13:46:42 RRSAgent has joined #dap 13:46:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-dap-irc 13:46:43 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:46:43 Zakim has joined #dap 13:46:45 Zakim, this will be DAP 13:46:45 ok, trackbot; I see UW_DAP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 13:46:46 Meeting: Device APIs Working Group Teleconference 13:46:46 Date: 29 May 2013 13:47:14 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0070.html 13:47:27 fjh has changed the topic to: dap 3279 ; agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0070.html 13:47:34 Regrets+ Bryan_Sullivan 13:47:53 Chair: Frederick_Hirsch 13:48:02 Present + Frederick_Hirsch 13:48:16 Present+ Frederick_Hirsch 13:48:24 s/Present + Frederick_Hirsch// 13:48:41 Topic: Welcome, agenda review, scribe selection, announcements 13:48:47 rrsagent, generate minutes 13:48:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-dap-minutes.html fjh 13:55:27 UW_DAP()10:00AM has now started 13:55:34 +Josh_Soref 13:56:36 jeffh has joined #dap 13:58:41 dcheng3 has joined #dap 13:59:17 +[IPcaller] 13:59:24 lgombos has joined #dap 13:59:30 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 13:59:30 +fjh; got it 13:59:35 Milan_Patel has joined #dap 13:59:54 +dcheng3 14:00:05 Present+ Diana_Cheng 14:00:16 gmandyam has joined #dap 14:00:19 + +1.214.919.aaaa 14:00:29 zakim, where is 214? 14:00:29 North American dialing code 1.214 is Texas 14:00:43 Present+ Milan_Patel 14:01:07 +gmandyam 14:01:20 +lgombos 14:01:44 zakim, who is here? 14:01:44 On the phone I see Josh_Soref, fjh, dcheng3, +1.214.919.aaaa, gmandyam, lgombos 14:01:47 On IRC I see gmandyam, Milan_Patel, lgombos, dcheng3, jeffh, Zakim, RRSAgent, fjh, dom, anssik, Josh_Soref, slightlyoff, ted, trackbot, mounir 14:02:01 zakim, aaaa is milan_patel 14:02:01 +milan_patel; got it 14:02:07 zakim, who is here? 14:02:07 On the phone I see Josh_Soref, fjh, dcheng3, milan_patel, gmandyam, lgombos 14:02:09 On IRC I see gmandyam, Milan_Patel, lgombos, dcheng3, jeffh, Zakim, RRSAgent, fjh, dom, anssik, Josh_Soref, slightlyoff, ted, trackbot, mounir 14:02:14 +??P5 14:02:18 Zakim, ??P5 is me 14:02:18 +dom; got it 14:02:41 Present+ Dominique_Hazael-Massieux 14:02:42 zakim, who is making noise? 14:02:53 fjh, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Josh_Soref (4%), fjh (9%) 14:04:03 Present+ Anssi_Kostiainen 14:04:13 +??P0 14:04:16 zakim, ??P0 is me 14:04:16 +anssik; got it 14:04:18 http://www.w3.org/2013/05/22-dap-minutes.html 14:04:31 ted has left #dap 14:04:44 ted has joined #dap 14:04:50 Present+ gmandyam 14:05:03 ted has left #dap 14:05:46 I updated the home page roadmap http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/ 14:06:47 separated roadmap into sections so that rec track stages like CR are not present for informative Notes and exploratory work etc, should be clearer 14:06:55 also moved shelved material and Web Intents Note 14:07:31 q+ re Media Capture and Streams 14:07:32 Media Capture and Streams heading to Last Call, deadline 15 June, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013May/0105.html 14:07:45 bug link, https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebRTC%20Working%20Group&component=Media%20Capture%20and%20Streams&resolution 14:07:52 ack dom 14:07:52 dom, you wanted to discuss Media Capture and Streams 14:08:10 futures call next week, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013May/0111.html 14:08:44 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013May/0102.html Date and time (and draft agenda) Futures teleconf 14:09:40 Present+ Laszlo_Gombos 14:10:06 Topic: Minutes Approval 14:10:29 22 May minutes, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/att-0072/minutes-2013-05-22.html 14:11:06 scribe: Josh_Soref 14:11:08 RESOLUTION: Minutes from 22 May are approved 14:11:12 +q 14:11:14 fjh: note no call 26 June 14:11:21 ack gmandyam 14:11:27 gmandyam: re: MC and Streams 14:11:31 ... no one wants