test framework? If not, I agree focusing on aspirational text would defer the conformance definition question
11:20:54 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: you're building a wish-list
11:21:00 <Josh_Soref> ... for what you wish you had in 2012
11:21:09 <Josh_Soref> dan_: some features are not just stable enough
11:21:31 <Josh_Soref> jo: the target of people making standards 
11:21:35 <dom> q+ to say that a wishlist is toothless, probably less impactful for developers
11:21:56 <Josh_Soref> ... saying that "if you don't make these things the web won't be competitive to native apps"
11:22:10 <Josh_Soref> q?
11:22:24 <Josh_Soref> jo: "which specs are finished/not finished"
11:22:30 <Josh_Soref> ... shouldn't be dealt with until we go through the list
11:23:12 <Josh_Soref> dan_: if a spec isn't stable enough, then we wouldn't include it
11:23:25 <Josh_Soref> jo: i think we should be making a list of features that a reasonable developer would like to have
11:23:30 <Josh_Soref> ... to develop now
11:23:37 <Josh_Soref> ... existence of a standard isn't important
11:23:48 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to see the spec as a reference of requirements
11:23:54 <Josh_Soref> ... with references to specification work
11:24:08 <Josh_Soref> ... and indications of where there's no work
11:24:22 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: you need to be clear that you want the features, but not necessarily a spec that's under flux
11:24:37 <Josh_Soref> q+
11:24:48 <Josh_Soref> tobie: how do you spec a feature if the feature doesn't exist somewhere?
11:25:01 <Josh_Soref> jo the precise nature is up to the WGs
11:25:05 <Josh_Soref> s/jo /jo: /
11:25:10 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i don't disagree
11:25:14 <Josh_Soref> ... i just don't know how to do it
11:25:26 <Josh_Soref> dom: one way is to describe requirements, not features
11:25:35 <bryan> q+ to suggest that if removing conformance focus did not affect likely efforts to assess conformance (or analyze and publish test results in a conformance light) by 3rd party sites, then it would be OK to refocus the doc
11:25:38 <Josh_Soref> ... a specification that "provides a way to access white balance"
11:25:39 <Josh_Soref> ack dom
11:25:39 <Zakim> dom, you wanted to say that a wishlist is toothless, probably less impactful for developers
11:25:51 <Josh_Soref> q+ dom to say that a wishlist is toothless, probably less impactful for developers
11:25:58 <Josh_Soref> dom: i'm hearing various things
11:26:03 <Josh_Soref> ... not sure how they relate
11:26:10 <Josh_Soref> ... 1. a Wishlist
11:26:23 <Josh_Soref> ... 2. let browser vendors compete on Conforming (but avoid that word)
11:26:33 <Josh_Soref> ... 3. define relatively clearly the features for the wish list
11:26:42 <Josh_Soref> ... 4. the wish list seems very aspirational
11:26:56 <Josh_Soref> ... #2 seems to require conformance
11:27:12 <Josh_Soref> ... the thing you guys did on the top 100 native applications
11:27:21 <Josh_Soref> ... looking carefully at what it means to get access to the camera
11:27:24 <Josh_Soref> q?
11:27:41 <Josh_Soref> tobie: when we looked at the existing native app ecosystem
11:27:53 <Josh_Soref> ... while there's a lot of stuff you can do on native that you can't do on web
11:28:01 <Josh_Soref> ... most apps don't rely on them
11:28:04 <Josh_Soref> ... look at Games
11:28:14 <Josh_Soref> ... most top grossing on mobile use 2D
11:28:20 <Josh_Soref> ... they're casual games, not hard-core gamers
11:28:45 <Josh_Soref> ... we found the smallest set of stuff to be able to build most apps on native, but using web tech
11:29:13 <Josh_Soref> ... then, let's look at what's on the web, in implementations, in specs, implemented/not implemented
11:29:29 <Josh_Soref> ... a good 3/4 of the specs are finished + implemented (at least the useful parts)
11:29:38 <Josh_Soref> ... then, there's a small set of features not in a complete state
11:29:48 <Josh_Soref> ... the big question is on strategy
11:29:53 <Josh_Soref> ... how to publish/define it
11:30:03 <Josh_Soref> ... cut on features (because there's no spec)
11:30:14 <Josh_Soref> ... publish non-spec'd features as a different document (a UC document?)
11:31:00 <Josh_Soref> q?
11:31:08 <Josh_Soref> ack me
11:31:22 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: So, I think one of the ways to do use cases is to look at apps, 
11:31:42 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: or to build an app, and say "insert X here, missing this one thing to make this ap really work"
11:31:56 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: If you build an app today, want to make sure it works in 2 years
11:32:01 <dan_> q+
11:32:13 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: One way or the other, and probably way to do it is to take real apps and make a mockup of them
11:32:28 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: You can publish that, and then ppl can mock up an implementation
11:32:51 <dom> q-
11:32:56 <Josh_Soref> ack bryan 
11:32:56 <Zakim> bryan, you wanted to suggest that if removing conformance focus did not affect likely efforts to assess conformance (or analyze and publish test results in a conformance light) by
11:33:00 <Zakim> ... 3rd party sites, then it would be OK to refocus the doc
11:33:26 <fantasai_> fantasai_ has left #coremob
11:33:27 <Josh_Soref> bryan: ... 3rd party sites, then it would be OK to refocus the doc
11:33:41 <dom> (people would still say that a given browser "conforms" to whatever we define)
11:33:55 <Josh_Soref> jo: my view is that conformance comes later
11:34:23 <Josh_Soref> bryan: removing conformance doesn't block people from doing things
11:34:33 <Josh_Soref> jo: conformance waits for tests
11:34:53 <Josh_Soref> jo: this document should be published in say 6 months
11:35:22 <Josh_Soref> ... we should publish a different document to drive people to make this document testable
11:35:29 <Josh_Soref> dan_: i think we can split this document into two parts
11:35:38 <Josh_Soref> ... one part that's ready by the end of the year
11:35:42 <Josh_Soref> ... one for the wish list
11:36:04 <Josh_Soref> tobie: if we look over the list and decide the majority aren't ready
11:36:08 <Josh_Soref> ... we should pause it
11:36:27 <Josh_Soref> dan_: can we for each item, identify which is the best thing to test each?
11:36:45 <Josh_Soref> [ dan explains the history of CoreMob documents ]
11:36:54 <Josh_Soref> [ and how each document gets shelved ]
11:37:04 <Josh_Soref> tobie: we should release something now
11:37:14 <Josh_Soref> ... showing activity is a valid goal
11:37:21 <Josh_Soref> ... but it's a different goal
11:37:40 <bryan> to summarize my point: if others could/would still analyze and publish test results in a conformance light, then it would be OK to defocus conformance in the doc, while retaining focus on test development in the CG
11:37:46 <Josh_Soref> ... identifying the best test for a spec is important, but different
11:37:54 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: on the topic of removing things
11:38:01 <Josh_Soref> ... to Opera as a browser vendor
11:38:08 <Josh_Soref> ... the interesting thing was the starting point
11:38:12 <Josh_Soref> ... identifying what's needed
11:38:25 <Josh_Soref> ... removing stuff because a spec is lacking is going in the wrong direction
11:38:47 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
11:38:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
11:39:27 <Josh_Soref> jo: as dom said, regardless of existence, it's important to identify what's needed
11:39:34 <Josh_Soref> [ TIME CHECK ]
11:40:01 <Josh_Soref> jo: "What would developers like in their stockings at Christmas?"
11:40:10 <Josh_Soref> q+ tobie 
11:40:14 <Josh_Soref> ack dan_ 
11:40:18 <dom> q+ to mention a possible structure
11:40:28 <Josh_Soref> ack tobie 
11:40:33 <mattkelly_> q+
11:40:40 <Josh_Soref> tobie: this document has been useful to push groups to do things
11:40:45 <mattkelly_> q-
11:40:47 <Josh_Soref> jo: would people like lunch?
11:40:51 <bryan> devs will surely want more than they currently can get, so just measuring based upon current apps would be short-sighted; we need some aspirational use cases as well - where do we find them?
