IRC log of dap on 2012-11-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:01:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dap
14:01:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:01:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:01:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dap
14:01:17 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be DAP
14:01:17 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see UW_DAP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 59 minutes
14:01:18 [trackbot]
Meeting: Device APIs Working Group Teleconference
14:01:18 [trackbot]
Date: 28 November 2012
14:04:02 [fjh]
14:04:15 [fjh]
fjh has changed the topic to: dap 3279 ; agenda
14:04:41 [fjh]
Chair: Frederick_Hirsch
14:04:45 [fjh]
Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
14:05:20 [fjh]
Regrets+ Jungkee_Song
14:10:19 [hiroto]
hiroto has joined #dap
14:56:03 [Zakim]
UW_DAP()10:00AM has now started
14:56:10 [Zakim]
14:56:16 [fjh]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:56:18 [Zakim]
+fjh; got it
14:56:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.289.261.aaaa
14:56:50 [dcheng3]
dcheng3 has joined #dap
14:57:20 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, aaaa is me
14:57:20 [Zakim]
+Josh_Soref; got it
14:57:55 [fjh]
zakim, where is 289?
14:57:55 [Zakim]
North American dialing code 1.289 is Ontario
14:58:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.750.aabb
14:58:42 [fjh]
zakim, where is 858?
14:58:42 [Zakim]
North American dialing code 1.858 is California
14:58:46 [ccourtney]
ccourtney has joined #dap
14:58:55 [gmandyam]
gmandyam has joined #dap
14:59:06 [gmandyam]
Giri Mandyam from QuIC on the call
14:59:26 [ccourtney]
Present+ Colin_Courtney
14:59:28 [fjh]
Present+ Giri_Mandyam
14:59:40 [Cathy]
Cathy has joined #dap
14:59:55 [AnssiK]
AnssiK has joined #dap
15:00:08 [fjh]
zakim, aabb is gmandyam
15:00:08 [Zakim]
+gmandyam; got it
15:00:30 [Zakim]
+ +49.173.537.aacc
15:00:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.757.825.aadd
15:00:54 [dcheng3]
Present+ Diana_Cheng
15:01:11 [dcheng3]
zakim, aacc is dcheng3
15:01:11 [Zakim]
+dcheng3; got it
15:01:42 [ccourtney]
zakim, aadd is ccourtney
15:01:42 [Zakim]
+ccourtney; got it
15:02:24 [Zakim]
15:02:27 [AnssiK]
zakim, ??P41 is me
15:02:27 [Zakim]
+AnssiK; got it
15:02:36 [dom]
Zakim, code?
15:02:36 [Zakim]
the conference code is 3279 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, dom
15:02:36 [AnssiK]
Present+ Anssi_Kostiainen
15:02:51 [Zakim]
15:02:54 [dom]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
15:02:54 [Zakim]
+dom; got it
15:04:35 [Clarke]
Clarke has joined #dap
15:05:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.266.aaee
15:05:58 [Cathy]
zakim, aaee is me
15:05:58 [Zakim]
+Cathy; got it
15:06:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.303.730.aaff
15:06:41 [fjh]
zakim, who is here?
15:06:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fjh, Josh_Soref, gmandyam, dcheng3, ccourtney, AnssiK, dom, Cathy, +1.303.730.aaff
15:06:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Clarke, AnssiK, Cathy, gmandyam, ccourtney, dcheng3, hiroto, Zakim, RRSAgent, fjh, darobin, timeless_, slightlyoff, tobie, Josh_Soref, trackbot, dom
15:06:56 [Clarke]
zakim, aaee is me
15:06:56 [Zakim]
sorry, Clarke, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
15:06:58 [fjh]
zakim, aaff is clarke
15:06:59 [Zakim]
+clarke; got it
15:07:16 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, clarke is Clarke
15:07:16 [Zakim]
+Clarke; got it
15:07:46 [Josh_Soref]
scribe: Josh_Soref
15:08:30 [Josh_Soref]
topic: Administrative
15:08:35 [fjh]
Staff contact change - Dom is now staff contact -
15:08:53 [fjh]
fjh: Again thanks to both Dave and Dom for their work with DAP.
15:08:55 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: I sent fjh draft minutes from the F2F
15:09:02 [Josh_Soref]
... he'll publish them
15:09:07 [fjh]
fjh: End of year publishing moratorium, no publications 14 December 2012 - 2 January 2013:
15:09:17 [fjh]
No teleconference 19 December, 26 December.
15:09:24 [dom]
+1 on cancelling on Jan 2nd
15:09:35 [Josh_Soref]
RESOLUTION: Call on Jan 2nd is canceled
15:09:48 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i might have trouble with the call on 12 December
15:09:53 [Josh_Soref]
dom: i could probably chair if needed
15:09:57 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i'll work to ensure we have an agenda
15:10:01 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: Minutes Approval
15:10:12 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i'm relatively informal about meeting agenda
15:10:21 [Josh_Soref]
... preferably, please let us know at the beginning of the call
15:10:25 [Josh_Soref]
... F2F minutes should go out shortly
15:10:28 [fjh]
Draft minutes from 14 November for approval:
15:10:29 [Josh_Soref]
... thanks Josh_Soref
15:10:58 [Josh_Soref]
RESOLUTION: Draft minutes from 14 November 2012 approved.