this to go to LC 14:11:40 ... and then get a bunch of comments from people reading the spec for the first time 14:12:01 ... it'd be good if you could send an email to the dap list, trying to spur members to read it and send comments to MediaCap ML 14:12:05 fjh: i'll do that, i was thinking about that 14:12:12 ... yesterday, and debating with myself 14:12:18 ... thinking people should be on that ML if they care 14:12:27 ... but, you're right, it's better to send out the request 14:13:03 topic: Vibration 14:13:05 One LC comment so far, resolved: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/43696/WD-vibration-20130523/doc/ 14:13:30 fjh: Paul_Cotton from HTML WG noted we were referencing HTML5.1 content 14:13:40 ... anssik fixed it, so we're now referencing html5 14:13:42 Question regarding user visibility as to whether in 'silent mode' - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0064.html (Felipe) 14:13:43 Zakim, mute me 14:13:43 Josh_Soref should now be muted 14:13:59 Josh_Soref: i was tempted to reply "you should use the Notification API" 14:14:18 fjh: i don't think it's applicable to the vibration spec per se 14:14:23 ... the platform could do something 14:14:27 Zakim, unmute me 14:14:27 Josh_Soref should no longer be muted 14:14:37 "the API is not meant to be used as a generic notification mechanism." 14:14:45 http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/vibration/#introduction 14:15:12 +1 for Josh replying politely 14:15:13 Josh_Soref: i'll try to reply today noting the introduction from vibration, and pointing to the notification api 14:15:15 thanks Josh 14:15:24 +1, seems right approach 14:15:33 LC period ends 13 June. 14:15:49 anssik: no spec is too short, people still don't read them 14:15:55 ... maybe we should put it in bold 14:16:09 ... perhaps Josh_Soref, you could include more context 14:16:23 ... e.g., if the app is in the background, this api generally won't work 14:16:41 fjh: i'd simply say there's a notification api that handles various cases like that 14:17:07 Josh_Soref: we could include an informative note at the top of this spec pointing to the Notification API 14:17:11 fjh: good idea 14:17:16 anssik: i could probably do that 14:17:31 ... is w3 still working on Web Notification? 14:17:34 ... or is it in whatwg? 14:17:44 ... the ED seems to be still in w3 14:17:47 fjh: i don't remember 14:17:53 ... i think it was whatwg 14:18:03 anssik: it seems like they're syncing 14:18:14 ... hober edited the spec 4 days ago 14:18:21 dom: it's still a w3c draft 14:18:21 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/notifications/shortlog 14:18:33 anssik: we can link to the ED 14:18:50 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/notifications/raw-file/tip/Overview.html 14:18:53 ... as there isn't a current TR draft 14:19:51 anssik: there's a bug with the presentation of that spec as it references http: from https: which modern browsers don't allow 14:19:57 action: anssik to update introduction of vibration to refer to notification API 14:19:57 Created ACTION-634 - Update introduction of vibration to refer to notification API [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2013-06-05]. 14:20:12 ... i patched ReSpec.js for this, but it's using Anolis 14:20:45 Josh_Soref: should i mention in my reply to this guy that we're going to update the document to hint that? 14:21:00 fjh: you could say we're considering it 14:21:04 will update tracker accordingly 14:21:09 ... i think everyone agrees we'll change this 14:21:15 ... i don't think we need a CfC 14:21:37 fjh: the LC is open until June 13 14:21:53 topic: Proximity, Light 14:22:11 As decided at last meeting, waiting until end of May for discussion on list. 14:22:12 fjh: we've agreed to wait until the end of may before responding 14:22:17 s/fjh: we've agreed to wait until the end of may before responding// 14:22:19 Please review draft and discuss on list. 14:23:33 fjh: i may/may not offer more