11:40:56 <Josh_Soref> [ Lunch ]
11:46:27 <DKA> DKA has joined #coremob
11:47:44 <jfmoy> jfmoy has joined #coremob
12:02:19 <tobia> tobia has joined #coremob
12:26:01 <tobia> tobia has joined #coremob
12:36:06 <jfmoy> jfmoy has joined #coremob
12:36:31 <natasha> natasha has joined #coremob
12:39:00 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Dinner
12:39:07 <Josh_Soref> jo: i couldn't get a reservation for 6:30pm
12:39:13 <Josh_Soref> ... i get it for 7:30pm
12:39:20 <jet> jet has joined #coremob
12:39:39 <Josh_Soref> ... go left onto St. Martin's Lane
12:39:47 <Josh_Soref> ... up to 7 dials
12:39:54 <Josh_Soref> ... take 2nd right
12:39:57 <Josh_Soref> ... "earlem st"
12:40:14 <Josh_Soref> ... Belgo Centraal
12:40:21 <Josh_Soref> ... is the restaurant
12:40:30 <lbolstad> lbolstad has joined #coremob
12:40:41 <dom> s/earlem/earlham/
12:42:10 <Wonsuk> Wonsuk has joined #coremob
12:42:15 <Josh_Soref> Topic: XXQ
12:42:18 <Josh_Soref> jo: Requirements
12:42:26 <Josh_Soref> ... then, what standards/recs are needed
12:42:30 <Josh_Soref> ... related: what's the state of them
12:42:43 <Josh_Soref> ... then what tests are needed to verify those have been implemented
12:43:07 <Josh_Soref> ... then, a test framework, to address what's needed to run tests
12:43:20 <Josh_Soref> ... allowing contributed runs, or excluding a run from being contributed (for private runs)
12:43:29 <Josh_Soref> ... Excluded from this: Speed, Memory
12:43:45 <Josh_Soref> ... theoretically in scope, but unobtainable
12:43:51 <Josh_Soref> ... then, the question of what conformance means
12:44:22 <Josh_Soref> ... Conformance to Requirements
12:44:33 <Josh_Soref> ... means an appropriate set of Standards/Recommendations has been chosen
12:44:40 <Josh_Soref> ... that meets the express needs of the rquirements
12:44:47 <Josh_Soref> ... Conformance to Standards
12:44:58 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #coremob
12:45:16 <Josh_Soref> ... means that features/detailed aspects of the standard are claimed to have been implemented in an appropriate manner
12:45:28 <MikeSmith> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:45:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html MikeSmith
12:45:35 <Josh_Soref> ... All the MUSTs, some of the MAYs, maybe some SHOULDs
12:45:39 <Josh_Soref> ... Conformance to Tests
12:46:02 <Josh_Soref> ... means that an implementation passes the tests
12:46:09 <tobie> q+
12:46:18 <dom> q-
12:46:27 <Josh_Soref> ... We've been discussing what part of the flow chart tobie's document covers
12:46:45 <Josh_Soref> ... and whether it's a top down or bottom up thing
12:46:56 <Josh_Soref> tobie: you've described Conformance as having a meaning at all of these steps
12:47:07 <MikeSmith> i/junglecode/scribe: fantasai 
12:47:14 <MikeSmith> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:47:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html MikeSmith
12:47:20 <Josh_Soref> ... i've never heard that definition of Conformance in W3C
12:48:02 <Josh_Soref> dom: Conformance is to a Test Suite for a Specification
12:48:10 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: but it's really to verify implementability
12:48:59 <Josh_Soref> jo: i think in non technical language, it makes sense to conform to requirements
12:49:07 <Josh_Soref> Gavin_: we're trying to build a platform
12:49:12 <dom> "Fulfillment by a product, process, systems, or service of a specified set of requirements." http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#glossary
12:49:17 <Josh_Soref> ... but you could have multiple specs thatconform to a requirement
12:49:23 <Josh_Soref> s/thatconform/that conform/
12:49:33 <gmandyam> +q
12:49:52 <hub> hub has joined #coremob
12:50:41 <jet> jet has joined #coremob
12:51:19 <Josh_Soref> jo: Requirements => Standards / Recs => Tests => Test Framework
12:51:35 <Josh_Soref> jo: either CoreMob 2012 is a collection of Requirements
12:51:46 <Josh_Soref> ... or it is a list of Standards / Recs that meet these
12:52:04 <Josh_Soref> tobie: at CoreMob Palo Alto, I said I was working on a Requirements/UCs document
12:52:17 <Josh_Soref> ... it's common form for W3C specs to have a UC/Req section
12:52:20 <dom> ack gmandyam
12:52:22 <Josh_Soref> ack tobie 
12:52:42 <Josh_Soref> gmandyam: my confusion, relates to how you take this to an automated suite of tests that you can run
12:52:48 <Josh_Soref> ... e.g. DeviceOrientation spec
12:52:55 <tobie> q+
12:52:57 <Josh_Soref> ... Ringmark was more of an existence test
12:52:59 <Josh_Soref> ... not conformance
12:53:07 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd have to hold it, and rotate it
12:53:16 <Josh_Soref> jo: i think your point is relevant
12:53:21 <Josh_Soref> ... but i'd like to divide the discussion
12:53:36 <dom> (automated testing necessarily limits the depth of testing we can achieve)
12:53:37 <Josh_Soref> ... whether a test is automatable belongs to Testing/Test Framework
12:53:58 <Josh_Soref> ... Conformance exists independently of how the test is executed
12:54:34 <hptomcat> (just a quick note regarding testing discussion at lunch: crowd sourcing given raw data and specification)
12:54:36 <Josh_Soref> tobie: you could have a Conformance requirement that isn't testable within a scope
12:54:49 <Josh_Soref> ... but that doesn't make something which doesn't do that Conformant
12:55:05 <Josh_Soref> dom: a test suite lets on assess whether something could be conformant
12:55:13 <Josh_Soref> ... but it doesn't address completeness
12:55:51 <Josh_Soref> dom: what we want to define is Usable Conformance
12:55:57 <Josh_Soref> ... beyond just Existence
12:56:03 <Josh_Soref> ... but less than complete checking
12:56:18 <Josh_Soref> ... the definition/discussion is a difficult one
12:56:23 <Josh_Soref> ... but something we should confront later
12:56:39 <Josh_Soref> jo: Tests = "What tests are needed to verify that claims are true"
12:57:14 <dan> dan has joined #coremob
12:57:41 <tobie> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
12:58:05 <tobie> q+
12:58:49 <Josh_Soref> jo: Test Framework = What's needed to execute these tests in a subset
12:59:06 <Josh_Soref> ... because multiday testing is too long
12:59:23 <Josh_Soref> q?
12:59:24 <dom> (more than verifying their truth, we want to verify some level of truthiness, ideally a level that is informative enough for developers to make choices)
13:00:00 <Josh_Soref> jo: [inserts in Tests] Can we say what automated/non-automated tests are automatable
13:00:11 <tobie> https://github.com/coremob/coremob-test-approach
13:00:46 <tobie> s/https://github.com/coremob/coremob-test-approach/http://coremob.github.com/coremob-test-approach/
13:01:00 <Josh_Soref> s|s/https://github.com/coremob/coremob-test-approach/http://coremob.github.com/coremob-test-approach/||
13:01:11 <Josh_Soref> dom: there's a range of options
13:01:17 <Josh_Soref> ... in terms of what kind of testing can be done
13:01:59 <Josh_Soref> s|https://github.com/coremob/coremob-test-approach|http://coremob.github.com/coremob-test-approach|
13:02:54 <Josh_Soref> jo: in Palo Alto, we said we needed a way to have sources w/ subsets
13:03:46 <Josh_Soref> ... and some database that recorded results
13:03:50 <Josh_Soref> ... and a way to render results
13:03:58 <Josh_Soref> ... like caniuse/browserscope/...
13:04:19 <Josh_Soref> ... we failed to communicate that this is the basic idea
13:04:27 <Josh_Soref> [ scribe failed to transcribe picture ]
13:04:42 <Josh_Soref> jo: and some way to record things like hard to test (orientation)
13:05:04 <lgombos> lgombos has joined #coremob
13:05:07 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it'd be really useful if people read the document
13:05:29 <Josh_Soref> ... and also useful is the html5 2014 plan
13:05:37 <Josh_Soref> ... describing how they want to test/focus+test the html5 spec
13:05:48 <Josh_Soref> ... it seems like a very sane strategy
13:05:52 <Josh_Soref> ... we should look at it closely
13:05:54 <Josh_Soref> ... and use...
13:07:00 <Josh_Soref> jo: ... returning to tobie 's document
13:07:07 <Josh_Soref> ... it exists near Specs/Recs
13:07:13 <Josh_Soref> ... conformance is what it says in the document
13:07:31 <Josh_Soref> ... conformance will mean conformance to those documents as conformant to those documents
13:07:40 <Josh_Soref> ... what i'd like is:
13:07:48 <Josh_Soref> ... 1. where are the requirements?
13:08:20 <Josh_Soref> ... 2. how to decide in/out for document
13:08:35 <Josh_Soref> dom: the underlying hard question is how to determine what's in / out
13:08:47 <Josh_Soref> jo: i'd suggest a digression
13:08:53 <dom> s/out/out of the requirements/
13:10:03 <Josh_Soref> [ jo + mattkelly_ rotate the whiteboard for lack of the crank needed to flip it ]
13:10:54 <dom> -> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuIhlK0fCwP4dEFPR1pUWHk1QVczcV9xbFAtX19CMXc CoreMob Mobile Web App Profile
13:10:55 <bryan> link please?
13:11:02 <bryan> thanks
13:11:18 <Josh_Soref> i/Mobile/Potential Requirements/
13:11:29 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: this was a first attempt at finding missing features
13:11:39 <Josh_Soref> ... we looked primarily at native apps
13:11:43 <Josh_Soref> ... and how people used their phones
13:11:46 <tobie> q?