15:11:10 [Josh_Soref]
topic: Network Information API
15:11:19 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i'm working with mounir to publish the updated draft
15:11:28 [Josh_Soref]
... after I made the pub-request, i found a new link error
15:11:34 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm sure dom can help us work it out
15:11:40 [Josh_Soref]
... i expect to publish tomorrow or tuesday
15:11:46 [Josh_Soref]
... mounir is figuring out the link
15:11:51 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: HTML Media Capture
15:11:54 [gmandyam]
15:11:58 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: there's been a bunch of editorial updates
15:12:01 [Josh_Soref]
15:12:13 [Josh_Soref]
... i've been discussing with tobie on the list
15:12:18 [Josh_Soref]
... and Josh_Soref jumped in
15:12:23 [Josh_Soref]
... I think tobie and i are in agreement
15:12:27 [Josh_Soref]
... let's see if i understand
15:12:35 [Josh_Soref]
... you have the <form> <input> element
15:12:40 [Josh_Soref]
... you do capture
15:12:46 [Josh_Soref]
... it doesn't actually upload the image
15:12:49 [Josh_Soref]
... to the web server
15:12:53 [Josh_Soref]
... you get the handle?
15:13:00 [gmandyam]
Have a question on Network Info API
15:13:13 [dom]
q+ on html media capture
15:13:17 [Josh_Soref]
ack gmandyam
15:13:19 [fjh]
ack gmandyam
15:13:34 [Josh_Soref]
gmandyam: i think i'm a little frustrated because we're not making any attempts to solve estimation of bandwidth
15:13:38 [Josh_Soref]
... there's nothing in the spec
15:13:46 [Josh_Soref]
... and it's acknowledged that it's hard to do
15:13:54 [Josh_Soref]
... what the browser is returning isn't what the modem is returning
15:14:01 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm not happy about moving the spec forward
15:14:04 [Josh_Soref]
... to FPWD
15:14:10 [Josh_Soref]
... and having Call For Exclusions
15:14:13 [dom]
[network-info has already gone to FPWD]
15:14:17 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: we aren't moving to FPWD
15:14:27 [Josh_Soref]
... we're updating an out of date draft
15:14:30 [Josh_Soref]
... it's already published
15:14:37 [Josh_Soref]
gmandyam: it's an unusable spec as it stands
15:14:44 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: the WG already decided to publish
15:14:50 [Josh_Soref]
... a WD is a draft, it's subject to change
15:15:03 [Josh_Soref]
... it doesn't mean that we can't make changes
15:15:13 [Josh_Soref]
... there's a Call for Exclusion on FPWD and LC
15:15:18 [Josh_Soref]
... but not updated drafts
15:15:28 [Josh_Soref]
dom: there won't be a Call for Exclusion on an updated WD
15:15:42 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: we're just trying to get the draft to reflect our current state
15:15:48 [Josh_Soref]
gmandyam: i'll take my concern to the list
15:15:50 [Josh_Soref]
... thanks
15:15:59 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: there are issues noted in the doc
15:16:22 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: which issue tracker are we using?
15:16:35 [Josh_Soref]
dom: we're using Tracker, or we were when I was last the staff contact
15:16:41 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: we could put an issue in now
15:17:01 [Josh_Soref]
... if you put an issue on the list, you or i can raise it to tracker
15:17:12 [Josh_Soref]
... gmandyam, it'd be preferable if you put in a proposed resolution
15:17:23 [Josh_Soref]
... you can also go into tracker and collate it
15:17:32 [Josh_Soref]
... i have instructions on...
15:17:38 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, who is making noise?
15:17:43 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, mute me
15:17:45 [Zakim]
Josh_Soref should now be muted
15:17:48 [Zakim]
Josh_Soref, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dom (60%), fjh (14%), Josh_Soref (19%)
15:17:53 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, mute dom
15:17:53 [Zakim]
dom should now be muted
15:18:06 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i have a link here
15:18:12 [fjh]
link for practice to enter issues -
15:18:36 [Josh_Soref]
... that has the process for raising issues
15:18:41 [Josh_Soref]
... i got it from Paul_Cotton
15:18:47 [fjh]
ack dom
15:18:48 [Zakim]
dom, you wanted to comment on html media capture
15:19:23 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: HTML Media Capture
15:19:34 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, who is on the call?
15:19:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fjh, Josh_Soref (muted), gmandyam, dcheng3, ccourtney, AnssiK, dom, Cathy, Clarke
15:19:42 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, unmute me
15:19:42 [Zakim]
Josh_Soref should no longer be muted
15:20:07 [Josh_Soref]
dom: my understanding of tobie 's comments
15:20:08 [Josh_Soref]
15:20:11 [Josh_Soref]
15:20:16 [tobie]
…and I'm lurking on irc
15:20:25 [Josh_Soref]
... the fact that the capture attribute takes values that takes this device or that
15:20:35 [Josh_Soref]
... is introducing unneeded duplication
15:20:41 [Josh_Soref]
... with the accept
15:20:50 [Josh_Soref]
... a simple capture boolean would be sufficient
15:21:01 [Josh_Soref]
... the type of file we want is already specified by accept
15:21:07 [Josh_Soref]
... to filter the kind of devices
15:21:18 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: why do we need the boolean at all?