suggestions about privacy 14:23:39 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0008.html 14:23:40 ... if you haven't looked in a while, you should take another look 14:23:56 anssik: i summarized the situation w/ merging the interfaces 14:24:03 fjh: and you edited the draft to include the changelog 14:24:04 drafts include change log now, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0071.html 14:24:23 anssik: yeah, it's tedious to find changes in mercurial 14:24:32 ... most of the time it's easier to review change logs directly 14:24:43 ... maybe we should consider doing that for other specs 14:24:49 fjh: we can consider that when we edit other specs 14:25:00 anssik: cvs also provides human readable changelogs 14:25:04 fjh: anything to help people 14:25:13 ... i wouldn't expect them to appear in LC/CR drafts 14:25:18 anssik: but yeah, for EDs 14:25:36 fjh: if you want to do that for other EDs, that's fine w/ me 14:25:43 ... i assume dom has no concern 14:25:49 dom: no concern indeed 14:25:56 fjh: ok, go for it when you have time 14:26:31 topic: Network Service Discovery 14:26:38 prefix issue , http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Apr/0054.html (Jean-Claude) 14:26:38 status http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0028.html (Rich) 14:26:46 Awaiting further activity 14:26:52 topic: Test cases and Interop 14:27:02 Request for implementation status, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0069.html 14:27:14 wiki http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/ImplementationStatus 14:27:52 fjh: stuff for interop is blank for all our specs 14:28:39 Josh_Soref: the battery section and media capture are structured differently 14:29:30 anssik: i used this wiki as a scratchpad for gathering initial related work 14:29:38 ... battery status is in Firefox 14:29:47 Josh_Soref: i think it's in BB10 14:29:50 anssik: it's probably there 14:30:02 fjh: how will we interop test Firefox / BB10 ? 14:30:07 ... will we use those implementations? 14:30:16 anssik: we have ready made tests 14:30:24 ... i ran them on FirefoxOS 14:30:31 +q 14:30:33 fjh: do you have a link to an output report? 14:30:39 anssik: i don't have one, unfortunately 14:30:46 ... are you planning to create a document for this 14:30:56 ... what's the minimum required output? 14:31:11 fjh: IMO, it's best if you have a document w/ test cases, and a summary of results of interop on the platforms 14:31:32 ... making it excruciatingly clear 14:31:47 ... you could legally per process use a wiki 14:31:54 dom: that matches what other groups are doing 14:32:04 ... a big table w/ a row per test, and a column per implementation 14:32:11 ... indicating pass/fail/partial 14:32:45 fjh: first thing is identify which tests 14:32:48 ... and which engines 14:32:49 q? 14:32:51 ... right now it isn't clear 14:32:52 ack gmandyam 14:33:09 gmandyam: i presented to this group a couple of months ago 14:33:14 ... anssik 's test suite is pretty good 14:33:18 ... the problem IMO is 14:33:28 ... on handheld devices, you have a native api 14:33:39 ... and if the browser api doesn't follow the native api closely, that's a problem 14:33:47 ... but you can't track that in an automated way 14:34:01 ... i realize there are other apis where you could make that argument as well 14:34:03 ... e.g. proximity 14:34:19 ... human intervention when you're dealing w/ sensors is necessary 14:34:56 fjh: 1. is the spec doing functionally what it says it is 14:35:16 ... 2. we want to validate that information our api provides corresponds to another reference set of info for the device 14:35:27 ... for battery, it's the system 14:35:35 ... for bandwidth, it's ... 