13:11:48 <Josh_Soref> ... which apps they used actively
13:11:55 <Josh_Soref> ... came up with prioritization
13:11:59 <Josh_Soref> ... based on time spent
13:12:04 <Josh_Soref> ... and then features that were missing
13:12:14 <Josh_Soref> ... which seeded ringmark/tobie's spec
13:12:21 <Josh_Soref> ... we went through the exercise a handful of times
13:12:30 <Josh_Soref> ... it boiled down into a couple of categories
13:12:34 <Josh_Soref> ... 1. 2D games
13:12:47 <Josh_Soref> ... the vast majority of time on phones today
13:12:58 <Josh_Soref> ... we'd worked with Zygna and some others
13:13:12 <Josh_Soref> ... for 2D gaming, features aren't missing, they're just slightly broken or have bad perf
13:13:25 <tobia> s/zygna/zynga/i
13:13:43 <Josh_Soref> s/Zygna/Zynga/
13:13:49 <Josh_Soref> s|s/zygna/zynga/i||
13:13:59 <Josh_Soref> ... <canvas> technically has the technical features necessary
13:14:02 <Josh_Soref> ... but it wasn't performant
13:14:06 <Josh_Soref> ... 2. Audio
13:14:41 <Josh_Soref> ... audio needs to happen instantly, and not choppily
13:15:21 <Josh_Soref> ... Zynga had tried <audio> for sounds for words but they ripped it out, because it was too bad
13:15:26 <Josh_Soref> ... 3. Audio-Video Apps
13:15:31 <Josh_Soref> ... Spotify/Audio-Diezer
13:15:38 <Josh_Soref> ... Hulu/Netflix/YouTube
13:15:44 <gmandyam> +q
13:15:46 <Josh_Soref> ... what's interesting about those
13:15:51 <Josh_Soref> ... adaptive streaming
13:15:58 <Josh_Soref> ... audio guys don't need it
13:16:08 <Josh_Soref> ... they queue up the next song at a lower bit rate if they need it
13:16:15 <Josh_Soref> ... Video guys can't do that, since a video could be hours long
13:16:34 <Josh_Soref> ... then, companies have contractual obligations relating to DRM
13:16:51 <Josh_Soref> ... even with Adaptive streaming, they couldn't build their apps
13:17:01 <Josh_Soref> ... without some form of loose content encryption
13:17:06 <Josh_Soref> ... The other part was codecs
13:17:20 <Josh_Soref> tobie: given there was no standard codec
13:17:31 <Josh_Soref> ... to support every browser, you have to encode your content differently
13:17:35 <Josh_Soref> ... or encode it on the fly
13:17:41 <Josh_Soref> ... either paying a CPU cost or a storage cost
13:17:47 <Josh_Soref> ... it's a big problem for Facebook
13:18:09 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: 4. Photo Apps
13:18:15 <Josh_Soref> ... Instagram, Food Spotting
13:18:23 <Josh_Soref> ... Camera apps couldn't be built on the majority of browsers
13:18:29 <Josh_Soref> ... Android had a file input for camera
13:18:44 <Josh_Soref> ... iOS didn't have it, it got it in iOS 6
13:18:51 <Josh_Soref> ... <file input {camera}>
13:19:16 <Josh_Soref> ... at the time, there were 3 competing camera specs
13:19:22 <Josh_Soref> ... people cringe at <file input>
13:19:25 <Josh_Soref> ... but for all those UCs
13:19:29 <Josh_Soref> ... all they want is a photo
13:19:35 <Josh_Soref> ... for the native apps, they use the native camera app
13:19:43 <Josh_Soref> .. they use the photo they got back and apply a filter
13:19:54 <Josh_Soref> s/.. they/... they/
13:20:06 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: we also needed XHR2
13:20:15 <Josh_Soref> tobie: and you needed IndexDB
13:20:22 <Josh_Soref> ... you needed some File API
13:20:33 <Josh_Soref> ... you probably needed CORS2
13:20:38 <Josh_Soref> ... you probably also need Offline
13:21:05 <Josh_Soref> s/Offline/"Application Cache"/
13:21:17 <jo> q?
13:21:25 <Josh_Soref> dom: was this part of the analysis?
13:22:09 <Josh_Soref> dom: this analysis seems like a good document to be published in prose form
13:22:24 <Josh_Soref> tobie: this analysis was part of the first level 1 spec
13:24:21 <Josh_Soref> tobie: when there were two specs, a level 0, and a level 1
13:24:31 <Josh_Soref> ... there was a requirement and what was needed
13:24:47 <Josh_Soref> q?
13:24:54 <dom> ack gmandyam
13:25:47 <fantasai> gmandyam: ... even if you make a claim that WebRC is an incomplete WD, we have other incomplete WDs as well.
13:25:55 <fantasai> gmandyam: How much of this ranking is really subjective?
13:26:03 <fantasai> gmandyam: Would I come up with a different list?
13:26:16 <fantasai> gmandyam: FB needs a camera API, but don't need it for ...
13:26:41 <fantasai> Jo: The point of this group is to capture the excellent work by FB, put it out in the public domain, and say to developers, OK, this is Facebooks' view. Do you agree? What have they missed?
13:26:55 <fantasai> gmandyam: My idea is to get away from genres, just pick existing apps
13:27:12 <fantasai> Matt: People are spending the majority of their time in these apps
13:27:17 <jo> ack t
13:27:21 <fantasai> Matt: top ten apps are not the same
13:27:34 <fantasai> Matt: 2D games isn't the largest group of where people spend their time on mobile devices
13:27:49 <dom> q+
13:27:59 <jo> ack d
13:28:07 <fantasai> gmandyam: Your ranking of the APIs that exist today, don't consider genres, are you sure your list would be the same
13:28:31 <fantasai> dom: You're saying this is FB list, their view. We need to move from that to a document that represents this group's perspective as a whole
13:29:00 <fantasai> gmandyam: List what individual apps need, instead of genres. E.g. this is what FB needs, this is what FB needs
13:29:10 <fantasai> Matt: This lists that info here ...
13:29:37 <fantasai> Jo: It doesn't matter how you do it. It seems this is a what's popular today / tomorrow, may not be the same thing
13:29:48 <fantasai> Jo: We're trying to capture what people are trying to build and failing to build.
13:30:01 <fantasai> Jo: We need to start somewhere, and this is a good list to start from
13:30:19 <fantasai> Jo: What you *want* to build isn't reflected in popularity, because it hasn't been built yet.
13:30:27 <fantasai> Tobie: That's why we looked at native apps
13:31:01 <fantasai> Tobie: Bunch of popular games that don't use WebGL, and others that aren't as popular that do
13:31:12 <fantasai> s/Tobie/gmandyam/
13:31:40 <fantasai> Tobie: We looked at what are the stuff we are missing, what would adding this feature enable.
13:31:57 <fantasai> Tobie: WebRTC is a good example. At the time we started looking at it, a year ago, no clear path of where it was going
13:32:18 <fantasai> Tobie: The only thing out of that list that WebRTC would help was Skype, so we said, not really useful atm
13:32:46 <fantasai> Tobie: The main problem with the mobile web platform atm is that there are plenty of specs, and no one really knows where to focus energy on moving things forward
13:32:57 <Josh_Soref> s/Tobie:/tobie:/g
13:33:02 <Josh_Soref> s/Tobie:/tobie:/G
13:33:03 <fantasai> Tobie: If we can all agree on a subset, and get that to move forward, then the rest will fall into place
13:33:08 <Josh_Soref> s/Jo:/jo:/G
13:33:22 <fantasai> Tobie: How can we, minimum cost, change the opportunity of mobile web apps
13:33:56 <fantasai> Tobie: Of course this is biased and organic. Takes the data we could find and tries to make a coherent analysis.
13:34:00 <fantasai> Tobie: Can it be improved, yes.
13:34:17 <fantasai> Jo: we talked about a few specific technologies
13:34:26 <fantasai> Jo: But we're discussing requirements, not technologies
13:34:34 <dom> as a reminder, the charter of the group explicitly calls out the popularity filter ("It is necessary for building a class of applications that has significant market share in native mobile environments")
13:34:34 <fantasai> Jo: So WebGL or not is not a question in ths dicussion
13:34:47 <tobie> q?
13:34:50 <fantasai> Jo: What you seem to be saying is that you don't consider FB's list to be vlaid.
13:35:03 <fantasai> Jo: I'm asking you, on what basis do you consider this list invalid?
13:35:30 <fantasai> gmandyam: 2 ways to interpret data. One is based on most popular apps, other is based on genres.
13:35:40 <fantasai> gmandyam: My question is  ...
13:35:52 <fantasai> tobie: Oh. We made the output based on both approaches
13:36:08 <fantasai> tobie: We ...