15:21:22 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: from my perspective, we don't
15:21:31 [Josh_Soref]
dom: we've had that discussion many times
15:21:39 [Josh_Soref]
... to streamline the user interaction
15:21:51 [Josh_Soref]
... if you're building a camera app
15:22:04 [Josh_Soref]
... you don't want the user to have to go through a selection from a file dialog system
15:22:10 [Josh_Soref]
... you can have a better ui
15:22:39 [dom]
15:23:06 [fjh]
ack Josh_Soref
15:23:10 [fjh]
15:23:25 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: people are asserting that UAs won't make useful UIs
15:23:45 [fjh]
ack dom
15:23:50 [Josh_Soref]
... that the browser won't be able to offer a split-UI of browse+live capture
15:23:58 [Josh_Soref]
... but it certainly could do that
15:24:00 [Josh_Soref]
15:24:15 [Josh_Soref]
dom: if we have a capture bit, it could provide a more streamlined attribute
15:24:32 [dom]
-> CoreMob Camera demo app
15:24:52 [Josh_Soref]
ack fjh
15:25:00 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: tobie was mentioning local manipulation
15:25:01 [dom]
q+ to respond to Josh on filesystem-also-use-case
15:25:08 [Zakim]
15:25:20 [Josh_Soref]
... assuming you have a very simple camera app
15:25:26 [Josh_Soref]
... you'd need to do server side processing
15:25:36 [Josh_Soref]
... we're conflating the UA could do clever things
15:25:39 [Josh_Soref]
... assuming it isn't doing that
15:25:41 [Zakim]
15:25:53 [dom]
Zakim, mute Cathy
15:25:53 [Zakim]
Cathy should now be muted
15:25:53 [fjh]
zakim, mute Cathy
15:25:54 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, mute Cathy
15:25:55 [Zakim]
Cathy was already muted, fjh
15:25:55 [Zakim]
Cathy was already muted, Josh_Soref
15:26:01 [Zakim]
15:26:10 [fjh]
ack Josh_Soref
15:26:13 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: about how form submission works
15:27:09 [fjh]
i was assuming auto-submit for html media capture
15:27:49 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: no <input type=file> is ever automatically data in JS
15:27:57 [Josh_Soref]
... the page either has to trigger a submit to itself
15:28:07 [Zakim]
15:28:09 [Josh_Soref]
... or have itself or the user trigger a genuine submit to a real server
15:28:35 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: thanks, that's clear enough
15:28:40 [fjh]
ack dom
15:28:40 [Zakim]
dom, you wanted to respond to Josh on filesystem-also-use-case
15:28:40 [Josh_Soref]
... i wasn't thinking in those terms at all
15:28:57 [Josh_Soref]
dom: Josh_Soref, you mentioned that maybe the user wants to interact with files from media gallery
15:29:03 [Josh_Soref]
... in a Camera application
15:29:14 [Josh_Soref]
... assuming that the same UI would be the same
15:29:19 [Josh_Soref]
... is overconstraining the space
15:29:25 [Josh_Soref]
... for building good camera apps
15:29:31 [Josh_Soref]
... with this technology
15:29:40 [Josh_Soref]
... if we really want to enable good UX
15:29:53 [Josh_Soref]
... then I think we need to give this level of granularity to authors
15:29:58 [Josh_Soref]
... i don't see why we shouldn't
15:30:05 [AnssiK]
15:30:05 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i think i'd like AnssiK to speak
15:30:06 [AnssiK]
ack me
15:30:09 [tobie]
Not part of DAP, but can I join this call?
15:30:34 [dom]
[Josh_Soref is revisiting the usefulness of this; I'm stating what I heard tobie say, that a boolean attribute would be sufficient]
15:31:19 [Josh_Soref]
dom: my perspective is what we're going to get from the call is not different from the list
15:31:25 [Josh_Soref]
... so IPR constraints won't be different
15:31:37 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: my position is that we should learn from developers
15:31:38 [dom]
s/is not different/is not different in terms of IPR/
15:31:50 [AnssiK]
15:31:57 [Josh_Soref]
... one comment on this approach
15:32:12 [Josh_Soref]
... in the comments section, you can find some discussion
15:32:14 [Zakim]
15:32:20 [Josh_Soref]
... try to start with the UCs and running code
15:32:23 [dom]
[I'm sympathetic to tobie's comment on a boolean being sufficient; the only reason I'm hesitant about it the fact that android is already shipping with keywords rather than boolean, but this could probably be dealt with]
15:32:31 [fjh]
q+ to talk about anssi change
15:32:38 [Josh_Soref]
... i think CoreMob's Cam app running code
15:32:45 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, ??P0 is tobie
15:32:45 [Zakim]
+tobie; got it
15:32:55 [Josh_Soref]
tobie: Hi, thanks for letting me join this call
15:33:19 [Josh_Soref]
... i was lurking, i thought since i was on the ML, i thought i should jump in
15:33:23 [Josh_Soref]
... a couple of corrections
15:33:30 [Josh_Soref]
... to talk about the implementation of media capture
15:33:32 [fjh]
s/ML/mailing list/
15:33:36 [Josh_Soref]
... we built a number of prototypes
15:33:44 [Josh_Soref]
... it's completely possible to get all the data in javascript
15:33:56 [Josh_Soref]
... we're just using it to trigger the camera application
15:34:15 [Josh_Soref]
... we're not sticking it into an actual <form> for display
15:34:36 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: Josh_Soref was just saying that you have to script something to retrieve the data
15:34:55 [Josh_Soref]
tobie: i don't know how file inputs work for regular file content
15:35:09 [Josh_Soref]
... you can actually access the file object from js
15:35:14 [Josh_Soref]
... if not, you can submit it
15:35:37 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: did i see you offer to update the text?