14:35:37 ... there's a theme 14:35:50 ... we want to ensure that information provided by our spec has reasonable accuracy 14:35:51 gmandyam: yeah 14:36:11 ... and similarly for e.g. proximity .. is the host device in proximity to an external object 14:36:37 fjh: it might not matter for some specs, e.g. ambient light 14:36:45 ... we might want to record this when we do the testcase document 14:36:52 ... indicate if we care if it's consistent or not 14:37:16 fjh: my goal is to know which implementations we can use for interop 14:37:28 ... which i think involves getting the implementer owner to step up 14:37:35 ... we need to be clear up front about what we can share 14:37:46 ... some vendors might not like having failures identified publicly 14:37:52 ... we'd want explicit ok in advance 14:38:02 ... for Firefox, i think we'd need an owner from their team 14:38:13 ... but if it's in the Wild, then we can just use it 14:38:23 ... i'm used to having things that are under develoment 14:38:30 s/develoment/development. 14:38:34 s|s/develoment/development.|| 14:38:36 s/develoment/development/ 14:38:43 ... but maybe for shipping it doesn't matter 14:39:05 ... so, anssik will update the wiki a bit 14:39:09 ... can gmandyam update it a bit? 14:39:12 ... Josh_Soref ? 14:39:25 fjh: Josh_Soref, are you volunteering to do interop for BB10? 14:41:59 Josh_Soref: the BB10 10.1 browser is public and could be tested 14:42:06 q+ 14:42:10 ack lgombos 14:42:36 Josh_Soref: ZZZ 14:42:41 lgombos: on what Josh_Soref said 14:42:46 ... there are two things, the Marketing Announcement 14:42:56 ... "Company X and Browser Y is supporting a set of APIs" 14:43:05 ... and then there's the more formal "we pass 100%" 14:43:09 ... those are separate 14:43:14 ... for the more formal ones 14:43:25 ... it could be important to let the company run it themselves 14:43:31 ... this is also feedback from Microsoft 14:43:43 ... if someone runs them and microsoft runs it themselves 14:43:49 ... and you don't get the same results 14:44:00 q+ 14:44:05 ... i think what fjh was asking is can we do the more formal stuff for blackberry 14:44:19 ... for me, i think it's the same with Samsung, as it is for BlackBerry 14:44:30 ... i could do it for Samsung, but only when the device is shipping 14:44:31 ack fjh 14:44:41 fjh: IME, first you do informal interop testing in the WG 14:44:53 ... you agree w/in the DAP WG to do interop tests informally 14:45:01 ... maybe you're identifying bugs in the tests 14:45:10 ... if necessary, you do stuff offlist or on members-list 14:45:18 ... and then, once we've reached a point of comfort/made progress 14:45:24 ... then we can be more formal about it 14:45:34 ... and then we could publish a report where everyone passes 14:45:51 ... we want to do things informally in the group 14:46:25 dom: the point of CR testing is to check that an API can be implemented in the relevant software 14:46:32 ... it isn't conformance testing 14:46:43 ... if you choose not to relay exact values 14:46:51 ... e.g. in battery, e.g. for privacy/security reasons 14:47:01 ... that's beyond scope of what we need to prove for CR 14:47:14 fjh: Josh_Soref, lgombos, this might change what you think you can do 14:47:42 lgombos: i'm not really sure about the status of test suites 14:47:49 ... if there's a test suite available, i could look into running it 14:47:54 ... and then figure out how to share results 14:47:56 Josh_Soref: +1 14:48:26 Josh_Soref: part of the problem is finding the test suites, sometimes there were tests in contrib/ folders 14:48:34 fjh: they should be linked from the interop page 14:48:46 dom: hopefully soon they'll be moved to the w3 github test repo 14:48:53 ... hopefully i'll do that tomorrow 14:49:02 fjh: the test cases are linked from the roadmap 14:49:27 http://w3c-test.org/dap/battery/tests/ 14:49:36 Josh_Soref: has submissions/ 14:49:41 ... which is odd 14:49:57 fjh: yeah, the structure is odd, it's anssik 's submission and not a WG test case 14:50:05 dom: at some point, we need to take them and accept them 14:50:18 ... the best thing to do is after running them and decide if they work, and then accept them 14:50:35 ... personally, i've looked at them, and think they should be accepted 14:50:46 ... but