13:36:45 <fantasai> dom: The charter calls for the criteria of selecting features, it is necessary for building a class of apps that has significant market share in native applications
13:36:53 <fantasai> dom: So it can't be just one application
13:37:13 <fantasai> dom: The goal is to enable several applications that can achieve a given class
13:37:39 <fantasai> Jo: Time to bring this discussion to a close
13:37:51 <tobie> q+
13:38:02 <fantasai> Jo: Although the process FB went through is undoubtably subjective, it gives a clear document
13:38:17 <fantasai> Jo: Wehther it's important that Skype is enabled by this is a separate discussion
13:38:41 <fantasai> tobie: I'd like to point us back to the charter, which as criteria Dom mentioned
13:39:02 <tobie> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/charter/
13:39:31 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i'm happy with the coremob charter
13:39:34 <Josh_Soref> ... i wrote it
13:39:45 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: and everyone who joined the CG read it and signed off on it
13:40:00 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: this is our methodology
13:40:09 <Josh_Soref> ... we probably talked with all the people in this room
13:40:43 <jo> ack t
13:41:29 <Josh_Soref> [ noise from others entering the room finishing some meal ]
13:41:39 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i'm afraid of losing focus
13:41:52 <Josh_Soref> dom: we need to start with something
13:42:00 <Josh_Soref> ... i think what you've provided, is a good starting point
13:42:08 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we need something concreate
13:42:12 <Josh_Soref> s/create/crete/
13:42:14 <Josh_Soref> jo: i agree
13:42:27 <Josh_Soref> ... this spreadsheet needs to be turned into a document
13:42:28 <Josh_Soref> q+
13:42:35 <Josh_Soref> tobie: UCs and Requirements
13:42:52 <Josh_Soref> jo: i'm looking for resources to work with you
13:42:59 <Josh_Soref> ... to create that document in the shortest possible time
13:43:02 <Josh_Soref> q?
13:43:30 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: One thing Tobie and I spoke about over lunch is, they looked over popular apps, and one popular app was a battery monitor
13:43:42 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Not used by any other app except to show battery monitor status
13:43:48 <tobie> first stab at UA = req: http://tobie.github.com/COREMOB-1-REQ/index.html
13:43:56 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: We exclude battery because it turned up in this one app
13:44:00 <tobie> s/=/+/
13:44:04 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: It's a failing of the OS
13:44:35 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: We also talked about ruling out Skypes use case, because it's only used by 1 app, which is a minority of the 100+ apps we looked at and doesn't enable a class of use cases
13:44:59 <Josh_Soref> tobie: out of the top-most-used-applications
13:45:16 <Josh_Soref> ... how many apps were of a category
13:45:38 <Josh_Soref> ... we didn't measure total time for individual apps against categories
13:45:58 <Josh_Soref> ... it wasn't super scientific
13:46:28 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:46:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
13:46:43 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Getting Requirements Document
13:46:47 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it's started, it's very empty
13:46:52 <Josh_Soref> jo: do you need help?
13:46:55 <Josh_Soref> tobie: yeah sure
13:46:57 <Josh_Soref> jo: how?
13:47:07 <Josh_Soref> tobie: a breakout session
13:47:14 <Josh_Soref> ... to discuss how the document should be best authored
13:47:29 <Josh_Soref> ... there's very few examples of such documents in W3C
13:47:38 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: there's one by Travis Microsoft for Media Capture
13:48:38 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/scenarios.html
13:48:47 <Josh_Soref> dom: i'm hearing people interested in things being successful
13:48:50 <Josh_Soref> ... but not committing time
13:49:16 <Josh_Soref> bryan: [AT&T] we've signed up for an Action Item
13:49:31 <Josh_Soref> dom: so small contributions?
13:49:42 <Josh_Soref> bryan: yes, but we're not sure we're ready for being an Editor
13:49:52 <Josh_Soref> gmandyam: i'm interested in Editing Requirements
13:50:00 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: I'm interested in Editing Requirements
13:50:09 <Josh_Soref> jo: how do we avoid slippery slope
13:50:18 <Josh_Soref> Gavin_: one page
13:50:30 <Josh_Soref> ... no wish list
13:50:40 <Josh_Soref> ... get 80%
13:50:45 <Josh_Soref> ... beyond the 3 surving apps
13:50:50 <Josh_Soref> s/surv/surviv/
13:51:15 <Josh_Soref> dom: two levels
13:51:18 <Josh_Soref> ... UCs
13:51:24 <Josh_Soref> ... [applications that do stuff]
13:51:28 <Josh_Soref> ... Requirements
13:51:32 <Josh_Soref> ... - derived from the UCs
13:52:47 <Josh_Soref> dom: App Cache should let web applications work offline
13:52:49 <Josh_Soref> ... but it doesn't
13:53:15 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a difference between what's said and what's done
13:53:44 <Josh_Soref> dom: if we want to go back to a WG
13:53:50 <Josh_Soref> ... and say "you didn't do the right thing"
13:54:02 <Josh_Soref> ... we need to be able to go back with UCs and Reqs
13:54:07 <Josh_Soref> ... and say "it doesn't quite work"
13:54:16 <Josh_Soref> gmandyam: i think a gap-analysis makes sense
13:54:37 <tobie> q+
13:54:47 <tobie> ack Josh_Soref 
13:55:02 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: We can't go back to other WGs, when these groups are way past reqs stage, that they didn't do their job
13:55:09 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: We're not even the peer of a WG
13:55:25 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: We can't go back without a clear explanation and say they didn't do their job
13:55:32 <fantasai> s/say/just say/
13:55:45 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: What you will do, since you three have volunteered for this, is you will take the list of 100 apps
13:56:06 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: and write up how the list came to be, what the categories are, what the use cases those apps cover, and what requirements exist to address those use cases.
13:56:22 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Then someone can publish a gap analysis between the existing spec and what's needed
13:56:32 <fantasai> Jo: i think that's past coremob-2012
13:56:51 <fantasai> tobie: Problem is, use cases for these specs either don't exist or were lost in the mailing list somewhere
13:57:04 <fantasai> tobie: I asked hixie for use case for appcache, and he says "to make webapps work offline
13:57:05 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: [and in Hixie's head]
13:57:19 <fantasai> tobie: Finding existing stuff will take at least 2 years
13:57:35 <fantasai> tobie: To go back to original points you made, this work for us is difficult because it's not clear at what level we should go
13:57:42 <fantasai> tobie: how deeply into reqs and use cases we should go
13:57:50 <fantasai> tobie: Something I've been struggling with; defining that is useful
13:57:51 <dom> q+ to point to the one of the specificities of this group:w e look at an integrated platform level
13:57:53 <Josh_Soref> q?
13:57:56 <tobie> q-
13:58:12 <Josh_Soref> dom: this group can provide
13:58:16 <Josh_Soref> ... a platform overview
13:58:21 <Josh_Soref> ... instead of feature specific
13:58:28 <Josh_Soref> ... we aren't looking to "enable p2p communication on the web"
13:58:39 <Josh_Soref> ... we're looking to enable mobile apps to be developed on the web
13:59:01 <Josh_Soref> ... acquiring assets, storing assets, managing payments
13:59:13 <tobie> q
13:59:15 <tobie> q+
13:59:16 <Josh_Soref> ... for various reasons these things are addressed in individual groups
13:59:20 <Josh_Soref> s/q+//
13:59:20 <dom> ack me
13:59:20 <Zakim> dom, you wanted to point to the one of the specificities of this group:w e look at an integrated platform level
13:59:22 <Josh_Soref> s/q//
13:59:27 <jfmoy> jfmoy has joined #coremob
13:59:39 <Josh_Soref> jo: Summary
13:59:50 <Josh_Soref> ... using mattkelly_ 's spreadsheet as starting point
14:00:00 <Josh_Soref> ... tobie , gmandyam , lbolstad , will work on a short document
14:00:06 <Josh_Soref> ... to capture UCs in categories
14:00:18 <Josh_Soref> ... and consequential feature requirements for those UCs
14:00:29 <Josh_Soref> ... it will avoid slippery slopes
14:00:34 <Josh_Soref> ... ready in first draft by what time?
14:01:10 <Josh_Soref> tobie: action item to have a deadline by end of f2f
14:01:33 <Josh_Soref> Gavin_: the spec becomes a dependency on that?
14:02:10 <jet> q+
14:02:27 <Josh_Soref> jo: i don't want people to say "the requirements were unduly influenced" by any individual group
14:02:42 <Josh_Soref> Gavin_: how big is the concern
14:02:47 <Josh_Soref> jo: it's the people not around this table
14:03:08 <Josh_Soref> jo: let's be sure we're completely clear that it's from the group
14:03:18 <Josh_Soref> Gavin_: i thought we were going to agree the spec today
14:03:33 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i think it was an idea of jo's, but i didn't want to do that
14:03:38 <dan> q+
14:04:08 <Josh_Soref> jo: my proposal is that we try as hard as we possibly can to get this requirements iteration done within a couple of weeks
14:04:18 <Josh_Soref> ... to say that the coremob 2012 document meets those requirements
14:04:28 <Josh_Soref> ... does App Cache meet those requirements?
14:04:32 <Josh_Soref> ... no, because it doesn't work
14:04:46 <Josh_Soref> ... as an objective to get this document to an equivalent of LC
14:04:51 <Josh_Soref> ... i think that's been "unpicked"
14:05:00 <Josh_Soref> ... but we've decided we need to publish requirements
14:05:07 <Josh_Soref> ... and coremob 2012 is based on the requirements
14:05:45 <Josh_Soref> dan: i'd agree with Gavin_ 
14:05:54 <Josh_Soref> ... but maybe we can do this for the next rond
14:05:56 <Josh_Soref> s/rond/round/
14:05:58 <Josh_Soref> q?