15:35:41 [Josh_Soref]
tobie: i suggested it should be clearer
15:35:49 [Josh_Soref]
... AnssiK suggested i write something
15:35:57 [Josh_Soref]
... i could give it a go, but it depends on time frames
15:36:02 [Josh_Soref]
... it's on my todo list
15:36:08 [Josh_Soref]
... i can do it before the end of the year
15:36:13 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: that sounds good
15:36:16 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: that should probably work
15:36:28 [Josh_Soref]
tobie: i could bump it up
15:36:42 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: that'd be good, otherwise we might lose momentum
15:36:47 [Josh_Soref]
tobie: i'll move that up
15:36:52 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: so a couple of weeks?
15:36:54 [Josh_Soref]
tobie: sure
15:37:04 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: dom, does the make sense?
15:37:06 [Josh_Soref]
dom: sure
15:37:13 [Josh_Soref]
... but still question of boolean or keywords?
15:37:17 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: that's the next thing
15:37:22 [Josh_Soref]
... we thought we resolved that issue
15:37:27 [Josh_Soref]
... but it seems there's enough feedback
15:37:33 [Josh_Soref]
... to maybe change it
15:37:45 [Josh_Soref]
... AnssiK argued we could go either way
15:37:58 [Josh_Soref]
... it seems there's some consensus on the call to change it to a boolean
15:38:06 [AnssiK]
15:38:09 [Josh_Soref]
... although dom had concenrs about existing Android implementations
15:38:15 [dom]
[the question would be to know what implementors are ready to go with, I think]
15:38:31 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: we know there are partial implementations
15:38:41 [Josh_Soref]
... Chrome for Android is the most complete
15:38:49 [Josh_Soref]
... I know BB10 browser passes Ringmark
15:39:01 [Josh_Soref]
... Josh_Soref are you in a position to comment on unreleased products?
15:39:15 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: of course i'm not in a position to comment on such things
15:39:19 [fjh]
s/partial implementations/partial implementations based on the specification as currently written/
15:39:55 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: it seems there are some implementations out there
15:40:12 [tobie]
For ref, test:
15:40:15 [Josh_Soref]
... android 3/4 are hybrids
15:40:38 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: there's a BB10 simulator you can download that includes the browser
15:41:13 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: that seems to be all that the test could do automatic
15:41:16 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: you could do more testing
15:41:29 [Josh_Soref]
tobie: absolutely, you could do read-write cycle tests for more
15:41:58 [Josh_Soref]
[ AnssiK reads from html5rocks ]
15:42:31 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: i think we shouldn't just dump this and go to the boolean
15:42:32 [fjh]
s/html5rocks/html5rocks, noting that developers appear to like the spec as currently written. /
15:42:43 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: the question is would the boolean be functionally equivalent to what they want
15:42:52 [Josh_Soref]
dom: i think that the boolean would work just as well for them
15:43:00 [Josh_Soref]
... there's of course the concern about the deployed implementations
15:43:15 [Josh_Soref]
... for expressiveness, the boolean approach is just as god
15:43:17 [Josh_Soref]
15:43:34 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: obviously this should be folded to umbrella
15:43:41 [Josh_Soref]
... do we continue this in DAP or move it to HTML WG?
15:43:58 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: why would you raise that issue?
15:44:06 [Josh_Soref]
dom: my understanding of the current HTML WG plan
15:44:22 [Josh_Soref]
... other WGs than HTML WG can develop extensions to HTML markup as long as it's in scope to their charter
15:44:30 [Josh_Soref]
... if we wanted to, we could ask HTML WG to take this over
15:44:39 [Josh_Soref]
... if we want to keep working on this, we don't have to move it to the HTML WG
15:44:42 [fjh]
s/raise that issue/raise that issue, why would we have to move it/
15:45:49 [fjh]
josh_soref: how likely are existing implementations able to update if we change this
15:46:01 [Josh_Soref]
dom: i think there's a migration path
15:46:09 [Josh_Soref]
... i don't think anyone would really do capture=filesystem
15:46:20 [Josh_Soref]
... i think we could device a migration path, or people could do so
15:46:29 [fjh]
q+ to suggest approach
15:46:35 [fjh]
ack fjh
15:46:35 [Zakim]
fjh, you wanted to talk about anssi change and to suggest approach
15:46:37 [Josh_Soref]
... i think the question is whether people are interested in migrating/willing to migrate
15:46:49 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: it sounds like there's a lot of arguments to make this change, on the list and on this call
15:47:00 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i'm not sure if it's the right thing to just edit the spec
15:47:11 [Josh_Soref]
... it sounds like if we could write down the proposed change and share it with people
15:47:17 [Josh_Soref]
... it might be easier to make progress
15:47:21 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm hesitant to just make the change
15:47:33 [Josh_Soref]
... doing a copy-paste from a draft proposal would be cleaner
15:47:47 [Josh_Soref]
... i think we need to reach out to people and see what they think of this
15:48:09 [Josh_Soref]
... i think we need a concrete proposal
15:48:32 [Josh_Soref]
... we need the proposed changes to the spec and the rationale
15:48:42 [Josh_Soref]
... and i'd expect people to take that and go to people and see if it's ok
15:48:50 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: does anyone know what IE10 does?