we need to let people run them and decide if they're ok 14:51:00 ... the submissions/ directory is only an indication that we need implementation feedback 14:51:04 ... not that they're wrong 14:51:12 ... the directory name will disappear in the migration 14:51:23 fjh: i don't think we need to wait until we go to github 14:52:23 lgombos: there was a Tizen developer conference last week 14:52:37 ... where Samsung gave out Tizen developer devices w/ Tizen 2.1 14:52:40 ... and that could be used 14:52:49 test cases are linked from roadmap http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#roadmap 14:53:23 way forward may be for potential interop participants to review test cases, give feedback, consider interop within DAP (either member only or public) etc 14:53:50 action: fjh to check on Media Capture TPAC F2F plans 14:53:50 Created ACTION-635 - Check on Media Capture TPAC F2F plans [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2013-06-05]. 14:53:53 fjh: in the back of my mind is whether we'll meet at TPAC 14:53:58 ... and how effective we'll be 14:54:09 ... i want to be sure that we're well along the way to move forward at TPAC 14:54:28 Josh_Soref: i just sent an inquiry about the tests to our team 14:54:46 zakim, who is here? 14:54:46 On the phone I see Josh_Soref, fjh, dcheng3, milan_patel, gmandyam, lgombos, dom, anssik 14:54:46 fjh: i want us to do everything possible to make sure the test cases are reasonable and help us get to CR 14:54:48 On IRC I see gmandyam, Milan_Patel, lgombos, dcheng3, jeffh, Zakim, RRSAgent, fjh, dom, anssik, Josh_Soref, slightlyoff, trackbot, mounir 14:55:08 ... i don't know you're situation, gmandyam, dcheng3 14:55:22 ... anssik: if you could update the wiki 14:55:35 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:55:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-dap-minutes.html fjh 14:55:40 Topic: Action Review 14:56:11 fjh: the open actions are well understood 14:56:16 ACTION-523? 14:56:16 ACTION-523 -- Anssi Kostiainen to work on test cases for battery, vibration, and HTML Media Capture -- due 2012-08-31 -- OPEN 14:56:16 http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/523 14:56:18 ... anssik 's test cases, and dom 's moving them to git 14:56:23 ACTION-621? 14:56:23 ACTION-621 -- Anssi Kostiainen to create test cases for HTML Media Capture -- due 2013-03-13 -- OPEN 14:56:23 http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/621 14:56:31 ACTION-625? 14:56:31 ACTION-625 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to move DAP tests to Git, with help from others as needed -- due 2013-05-01 -- OPEN 14:56:31 http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/625 14:56:34 pending 14:56:38 ... we can close pending review items 14:56:41 ACTION-632? 14:56:41 ACTION-632 -- Frederick Hirsch to follow up on implementation status for DAP specifications -- due 2013-05-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:56:41 http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/632 14:56:56 did this, as noted in previous discussion 14:57:04 ACTION-633? 14:57:04 ACTION-633 -- Frederick Hirsch to start CfC to shelve Network Information API, first checking with editor -- due 2013-05-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:57:04 http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/633 14:57:36 fjh: i checked w/ the editor, mounir , he's checking w/ google and others 14:57:45 ... rather than having a CfC, i think we need to wait a bit 14:57:59 ... i don't want to leave stuff sitting, 14:58:06 ... i want to make clear that we're progressing or shut it down 14:58:12 ... it seems like things are still happening 14:58:29 close ACTION-632 14:58:32 Closed ACTION-632 Follow up on implementation status for DAP specifications. 14:58:35 close ACTION-633 14:58:36 Closed ACTION-633 Start CfC to shelve Network Information API, first checking with editor. 14:58:46 topic: Issue Review 14:58:57 ISSUE-128? 