14:06:05 <Josh_Soref> q+
14:06:10 <Josh_Soref> ack dan
14:06:24 <Josh_Soref> q- tobie 
14:06:25 <Josh_Soref> q+ tobie 
14:06:37 <Josh_Soref> ack jet 
14:06:49 <Josh_Soref> jet: this meeting feels like the meeting in Palo Alto
14:06:57 <jfmoy> q+
14:07:08 <Josh_Soref> ... i won't be able to justify a third meeting if we don't publish something at this meeting
14:07:16 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd propose stripping the first draft to only CR specs
14:07:24 <Josh_Soref> ... exist, tested, known good, stable
14:07:32 <Josh_Soref> ... and promise to work again on the next version
14:07:45 <Josh_Soref> ... CR specs assume Conformance, Existence, UCs
14:07:56 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: (some Specs are silly)
14:08:07 <Josh_Soref> dom: what does that fulfill?
14:08:12 <Josh_Soref> jet: it fulfills a need
14:08:32 <Josh_Soref> dom: i think the UCs document would be critical
14:08:40 <Josh_Soref> s/critical/valuable/
14:08:53 <Josh_Soref> jet: a big subset of this spec isn't up to debate
14:09:03 <Josh_Soref> dom: most of these aren't in CR
14:09:13 <Josh_Soref> jet: a lot of it is HTML, CSS, DOM
14:09:19 <Josh_Soref> dom: CR eliminates HTML5
14:09:42 <Josh_Soref> ... you lose <video>
14:10:00 <Josh_Soref> jet: i assert you can do that today
14:10:00 <Josh_Soref> q?
14:10:10 <Josh_Soref> ack me
14:10:47 <dan> q+
14:13:08 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: publish "FPWD" of Requirements by 2 weeks
14:13:14 <Josh_Soref> ... publish "LC" 2 weeks later
14:13:25 <Josh_Soref> ... publish final edition at end of year
14:13:33 <Josh_Soref> ... publish a draft of the other document nowish
14:13:51 <Josh_Soref> ... with an extra section stating that we're publishing a Requirements document late
14:14:08 <Josh_Soref> ... apologizing, explaining that we'd encourage other groups which forgot to publish Requirements
14:14:15 <Josh_Soref> ... to publish them late, as we've done
14:14:24 <Josh_Soref> ... and encourage future groups to actually publish their Requirements
14:14:38 <Josh_Soref> ... and noting that we're publishing our Requirements
14:15:01 <Josh_Soref> jet: it seems we need some decision making process
14:15:08 <Josh_Soref> jo: the firm basis for things in CoreMob 2012
14:15:13 <Josh_Soref> ... is based on a Requirements Document
14:15:21 <Josh_Soref> ... i wanted the CoreMob 2012 LC equivalent
14:15:30 <Josh_Soref> q?
14:15:31 <dom> q?
14:15:39 <dom> q+ gavin
14:15:46 <dom> ack tobie
14:15:46 <Josh_Soref> ack tobie 
14:15:51 <dom> ack jfmoy
14:15:56 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: i agree w/ jet
14:16:05 <Josh_Soref> ... a lot of things we discussed last time
14:16:13 <Josh_Soref> ... we said we'd formalize things
14:16:42 <Josh_Soref> ... but as we get new people, the same discussion happens each time
14:16:56 <Josh_Soref> ... but we need to move forward
14:17:08 <Josh_Soref> ... but we need to have real output, not endless debates
14:17:12 <Josh_Soref> q?
14:17:17 <Josh_Soref> q+ lbolstad 
14:17:20 <Josh_Soref> ack dan 
14:17:33 <Josh_Soref> dan: last time we discussed which we relatively stable
14:17:42 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe jet's point is too strict
14:17:54 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i asked to do that from the first hours this morning
14:18:14 <Josh_Soref> dan: if we don't get this document, i don't think my manager would let me join the next meeting
14:18:21 <Josh_Soref> ... if we miss something, we can do it for a future document
14:18:36 <Josh_Soref> ... it's important to get it out
14:18:50 <Josh_Soref> ack Gavin_ 
14:18:53 <Josh_Soref> ack Gavin
14:18:55 <bryan> q+ to say that I agree with Jet except for the expectation of CR status - the "current state" vs the aspirational set of features - these are two different and both valid objectives
14:19:00 <Josh_Soref> ack lbolstad 
14:19:12 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: i agree we seem to have repeated a lot of the discussions from last meeting
14:19:22 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm concerned i'm making the same point i made earlier
14:19:36 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm concerned if we reduce the content of the spec in the interest of just showing something
14:19:44 <Josh_Soref> ... if it's more important to publish something than the content
14:19:58 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't think it matters if a spec is in CR or not
14:20:09 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a reason for the specs that were chosen
14:20:22 <Josh_Soref> ... if we assume [accept] that the list of inputs is relevant
14:20:26 <Josh_Soref> ... and the analysis is valid
14:20:31 <tobie> q+
14:20:33 <Josh_Soref> ... then we shouldn't reduce the list just to publish
14:20:35 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: +1
14:20:52 <mattkelly_> q+
14:20:53 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: if just publish the list of docs in CR
14:20:58 <Josh_Soref> ... what's valuable of that?
14:21:06 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: dom already has that document
14:21:10 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, close the queue
14:21:10 <Zakim> ok, Josh_Soref, the speaker queue is closed
14:21:12 <Josh_Soref> ack bryan 
14:21:12 <Zakim> bryan, you wanted to say that I agree with Jet except for the expectation of CR status - the "current state" vs the aspirational set of features - these are two different and both
14:21:16 <Zakim> ... valid objectives
14:21:27 <Josh_Soref> bryan: ... valid objectives
14:22:09 <dom> (I'm happy to contribute http://www.w3.org/2012/08/mobile-web-app-state/ as a source of input matching features with specs, with some (relatively subjective) assessment of their stability, and links to their existing test suties and implementations)
14:22:20 <dom> ack tobie
14:22:44 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i know we have to go back to companies showing we did something
14:23:23 <Josh_Soref> ... it's also important to go to other groups, possibly giving inputs or small snippets for other groups to drive them forward
14:23:29 <Josh_Soref> ... this is clearly important
14:24:10 <dom> (I think beyond editorship, this means that one type of commitment people could make to this group is to serve as advocate to other groups)
14:24:31 <Josh_Soref> jo: there's a frustrating
14:24:34 <Josh_Soref> s/ting/tion/
14:24:41 <Josh_Soref> ... a need for a deliverable, and some backtracking
14:24:51 <Josh_Soref> ... an egg, but no hen to lay it
14:24:52 <Josh_Soref> q?
14:24:52 <mattkelly_> q?
14:24:53 <dom> (in terms of tasks that I have identified for this group: editing documents, hunting information (use cases, test suites, etc), advocating our results to other working groups, publicizing our work to people outside W3C)
14:24:54 <Josh_Soref> ack mounir 
14:24:58 <Josh_Soref> ack
14:25:01 <Josh_Soref> s/ack//
14:25:03 <Josh_Soref> ack m
14:25:15 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: everyone broadly agrees, with the exception of jet
14:25:24 <Josh_Soref> jet: Apple isn't here, Google isn't here, Microsoft isn't here
14:25:30 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: Google and Microsoft are in the group
14:25:45 <Josh_Soref> ... i feel we're in a good enough state
14:25:52 <Josh_Soref> ... we put to the mailinglist 
14:25:58 <Josh_Soref> ... get the feedback from the people who aren't here
14:26:04 <Josh_Soref> ... give them a week, and lock it down
14:27:18 <Josh_Soref> jo: Core Mob 2012 which nominally depends on that other Doc
14:27:26 <Josh_Soref> ... can proceed in parallel
14:27:33 <Josh_Soref> ... we need to press the button, saying we're done
14:27:57 <Josh_Soref> ... it won't be quite aligned, but we'll worry about that later on
14:55:20 <natasha> natasha has joined #coremob
14:55:56 <lbolstad> lbolstad has joined #coremob
15:01:16 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Agenda Adjustment
15:01:25 <Josh_Soref> jo: i propose slipping the end time to 5:30pm
15:01:26 <rob_shilston> rob_shilston has joined #coremob
15:01:33 <Josh_Soref> ... we've agreed we need a UC document
15:01:48 <Josh_Soref> ... we've agreed a draft form will be produced within the next couple of weeks
15:03:27 <Josh_Soref> jo: the UCs are tactically understood to meet with the CoreMob 2012 document
15:04:07 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: so we add a paragraph with our apology
15:04:11 <Josh_Soref> ... and publish a LC of sorts
15:05:01 <Josh_Soref> RESOLUTION: We publish CoreMob 2012 as a LC at this F2F w/ that apology paragraph
15:05:13 <Josh_Soref> Topic: CoreMob 2012 Review
15:05:21 <Josh_Soref> s/Review/Current Draft Review/
15:06:23 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i'd suggest we only look at Open Issues
15:06:38 <jo> Current Draft is at: http://coremob.github.com/coremob-2012/ED-coremob-20120924.html#conformance
15:06:48 <Wonsuk> Wonsuk has joined #coremob
15:06:57 <bryan> q+
15:07:06 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, open the queue
15:07:08 <Zakim> ok, Josh_Soref, the speaker queue is open
15:07:15 <Josh_Soref> bryan: there are 4 inclusion criteria in the charter
15:07:40 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't know we could in one session be able to conclude things about inclusion/exclusion
15:07:50 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i think those 4 are example criteria
15:07:54 <Josh_Soref> ... not all are required
15:08:00 <Josh_Soref> ... fulfilling one is enough
15:08:54 <dom>     The feature is already widely deployed,
15:08:54 <dom>     It is necessary for building a class of applications that has significant market share in native mobile environments,
15:08:54 <dom>     It significantly improves performance across a variety of applications, or
15:08:54 <dom>     It significantly lowers developer cost.