15:48:55 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: that was one of my questions
15:49:06 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: i remember AdrianBa posted
15:49:15 [Josh_Soref]
... to a mailing list
15:49:36 [Josh_Soref]
... he said something like we aren't prioritizing this
15:49:38 [fjh]
15:49:48 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: ... they see little value of the capture attribute
15:50:07 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: it won't hurt them for this change to be made
15:50:48 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: what has historically happened, we've had one non-major browser
15:51:16 [Zakim]
15:51:25 [Josh_Soref]
gmandyam: chrome only became default after 4
15:51:29 [Josh_Soref]
... of android
15:51:46 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: HTML5 spec sometimes considers actual implementation state
15:51:54 [Josh_Soref]
... this isn't such a situation
15:51:58 [Zakim]
15:52:13 [Josh_Soref]
tobie: it's on stock android browser
15:52:17 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: but the behavior is different
15:52:22 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: yes, the behavior is different
15:52:28 [fjh]
what I am hearing on the call is that the change to boolean is possible
15:52:28 [Josh_Soref]
... it's an earlier iteration
15:52:36 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: i think so
15:53:00 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: AnssiK, do you want to do it?
15:53:03 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: i'll need to do it
15:53:06 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: not as a spec edit
15:53:30 [dom]
[I would personally prefer reusing "capture"]
15:54:02 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: i'm happy with just keeping the attribute name
15:54:08 [tobie]
15:54:09 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: let's keep the name
15:54:19 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: that will give us some backwards compat story
15:54:53 [fjh]
action: anssik to draft proposal outlining rationale and proposed spec changes to change capture attribute to booleans
15:54:53 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find anssik. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
15:54:55 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: this will be the smallest spec ever
15:55:22 [fjh]
action: anssi to draft proposal outlining rationale and proposed spec changes to change capture attribute to booleans
15:55:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-595 - Draft proposal outlining rationale and proposed spec changes to change capture attribute to booleans [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2012-12-05].
15:55:55 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: the idea is a proposal without making changes to the spec
15:55:59 [Josh_Soref]
... i want to slow it down
15:56:07 [Josh_Soref]
... get consensus and agreement before we edit the spec
15:56:18 [Josh_Soref]
... you'll copy-paste from the proposal into the spec once we have agreement
15:56:31 [Josh_Soref]
... the goal is to have consensus
15:56:32 [fjh]
15:56:32 [Josh_Soref]
15:57:02 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: speaking of editing the spec
15:57:10 [Josh_Soref]
... i don't think i agreed with your last edit to the spec
15:57:14 [tobie]
15:57:17 [Josh_Soref]
... you changed camera to say camera is camera
15:57:24 [Josh_Soref]
... i'd suggest reverting it
15:57:30 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: that'll be a moot point
15:57:37 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: i'd recommend you revert it
15:57:44 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: we had an agreement as a group to make that change
15:57:54 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: ok, i'll do the revert and then start the discussion about the boolean
15:58:01 [tobie]
15:58:01 [fjh]
ack tobie
15:58:17 [Josh_Soref]
tobie: i think like AnssiK it's a moot point if we go for boolean
15:58:39 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: i don't want people to yell at us about that
15:58:44 [fjh]
we need to keep what we had as consensus reflected in the document, despite proposals on the table
15:58:47 [Josh_Soref]
... while we're trying to get consensus on boolean
15:59:05 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i'm trying to make sure people are heard and follow process as much as possible
15:59:14 [Josh_Soref]
... otherwise, later on, we'll have people complaining later on in the process
15:59:24 [Josh_Soref]
... it's my job to be a process warrior
15:59:28 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: you're doing a great job
16:00:05 [Zakim]
16:00:36 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: Discovery API
16:00:54 [Josh_Soref]
s/Topic: Discovery API//
16:01:00 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i'll need to deal w/ LC feedback
16:01:09 [Josh_Soref]
... i tried to go through and close everything out
16:01:16 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm trying to manage Disposition offline
16:01:17 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: Discovery API
16:01:23 [fjh]
Distinguishing same service offered by multiple devices,
16:01:42 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i don't know... Cathy, have you looked into this?
16:01:46 [Zakim]
16:01:46 [Josh_Soref]
Cathy: i'm going to send a response
16:02:12 [tobie]
[Thanks for your time, all.]
16:02:13 [Josh_Soref]
topic: Battery Testing Update
16:02:24 [fjh]
16:02:32 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, who is on the call
16:02:32 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', Josh_Soref
16:02:33 [fjh]
Thanks for joining Tobie
16:02:39 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, who is on the call?