14:58:57 ISSUE-128 -- Need more description on how bandwidth should be estimated -- open 14:58:57 http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/128 14:59:08 fjh: i had offline discussions, i think we should keep it open 14:59:14 topic: Other Business 14:59:18 anssik: the charter is expiring 14:59:22 fjh: i usually ignore that 14:59:31 ... i think that's a simple matter of a charter extension 14:59:36 http://www.w3.org/2011/07/DeviceAPICharter 14:59:43 I recommend a charter extension 14:59:45 ... is the group thinking of adding anything at this point? 14:59:59 s/.../anssik:/ 15:00:17 anssik: there's still room to do work around sensors 15:00:27 ... i've heard some people 15:00:32 ... and based on discussion on the list 15:00:41 ... that people had interest in doing something around that 15:00:53 fjh: i think a charter extension is a simpler thing, you extend the timeline 15:00:53 q+ 15:00:55 ... you don't change scope 15:01:06 ... i think expanding the scope would be a mistake for many reasons 15:01:07 ack dom 15:01:11 ack dom 15:01:16 dom: i'd concur 15:01:24 ... at this time, i haven't heard a need for a rechartering 15:01:28 ... for adding new work items 15:01:40 ... it sounds like it'd be fair to ask the WG ML about this 15:01:56 ... if we do ask for an extensions, which i think we'd need to 15:02:05 ... we'd need to decide how much of an extension (how long) 15:02:16 ... and we'd need to provide an updated set of milestones for deliverables 15:02:29 ... so W3M can decide if the requested extension is realisitc 15:02:54 s/realisitc/realistic/ 15:03:06 fjh: what do you want me to say to the ML? 15:03:10 dom: stay close to the facts 15:03:17 ... that the charter is expiring in July 15:03:29 ... and say how long an extension could be, and ask for feedback 15:03:48 ... that people could ask for longer, shorter, close or other feedback 15:03:53 fjh: is this a CfC? 15:04:01 dom: i don't think a CfC has any formality 15:04:19 ... i think since this is the future of the WG, using a CfC isn't unreasonable 15:04:22 action: fjh to send public list regarding consensus regarding charter extension 15:04:22 Created ACTION-636 - Send public list regarding consensus regarding charter extension [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2013-06-05]. 15:04:25 fjh: ok, i'll do this 15:04:55 anssik: it's ok if someone wants to start work on a new sensor, that's in scope 15:04:59 ... the group is happy to do that 15:05:03 dom: at the high level, yes 15:05:12 need a concrete proposal, but in scope 15:05:12 ... i think a concrete proposal would have to be evaluated by the WG 15:05:23 anssik: how would you do that evaluation in practical terms? 15:05:30 ... i know people were eager to do it 15:05:38 ... it seems the hardware is getting more capable in terms of sensors 15:05:45 ... those could be fairly small additions 15:05:50 fjh: we need a concrete proposal 15:06:23 dom: i see no reason... you could assert a specific geolocation technology is a sensor 15:06:25 ... and is in scope 15:06:35 ... it might not be in scope, as we have a geolocation group 15:06:50 ... in practice, each proposal gets reviewed under its own strength 15:06:56 q+ 15:06:57 anssik: we'd ask people to give proposals as member submissions 15:07:09 ... would something less formal than that be ok? 15:07:25 dom: any WG participants can propose to start work on a topic in scope for the charter 15:07:34 ... that proposal can include a concrete submission 15:07:41 fjh: i'd suggest that geolocation shouldn't be included 15:07:50 ... there's already a WG, and there could be IPR issues 15:08:04 anssik: i agree w/ fjh on that, we should exclude geolcation from this discussion 15:08:15 ... does anyone remember any proposals other than sensors? 15:08:31 fjh: we shelved Contacts, Calendar 15:08:37 anssik: they're mostly handled by SysApps 15:08:58 ... then there's Intents, also shelved 15:09:04 fjh: Network Information 15:09:14 ... Network Discovery 15:09:25