15:09:04 <dom> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/charter/
15:09:39 <Josh_Soref> jo: bearing in mind that these are indicative criteria
15:09:55 <dom> "Features whose implementation is compromised by substantial obstacles (such as known security problems or patent licensing issues) will very likely not be included in a specification until the issues have been resolved. The CG will aim to carefully balance developer needs and implementation constraints to ensure timely progress of the Specification."
15:10:14 <Josh_Soref> [ tobie projects coremob 2012 ]
15:10:18 <Josh_Soref> tobie: HTML5
15:10:29 <Josh_Soref> ... one issue, HTML5 ... AppCache is horribly broken
15:10:36 <Josh_Soref> ... there are changes, but it's not clear when
15:10:44 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a "fix app cache CG"
15:10:45 <mattkelly_> q+
15:11:01 <Josh_Soref> ... i personally would think that having a couple of weeks to make a decision on what to say about this would be best
15:11:13 <Josh_Soref> ack mattkelly_ 
15:11:18 <gmandyam> +q
15:11:29 <JenLeong> JenLeong has joined #coremob
15:11:35 <dom> q+
15:11:36 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: could we slice HTML5?
15:11:42 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it's a big task
15:11:47 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly_: i think it would be useful
15:11:59 <Josh_Soref> jo: we've previously resolved to take specs as a whole or not at all
15:14:38 <Josh_Soref> tobie: testing html5 is covered by their plan2014
15:14:46 <Josh_Soref> ... slicing html5
15:15:00 <Josh_Soref> ... what is in html5 that is not widely deployed and not needed
15:15:19 <Josh_Soref> ack gmandyam 
15:15:26 <dom> ACTION: Bryan to propose a feature in HTML5 that is both not widely deployed nor useful to a large share of applications
15:15:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Propose a feature in HTML5 that is both not widely deployed nor useful to a large share of applications [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2012-10-09].
15:15:28 <Josh_Soref> gmandyam: ... app cache
15:15:33 <dom> q-
15:15:46 <dom> q+ to ask about more detailed requirement (e.g. audio perf)
15:16:05 <Josh_Soref> ... UC: web developer needs persisted data
15:16:14 <Josh_Soref> ... but App Cache isn't the only solution for persisted data
15:16:29 <Josh_Soref> tobie: App Cache is the app working at all when the device isn't online
15:17:11 <hptomcat> things like localstorage,websql,indexdb are used for data persistance
15:17:30 <Josh_Soref> jo: feature is loading an app to a device and being able to use it on the tube
15:17:39 <Josh_Soref> jo: mattkelly_ + bryan : you want to slice html5?
15:17:44 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i'd want to do it in html5
15:18:01 <Josh_Soref> jo: so "some aspects of html5 are incredibly important"
15:18:16 <Josh_Soref> ... we'd like html-wg to slice html5
15:18:44 <Josh_Soref> tobie: new editor for 2 weeks, new editors for 4 weeks
15:18:54 <Josh_Soref> ... question is what to do w/ App Cache, and Responsive Images
15:19:00 <Josh_Soref> ... their plan seems to be to push to HTML.next
15:19:21 <dom> (I think <input type="date"> is an example of a feature that is not widely deployed, nor widely useful to a large class of applications)
15:19:22 <Josh_Soref> jo: do we care where the spec is for App Cache/Responsive Images?
15:19:27 <Josh_Soref> ... we just want it somewhere
15:19:30 <Josh_Soref> tobie: absolutely
15:19:51 <Josh_Soref> jo: so, we say that if html5 doesn't have these features, then we want it plus a spec which has those specs
15:20:06 <mounir> (I think <input type="color"> or <input type="month"> is a better example than <input type="date"> actually)
15:20:42 <Josh_Soref> rob_shilston: issue-1 if html5 doesn't have app cache, then we want whatever thing that fixes app cache
15:20:54 <dom> (<input type="color"> is a good one indeed :)
15:21:20 <bryan> questionable HTML5 features re support include drag and drop, datalist, modal dialogs. I welcome any discussion as to the importance of these features (we think they are important BTW), but in my testing they are poorly supported in mobile devices.
15:21:22 <dom> I came up with a classifications per feature this morning, that I find hard to mould in this per-spec approach: 
15:21:22 <dom> What features are needed to make the mobile Web successful
15:21:22 <dom>  * features that are not defined in any spec
15:21:22 <dom>  * features that are supposedly defined in any spec, but don't match our requirements
15:21:22 <dom>  * features that are defined but not currently tested
15:21:24 <dom>  * features that are ready
15:22:00 <rob_shilston> Issue-1  App cache as currently implemented and described in HTML5 isn't working well for mobile developers.  The Fix app cache community group is working to define a solution, and it is anticipated that this group will support the solution and refer to its output.
15:22:05 <mattkelly_> +1 bryan, dom
15:22:12 <dom> Issue-1:  App cache as currently implemented and described in HTML5 isn't working well for mobile developers.  The Fix app cache community group is working to define a solution, and it is anticipated that this group will support the solution and refer to its output.
15:22:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-1 AppCaches fix planned for HTML.next only notes added
15:23:29 <dom> ScribeNick: mattkelly_
15:24:11 <mattkelly_> tobie: html5 note is non-normative
15:25:03 <mattkelly_> jo: what does the group thing? leave note in, or move to appendix?
15:25:33 <rob_shilston> Bryan: Don't be overly prescriptive of the notes.  It's useful to retain them. 
15:26:03 <rob_shilston> Mounir: Should we we recomment games use webaudio?
15:26:10 <mattkelly_> tobie: we didn't mention web audio because of multiple specs
15:26:29 <mattkelly_> tobie: key requirement from game devs was for the audio tag to work properly--we're not doing anything fancy
15:26:48 <mattkelly_> tobie: they're just doing background music and audio on user input
15:27:05 <mattkelly_> tobie: audio tag was ok from a tech perspective, just not from an implementation perspective
15:27:27 <rob_shilston> Mounir: I feel that web audio API will fix these issues.  
15:28:05 <rob_shilston> Giri: Qualcomm make the chips that go on the smart phones.  Web audio doesn't map well to the underlying chipsets, and so the hardware optimisation isn't possible.
15:30:05 <rob_shilston> Dom: We are, in this case, with a problem with two solutions.  HTML5 audio tag and the Web audio api.  Which of these is used depends on your viewpoint.
15:30:39 <rob_shilston> Tobie: To address this, we should think about developers.  Their main concern surrounding the quality of implementation.  They weren't interested (then ) in the feature set of the web audio API.
15:31:19 <rob_shilston> Tobie: That was one factor.  The second factor was that there was no clarity as to where the specs were going - both Chrome and Mozilla had implementations / specs.
15:32:28 <dan> q+
15:32:54 <rob_shilston> Dom: This question of several specs being possible solutions to a single requirement is likely to be an ongoing challenge to the group.  We ought to establish a way to work out which to select.  Should we support the first one?  The one that's most implemented?
15:33:29 <rob_shilston> Tobie: I think this is mostly solved now.
15:33:36 <rob_shilston> Dom: iOS 6 has the web audio API
15:34:03 <jo> ack dom
15:34:03 <Zakim> dom, you wanted to ask about more detailed requirement (e.g. audio perf)
15:34:32 <rob_shilston> Tobie: I think this sort of thing should be discussed on a case by case basis, not a cookie-cutter approach
15:34:37 <jo> ack dan
15:35:14 <bryan> q+ to ask isn't the latency question related to an informative note anyway, thus should just be a further clarification/caveat on that note?
15:35:37 <rob_shilston> Matt: Motion to suggest for now we just stick with advocating the <audio> tag.
15:36:21 <rob_shilston> Tobie: If someone wants to review the audio options and come back with a piece of text to explain what is best for the group.
15:36:32 <rob_shilston> ... then please go ahead.
15:36:49 <rob_shilston> Jo: We're going to stick with advocating <audio> tag.  Any objections? None.
15:37:36 <jo> ack bryan
15:37:36 <Zakim> bryan, you wanted to ask isn't the latency question related to an informative note anyway, thus should just be a further clarification/caveat on that note?
15:37:59 <rob_shilston> Bryan: Quality of implementation is important, and the note should remain.  
15:38:50 <rob_shilston> jet: Everyone wants low latency, so that requirement should be retained.
15:38:51 <dom> PROPOSED ISSUE: Should we recommend also or instead the Web Audio API for low-latency audio?
15:39:00 <mattkelly_> RESOLUTION: We want low latency audio from the audio tag and we want it now.