16:02:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fjh, Josh_Soref, dcheng3, ccourtney, AnssiK, dom, Cathy, gmandyam
16:02:42 [fjh]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fjh, Josh_Soref, dcheng3, ccourtney, AnssiK, dom, Cathy, gmandyam
16:02:45 [Zakim]
On IRC I see AnssiK, Cathy, ccourtney, dcheng3, hiroto, Zakim, RRSAgent, fjh, darobin, timeless, slightlyoff, tobie, Josh_Soref, trackbot, dom
16:03:02 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: thanks dom for the feedback
16:03:06 [Josh_Soref]
... i wasn't aware of idlharness.js
16:03:11 [Josh_Soref]
... it looks like it could be very useful
16:03:15 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm not sure how complete it is
16:03:32 [Josh_Soref]
... i haven't looked at the source completely
16:03:41 [Josh_Soref]
dom: i'm fairly sure it isn't complete
16:03:56 [Josh_Soref]
... i think your manual tests were more thorough than what idlharness is doing
16:04:01 [Josh_Soref]
... i'd prefer us to fix idlharness
16:04:06 [Josh_Soref]
... rather than doing our own
16:04:15 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: is this James or Ms2ger?
16:04:18 [Josh_Soref]
dom: i can't remember
16:04:37 [Josh_Soref]
16:04:54 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: i think they were both involved
16:05:03 [Josh_Soref]
... i've added your tests to hg
16:05:13 [Josh_Soref]
... so if you run both tests, you should get fairly good coverage
16:05:20 [Josh_Soref]
... the libraries are now relative urls
16:05:26 [Josh_Soref]
... so you can run your own local version
16:05:32 [Josh_Soref]
... i added the meta tags
16:05:37 [Josh_Soref]
... which tool uses the meta info?
16:05:44 [dom]
16:05:49 [Josh_Soref]
dom: it's w3c test framework
16:05:56 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm not entirely sure how much it uses it
16:06:19 [Josh_Soref]
... by documenting which tests needs a human, you can allow the other tests to be run automatically much easier
16:06:24 [AnssiK]
16:06:37 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: you should use Firefox Nightly to run these tests
16:06:47 [Zakim]
16:06:51 [Josh_Soref]
... i got feedback that long running tests have no feedback, so i added a countdown timer
16:07:07 [Josh_Soref]
... and i tried to split the prime function into chunks
16:07:19 [Josh_Soref]
... it surprised me that it brought down my browser
16:07:32 [dom]
(I guess that would be a useful test for workers :)
16:07:38 [Zakim]
16:07:46 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: it might be GC or...
16:07:47 [fjh]
josh_soref: might be garbage collection or the CPU limitations
16:08:04 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: i'm not sure if Workers have any QoI tests
16:08:07 [dom]
(quality of impl is traditionally out of scope for W3C specs)
16:08:18 [dom]
(and W3C tests as a result)
16:08:21 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: AnssiK, how complete are we/far from done?
16:08:35 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: should we fix idlharness and move to use that one?
16:08:44 [Josh_Soref]
... do we go to the manual tests
16:08:51 [Josh_Soref]
... patching idlharness might take a while
16:09:05 [Josh_Soref]
dom: it isn't a requirement, it's a matter of being a good guy
16:09:15 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: if we don't use idlharness, i think we're fairly close to being complete
16:09:26 [Josh_Soref]
... obviously you can't test everything, but i test the edge cases that can be tested
16:09:34 [Josh_Soref]
... empty battery is fairly hard to test
16:09:43 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: you mentioned trying to run the battery down
16:09:48 [dom]
(I found indeed the test suite to be quite complete in terms of coverage, but I haven't done a formal analysis yet)
16:09:54 [Josh_Soref]
... but no one offered you hardware
16:10:11 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: the device may completely shutdown before you complete the test suite
16:10:28 [Josh_Soref]
... i got rid of the alert which wasn't very accessible
16:10:42 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: what do you mean by accessible
16:10:55 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: having alert required you to have to manually dismiss
16:11:11 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i think he means that you had to be present - interacting
16:11:16 [Josh_Soref]
... before it ran to completion
16:11:41 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: fixing idlharness - such things tend to get bigger
16:11:47 [Josh_Soref]
... to get beyond CR
16:11:57 [Josh_Soref]
... with test cases, we just need two implementations
16:12:03 [Josh_Soref]
... where are we with that?
16:12:05 [AnssiK]
16:12:15 [dom]
(we discussed this at the F2F )
16:12:15 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: let me see if the implementation status wiki is up to date
16:12:38 [dom]
"dom: until we get another browser implementation the question is pretty moot"
16:12:54 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: we're waiting for a serious browser
16:13:52 [fjh]
serious means deployed browser, not test implementation
16:13:59 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: so we need two implementations and tests and then we can go forward
16:14:05 [Josh_Soref]
... so we're short an implementation
16:14:31 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: we need no features at risk
16:14:47 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm assuming we don't have any issues
16:14:52 [Josh_Soref]
... but we need another implementation
16:15:46 [Josh_Soref]
... we'll need something in a documented form
16:15:58 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: let's take this offline so i understand the process hoops we need to jump forward
16:16:03 [Josh_Soref]
topic: Proximity / Sensors
16:16:11 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, who is on the call?
16:16:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fjh, Josh_Soref, dcheng3, ccourtney, AnssiK, dom, gmandyam, Cathy
16:16:20 [AnssiK]
16:16:32 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: there's discussion about extending scope of proximity beyond the initial scope
16:16:49 [Josh_Soref]
... but that requires niklas to get back to us
16:17:22 [AnssiK]
16:18:02 [AnssiK]
16:18:05 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: that's my proposal -- to push it to v2
16:18:06 [fjh]
fjh: 1. one list suggestion has been to extend proximity beyond the use case we have been working on.
16:18:08 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: i'm +1 to that
16:18:17 [fjh]
I'd argue that we not extend the scope
16:18:19 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: i prepared v1 for publishing
16:19:49 [fjh]
fjh: 2. this is part of overall concern for providing for use cases with sensors - any discussion of that will require first looking at the use cases. Niklas has action item for that.
16:20:11 [fjh]
that said, we may decide certain items are out of scope or require new specs
16:20:46 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i thought we decided to do proximity and ambient LC at the same time
16:20:49 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: yes
16:21:03 [Josh_Soref]
... my point is we have v1 now, we have implementations and UCs
16:21:14 [fjh]
From process perspective implementations are not required forLC
16:21:16 [Josh_Soref]
... we can always do v2, v3, once we have implementations and hardware
16:21:20 [fjh]
s/forLC/for LC
16:21:35 [Josh_Soref]
... it isn't end of world if we don't get it in v1
16:21:44 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i agree
16:22:00 [Josh_Soref]
... car stuff is pretty vague
16:22:05 [Josh_Soref]
... i think it's a v2 thing
16:22:13 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: when i announced LC snapshot
16:22:18 [fjh]
my opinion, not chair decision
16:22:29 [Josh_Soref]
... if people had concerns, i asked them to resolve them by today, because tomorrow is pubdate
16:22:57 [Josh_Soref]
... nwidell raised something, but promised to do a mail
16:23:08 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i'm not sure we can do it in one day
16:23:19 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: let me know if you need me to update the document
16:23:32 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i think we should plan for Tuesday publication
16:23:42 [Josh_Soref]
dom: for LC, there's no approval needed, it's a WG decision
16:23:56 [Josh_Soref]
... it's usually preferred if the WG chairs are warned in advance
16:24:05 [Josh_Soref]
... if we have WGs from which we want review
16:24:16 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm not sure who we'd ask for review?
16:24:23 [Josh_Soref]
16:24:36 [Josh_Soref]
dom: maybe sysapps, privacy, webapps?
16:24:43 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: what do we share with them?
16:25:18 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: don't we publish LC and then ask them to review it during LC
16:25:28 [Josh_Soref]
dom: we don't need to send them the draft
16:25:35 [Josh_Soref]
... we just tell them we're going to have LC
16:25:44 [Josh_Soref]
... and that we'll be asking for their review
16:25:46 [AnssiK]
note publishing deadlines for EoY:
16:25:57 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: we never picked a LC period, did we?
16:26:52 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: we don't have to follow ArtB's dates
16:27:06 [Josh_Soref]
... the only one that matters is the last-day-to-publish which is a w3 thing
16:27:15 [Josh_Soref]
... if we can pick a LC period here
16:28:14 [Josh_Soref]
... why don't we make a resolution that we'll publish a LC of proximity on next thursday
16:28:39 [Josh_Soref]
... on December 6
16:29:04 [Josh_Soref]
... one month isn't enough
16:29:13 [Josh_Soref]
... i'd say we have a LC period ending Jan 24
16:29:16 [Josh_Soref]
... it's 7 weeks
16:29:28 [Josh_Soref]
... i don't think there's an urgency requiring it to be shorter
16:29:46 [Josh_Soref]
... dom what do you think?
16:30:07 [Josh_Soref]
dom: do we have implementations?
16:30:09 [Josh_Soref]
AnssiK: we do
16:30:56 [fjh]
proposed RESOLUTION: publish Last Call WD of Proximity API on 6 December 2012 with Last Call ending 24 January 2012
16:31:00 [AnssiK]
16:31:25 [Josh_Soref]
RESOLUTION: publish Last Call WD of Proximity API on 6 December 2012 with Last Call ending 24 January 2012
16:31:57 [fjh]
action: anssi to update publication draft to have publication date of 6 December 2012 and LC end date of 24 January 2013
16:31:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-596 - Update publication draft to have publication date of 6 December 2012 and LC end date of 24 January 2013 [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2012-12-05].
16:32:29 [fjh]
action: fjh to announce plans for LC publication to webapps, sys apps, ping
16:32:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-597 - Announce plans for LC publication to webapps, sys apps, ping [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2012-12-05].
16:32:49 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: F2F planning
16:32:55 [fjh]
Questionnaire for time frame (March/April) of next F2F,
16:32:59 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: if you haven't done so, please fill out the questionaire
16:33:13 [Josh_Soref]
dom: fjh, the questionnaire is closing today
16:33:17 [Josh_Soref]
... should i extend it?
16:33:21 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: i think we should extend it
16:33:31 [Josh_Soref]
... to December, 20, 15, or 12?