15:39:15 <rob_shilston> tobie: HTML media capture - any comments?
15:39:33 <mattkelly_> q+
15:39:41 <rob_shilston> jo: No objections - so we move on to SVG
15:40:00 <mattkelly_> q-
15:40:08 <rob_shilston> Matt: Do we really want to review which bits of SVG are required?
15:40:46 <rob_shilston> Tobie: I can give good use cases of SVG.  We had to build ringmark using canvas, but then it wasn't supported on early Android so we had to move to SVG.
15:40:55 <mattkelly_> rob_shilston: no, but we don't need to if there's not a compelling reason to include it
15:41:07 <mattkelly_> rob_shilston: I'm saying that none of the spec isn't needed
15:41:33 <rob_shilston> Dom: If the goal of this document is to advocate forthe most popular applications, then it's not clear that ringmark or charting requirements are really present in applications
15:41:52 <rob_shilston> Tobie: Remember that SVG wasn't in the spec before the previous F2F, but then got added as it was widely implemented.
15:43:27 <rob_shilston> Tomomi: SVG is useful for handling retina screens.
15:43:48 <rob_shilston> Jo: Shall we resolve to retain SVG in the spec for the last time
15:44:31 <bryan> +1 to retain SVG
15:45:03 <dom> ACTION: Tobie to right use cases that document the advantages of the Web in multi-screen/multi-devices scenario (e.g. that would justify CSS, SVG)
15:45:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Right use cases that document the advantages of the Web in multi-screen/multi-devices scenario (e.g. that would justify CSS, SVG) [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-10-09].
15:45:11 <rob_shilston> Jo: We're going to get use cases on SVG and in the meantime we'll retain it.
15:46:06 <rob_shilston> Tobie: Device adaptation (things that are put in the viewport meta tag).  At the moment, there's no spec for it.  Whatwg allows for this to be documented on a wiki.  This is a good example of where we want to slice and dice portions
15:46:43 <rob_shilston> Bryan: You don't need a full spec for the viewport tag - it's just a section of the spec
15:46:54 <rob_shilston> Lars: It's very new and not widely implemented... it's a working draft
15:48:27 <rob_shilston> Dom: I've just noticed that this is talking about a subset of the spec.
15:48:36 <rob_shilston> Tobie: Should we reference to a specific section number?
15:48:48 <jo> ACTION: Tobie to amend 3.4 Device Adaptation to reference the section number applicable.
15:48:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Amend 3.4 Device Adaptation to reference the section number applicable. [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-10-09].
15:49:26 <rob_shilston> Matt: We need to ensure use cases for this are captured
15:50:10 <rob_shilston> Tobie: You'll struggle to build a mobile web app without constraining the viewport.  As it's widely deployed, it should be in this spec
15:50:21 <Wonsuk> There is meta bug for implementing the Device Adaptation spec in webkit.org https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95959
15:51:35 <rob_shilston> Dom: viewport is widely deployed.  In this case, the spec for viewport is just a part of the CSS-ADAPTATION. 
15:52:05 <rob_shilston> rob_shilston; the rest of the spec isn't not especially relevant to apps right now, so that's why this spec is not refering to the whole of CSS-ADAPTATION.
15:53:23 <rob_shilston> Tobie: Perhaps someone should take an action to take the viewport spec from CSS-ADAPTATION to the HTML5 group and ask them to include it, as that's the only bit that's needed now.
15:54:22 <rob_shilston> tobie: It's hard to freeze this spec that's work in progress and not having a lot of traction, so is unlikely to get adoption.  We should be careful about pointing to a small portion of a spec that might be at risk.
15:54:49 <jo> dom suggests re 3.4 that we take the meta viewport question to HTML WG
15:54:53 <rob_shilston> Dom: I'll take an action to improve the phrasing of coremob 2012 section 3.4
15:55:05 <jo> however no one steps forward to take that up
15:55:39 <mattkelly_> ACTION: dom to propose improved phrasing for "Device Adaptation" so that it's clear what parts of the CSS-ADAPTATION spec we need
15:55:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Propose improved phrasing for "Device Adaptation" so that it's clear what parts of the CSS-ADAPTATION spec we need [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2012-10-09].
15:56:33 <rob_shilston> tobie: Application configuration:  A simple way for the developer to spec the name / icon / homescreen behaviour of an app.  Very similar to a widget configuration file
15:57:26 <rob_shilston> tobie: My feeling is that we should have a note saying that we would like to see convergence of the proprietary APIs / implementations, but that it's unfortunate not much work is happening at the moment
15:57:44 <dom> ACTION-54: proposal: User Agent MUST implement viewport adaption based on <meta name="viewport"> using the algorithms defined in CSS-ADAPTATION]
15:57:44 <trackbot> ACTION-54 Propose improved phrasing for "Device Adaptation" so that it's clear what parts of the CSS-ADAPTATION spec we need notes added
15:57:55 <rob_shilston> Giri: What exactly is the action?  Is it that there's some work languishing that's needed for the adoption of web apps
15:58:30 <rob_shilston> Tobie: There's definitely work with Google, Mozilla and Opera about having a JSON format to define apps.
15:59:22 <Josh_Soref> q+
15:59:55 <rob_shilston> Jo: Is the lack of a manifest preventing web apps being used?
16:00:17 <dom> q+ tobie
16:00:31 <rob_shilston> rob_shilston: Yes.  People don't know to open a browser when offline to access web apps.  Having a manifest to add the icon to the homescreen is essential in helping users access web apps.
16:00:44 <dom> q+ gavin
16:01:00 <rob_shilston> Max (NTT Docomo): It's important to have a canonical manifest format 
16:01:25 <Josh_Soref> s/Max (NTT Docomo):/Max:/G
16:01:31 <rob_shilston> Tomomi: Currently this is done by Google, Opera and others but this is proprietary.  If we're to support installable web apps, then it's hard at the moment.  We need a standard.
16:01:35 <Josh_Soref> s/Dom:/dom:/G
16:01:40 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:01:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:01:51 <mattkelly_> s/Tomomi/girlie_mac
16:01:58 <tobia> q+
16:02:13 <jo> ack josh
16:02:35 <rob_shilston> Max: A simple use-case is the provision of a app store, then it's hard at the moment as there's different security models for each platform's apps.  Having a standard approach would be better.
16:02:45 <dom> (there is a <meta name='application-name'> defined in HTML5 IIRC)
16:03:11 <rob_shilston> Josh: When I bookmark a site, it gains an icon and a title.  I can change the title, but rarely can I change the icon.  I can then access these from my browser home page and/or my desktop or homescreen.
16:03:46 <jo> q?
16:03:52 <dom> -> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-meta-element.html#standard-metadata-names HTML5 includes definition of <meta name="application-name">
16:04:26 <rob_shilston> Josh: Google and RIM already have a way for users to put icons into specific places.  
16:05:13 <rob_shilston> rob_shilston: This leads on to sysapps, but they're out of scope.
16:05:13 <jo> q?
16:05:13 <mattkelly_> q?
16:05:28 <mattkelly_> ack tobie
16:05:31 <mattkelly_> ack gavin
16:05:34 <dom> q+ tobie
16:05:38 <jo> ack gavin
16:06:15 <mattkelly_> q+
16:06:32 <rob_shilston> gavin: The use case, that the developer wants, which is bookmarking to the home screen.  I feel that the functional requirement should be there, but there are different ways that device vendors are implementing it.  That's our problem, but it's unlikely to be one we can solve.  We should keep the reference to WebApps-Manifest-API.
16:06:49 <dom> ACTION: Gavin to write up the need for application configuration
16:06:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Write up the need for application configuration [on Gavin Thomas - due 2012-10-09].
16:07:29 <jo> q?
16:07:36 <jo> ack tobia
16:07:50 <jo> q- tobie
16:08:22 <rob_shilston> tobia: there is also the other part which is to engage the user and help the developer encourage the user to add to the home screen.  Perhaps with screenshots and a description.  
16:09:54 <rob_shilston> matt: I think there's a number of groups of issues.  We've been talking about implementation issues first.  There's other issues such as monetisation.  We're now touching on distribution and engagement - push notifications, notification centres, or whatever else will emerge in future OS releases.
16:10:00 <gmandyam> +q
16:10:14 <rob_shilston> ... Distribution is important, and I feel that we should focus on the implementation issues as a priority over the distribution.  
16:10:41 <jo> q?
16:10:44 <rob_shilston> ... I'm in favour of keeping our focus on implementation issues.
16:10:46 <mattkelly_> q-
16:10:49 <jo> ack matt
16:10:57 <jo> ack gmand
16:11:49 <rob_shilston> Giri: I'm in favour of avoiding normative requirements that are near the app-store space.  Challenges of monetisation, upgrades etc which are all hard in the native world and aren't harmonised are things that are premature to put into the coremob spec.
16:12:32 <rob_shilston> jo: If we want ot make mobile web apps as compelling as native apps, then not including app config would be a serious problem.  If on the other hand we're saying we can't do everything, and what's the most important bit, then I can see the value of deferring from this.