16:34:04 [Josh_Soref]
... let's extend it to December 14
16:34:12 [Josh_Soref]
dom: what's our target?
16:34:36 [Josh_Soref]
... are we expecting answers from specific people or specific numbers of people?
16:34:45 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: let's talk about what we'll talk about at the F2F?
16:34:49 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, mute me?
16:34:49 [Zakim]
sorry, Josh_Soref, I do not know which phone connection belongs to me?
16:34:52 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, mute me
16:34:52 [Zakim]
Josh_Soref should now be muted
16:35:05 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: resolve Web Intents/Web Activities
16:35:12 [Josh_Soref]
... so we'd want Greg
16:35:21 [Josh_Soref]
... and jhawkins
16:35:29 [Josh_Soref]
... and move to REC for XXX
16:35:42 [Josh_Soref]
... get somewhere with Discovery
16:35:50 [Josh_Soref]
... so richt, Claus
16:35:53 [Josh_Soref]
... Cathy
16:36:00 [Josh_Soref]
... another go with sensors
16:36:04 [Josh_Soref]
... although that's low priority
16:36:11 [Josh_Soref]
... interop - advancing specs
16:36:15 [Josh_Soref]
... Contacts/Calendar
16:36:22 [Josh_Soref]
... figure out how we'll do that
16:36:30 [Josh_Soref]
... the usual suspects need to be there
16:36:37 [Josh_Soref]
... and key people from Task Force
16:36:46 [Josh_Soref]
dom: I extended it to Dec 11
16:36:55 [Josh_Soref]
... but I think you should get in touch with those people directly
16:37:07 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: yes, i agree
16:37:19 [Josh_Soref]
... my experience is that we've always ended up extending questionnaires
16:37:27 [fjh]
action: fjh to follow up on F2F interest with relevant participants
16:37:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-598 - Follow up on F2F interest with relevant participants [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2012-12-05].
16:37:28 [Josh_Soref]
... i'll follow up offline
16:37:40 [fjh]
action: fjh to set up agenda page for F2F to solicit feedback and ideas
16:37:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-599 - Set up agenda page for F2F to solicit feedback and ideas [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2012-12-05].
16:37:54 [Zakim]
16:38:00 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, unmute me
16:38:00 [Zakim]
Josh_Soref should no longer be muted
16:38:35 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: plan is to get an idea for dates in December
16:38:41 [Josh_Soref]
... and get a host early January
16:39:03 [Josh_Soref]
... that won't give us much time to make travel arrangements
16:39:53 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: Action Review
16:39:56 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: we'll do that offline
16:40:02 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: AOB
16:40:04 [fjh]
16:40:10 [Josh_Soref]
s/Topic: AOB//
16:40:12 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: AOB
16:40:23 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: AnssiK, you'll work on the proposal
16:40:51 [Josh_Soref]
... for Media Capture
16:40:58 [Josh_Soref]
... and work on Proximity for Publication
16:41:01 [Josh_Soref]
... and i'll work on YYY
16:41:26 [Josh_Soref]
... Cathy will respond about service discovery
16:41:31 [Josh_Soref]
... i think we're done
16:41:33 [fjh]
16:41:33 [Josh_Soref]
... thanks very much
16:41:38 [fjh]
ack AnssiK
16:41:56 [Josh_Soref]
fjh: thanks a whole lot
16:42:04 [Zakim]
16:42:04 [Zakim]
16:42:06 [Zakim]
16:42:13 [Zakim]
16:42:15 [fjh]
s/YYY/preparing process wise for Proximity LC publication/
16:42:19 [Zakim]
16:43:22 [fjh]
s/XXX/next F2F/
16:43:34 [fjh]
zakim, who is here?
16:43:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fjh, Josh_Soref
16:43:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see AnssiK, dcheng3, Zakim, RRSAgent, fjh, darobin, timeless, slightlyoff, tobie, Josh_Soref, trackbot, dom
16:43:55 [Zakim]
16:48:55 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Josh_Soref, in UW_DAP()10:00AM
16:48:56 [Zakim]
UW_DAP()10:00AM has ended
16:48:56 [Zakim]
Attendees were fjh, +1.289.261.aaaa, Josh_Soref, +1.858.750.aabb, gmandyam, +49.173.537.aacc, +1.757.825.aadd, dcheng3, ccourtney, AnssiK, dom, +1.781.266.aaee, Cathy,
16:48:56 [Zakim]
... +1.303.730.aaff, Clarke, tobie
16:53:22 [Josh_Soref]
trackbot, end meeting
16:53:22 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:53:22 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:53:30 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:53:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:53:31 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
I see 6 open action items saved in :
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: anssik to draft proposal outlining rationale and proposed spec changes to change capture attribute to booleans [1]
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: anssi to draft proposal outlining rationale and proposed spec changes to change capture attribute to booleans [2]
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: anssi to update publication draft to have publication date of 6 December 2012 and LC end date of 24 January 2013 [3]
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: fjh to announce plans for LC publication to webapps, sys apps, ping [4]
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: fjh to follow up on F2F interest with relevant participants [5]
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: fjh to set up agenda page for F2F to solicit feedback and ideas [6]
16:53:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in