16:12:37 <rob_shilston> q+ tobie
16:12:46 <rob_shilston> s/ot/to
16:13:23 <gmandyam> ack gmandyam
16:13:32 <rob_shilston> rob_shilston: How about postponing this to a 2013 document
16:14:15 <rob_shilston> dom: Let's focus on implementation as that'll enable us to get good results sooner rather than later.  We shouldn't forget these issues, and postponing them to the future probably makes sense.  For example, user-envagement, good user-experience surrounding web apps shouldn't be lost entirely.
16:15:19 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Focus on implementation in 2012 but note that user engagement, application lifecycle, deployment and other issues are important and specifically call that out in the document with reference to App Config as a specific example
16:15:21 <rob_shilston> tobie: Two things:  Chromeless mode has to be attached to some point in the spec.  App config is a good place to have this.  The other thing is to use the manifest to track permissions surrounding quota etc.
16:15:56 <jo> q?
16:16:00 <jo> ack tobie
16:16:07 <mounir> q+
16:16:09 <rob_shilston> ... Having compatible implementation for chromeless and quota control is really useful.
16:16:43 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Focus on implementation in 2012 but note that user engagement, application lifecycle, deployment and other issues are important and specifically call that out in the document with reference to App Config as a specific example
16:17:47 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Focus on implementation in 2012 but note that user engagement, application lifecycle, deployment and other issues are important and specifically call that out in the document with reference to App Config as a specific example - hence strike 3.5 and move it to an appendix saying the foregoing
16:18:04 <hptomcat> +1
16:18:51 <rob_shilston> josh: Pre-authorising the size requirements for an app is hard, as different people have different requirements.  Hard coding a quota limit is unlikely to be a good solution.  If I use Picassa, then should the manifest as for 1MB or 1TB?  If it's 1MB, then I'll exceed it quickly.  If it's 1TB, then device will say it's not possible.  
16:19:13 <jo> ack moun
16:19:25 <rob_shilston> Mounir:  The mozilla manifest is only used if you install the app from the store.
16:20:02 <mounir> s/the store/a marketplace or a webpage/
16:20:25 <Josh_Soref> s/Mounir:/mounir:/G
16:20:40 <Josh_Soref> s/josh:/Josh_Soref:/G
16:21:29 <rob_shilston> jo: Any objections to the resolution?
16:21:38 <rob_shilston> Gavin: I've concerns about chromeless mode.
16:21:46 <rob_shilston> Dom: It's an ongoing debate of features vs specs.
16:22:06 <gmandyam> +q
16:22:32 <jo> ack giri
16:23:39 <rob_shilston> Tobie:  Chromeless mode is a thing that a developer wants to make the app run occupying all screen real estate.
16:23:55 <rob_shilston> tobie: This is not the same as the full screen API, which is about making an arbitrary DOM element fill the screen.
16:24:17 <dom> (there is also a further question about "chromeless" vs "fullscreen": some mobile native apps have a fullscreen mode where the OS "chrome" [i.e. in general the top bar] disappears)
16:24:35 <jo> qck g
16:24:43 <jo> s/qck g//
16:24:47 <jo> ack g
16:24:48 <rob_shilston> tobie: This is a feature request.  There's no spec.  
16:25:14 <rob_shilston> tobie: A developer might build an app with with navigation, and doesn't need the browser to help supply it.
16:25:36 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Focus on implementation in 2012 but note that user engagement, application lifecycle, deployment and other issues are important and specifically call that out in the document with reference to App Config as a specific example - hence strike 3.5 and move it to an appendix saying the foregoing
16:27:00 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Focus on implementation in 2012 but note that user engagement, application lifecycle, deployment and other issues are important and specifically call that out in the document
16:27:55 <gmandyam> I think 3.7 Chromeless Mode is already met by the WebApps widget spec.  I do not believe a new spec needs to be defined by the WebApps WG.  If we are to keep this requirement in, then we can point to existing widget specs.
16:28:02 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Focus on implementation in 2012 but note that user engagement, application lifecycle, deployment and other issues are important and specifically call them out in the document
16:28:11 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: +1
16:28:26 <mattkelly_> RESOLUTION: Focus on implementation in 2012 but note that user engagement, application lifecycle, deployment and other issues are important and specifically call them out in the document
16:29:26 <rob_shilston> Tobie: I'm concerned about this resolution
16:30:36 <rob_shilston> Dom: Maybe we should consider "implementation" to be technologies the browser provides, rather than ...
16:30:47 <rob_shilston> Gavin: Browsers don't exist outside their device implementaiton
16:31:12 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: This document will focus on features that need to be implemented by vendors to support functionality of apps rather than features that are important and necessary for lifecycle, user engagement, deployment or other aspects that are not core to the intrinsic operation of the applciation
16:32:10 <rob_shilston> Dom: The ability for the user to bookmark the web application on their home page in a controlled way is something that we deem to be out of scope for something we are trying to do right now.  We are trying to do a more general characterisation.  It's not the exact workflow of bookmarking, or how the web app is awoken outside the browser experience, or how the user pays for the application.  These are the things that are not in focus for 2012; for this p
16:32:37 <rob_shilston> ...for this particular iteration of this document.
16:33:31 <rob_shilston> tobie: To Gavin - when talking about 3.7 and chromeless mode: We're just trying to emulate the Apple homescreen meta tags.
16:35:40 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: This document will focus on features that need to be implemented by vendors to support intrinsic operation and functionality of apps rather than ancillary features that are necessary for lifecycle, monetisation, deployment or other aspects that are not core to the intrinsic operation of the application
16:36:33 <bryan> +1
16:36:55 <jfmoy> jfmoy has left #coremob
16:36:55 <mattkelly_> RESOLUTION: This document will focus on features that need to be implemented by vendors to support intrinsic operation and functionality of apps rather than ancillary features that are necessary for lifecycle, monetisation, deployment or other aspects that are not core to the intrinsic operation of the application
16:38:37 <jfmoy> jfmoy has joined #coremob
16:41:04 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Strike 3.5 
16:41:14 <mattkelly_> RESOLUTION: Strike 3.5
16:42:51 <mattkelly_> tobie: Mozilla proposed a new spec for orientation lock
16:43:44 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add a note that being able to lock orientation is essential for some classes of app (e.g. games) so add a link to Mozilla's specs and say it appears to offer the features we need
16:44:04 <hptomcat> https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/ScreenOrientation
16:44:30 <mounir> http://www.w3.org/TR/screen-orientation/
16:45:36 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add a note that being able to lock orientation is essential for some classes of app (e.g. games) so add a link to Mozilla's specs and say it appears to offer the features we need, however at the present time it's not clear what support this has any prospect of adoption
16:46:38 <mattkelly_> dom: the note about orientation lock essentialness belongs to the use case document, not to coremob-2012
16:50:24 <mattkelly_> dom: number ways to achieve what we want-- reference it, push a WG to do it, or push vendors to look at and respond
16:50:36 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove section 3.6 on the basis that there is no specification that fulfils the requirement that we require
16:50:42 <mattkelly_> dom: this document makes us focus on specifications, but we're interested in features
16:51:26 <mattkelly_> tobie: the problem with speaking in terms of features is that we'll have to write specs
16:51:58 <mattkelly_> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove section "View Orientation" on the basis that there is no specification that fulfils the requirement that we require
16:52:05 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove section on View Orientation on the basis that there is no specification that fulfils the requirement 
16:52:34 <mattkelly_> q+
16:53:25 <mattkelly_> jo: we can't reference specs that were written on a back of a napkin
16:54:05 <hptomcat> we have it implemented for installed apps (setOrientation)
16:54:05 <mattkelly_> ack mattkelly_
16:57:52 <fantasai> ...
16:58:08 <fantasai> jo: Can we make progress on 3.6 and 3.7?
16:58:20 <fantasai> tobie: I propose we merge the two specs
16:58:47 <fantasai> i/tobie:/tobie: Not today or tomorrow/
16:59:44 <fantasai> jo: I don't agree with that
17:00:02 <fantasai> dom: I don't think we're going to get these documents done so quickly
17:00:32 <Josh_Soref> [ Adjourned ]
17:00:36 <Josh_Soref> trackbot, end meeting
17:00:36 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:00:36 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:00:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:00:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-minutes.html trackbot
17:00:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:00:45 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-actions.rdf :
17:00:45 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Bryan to propose a feature in HTML5 that is both not widely deployed nor useful to a large share of applications [1]
17:00:45 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-irc#T15-15-26
17:00:45 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Tobie to right use cases that document the advantages of the Web in multi-screen/multi-devices scenario (e.g. that would justify CSS, SVG) [2]
17:00:45 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-irc#T15-45-03
17:00:45 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Tobie to amend 3.4 Device Adaptation to reference the section number applicable. [3]
17:00:45 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-irc#T15-48-48
17:00:45 <RRSAgent> ACTION: dom to propose improved phrasing for "Device Adaptation" so that it's clear what parts of the CSS-ADAPTATION spec we need [4]
17:00:45 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-irc#T15-55-39
17:00:45 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Gavin to write up the need for application configuration [5]
17:00:45 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-coremob-irc#T16-06-49
17:00:59 <dom> s/these documents done so quickly/consensus on how to move forward on these documents tonight/