TV Control API CG

10 Nov 2015


See also: IRC log


Kaz_Ashimura, Tatsuya_Igarashi, Bin_Hu, Chris_Needham, Paul_Higgs, Sean_Lin, SungHei_Kim


<Bin_Hu> https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/wiki/Main_Page/Agenda_Telco_Nov_10_2015

<scribe> scribe: Kaz

<scribe> scribenick: kaz

action items

-> http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/open actions


<trackbot> action-41 -- Sean Lin to Verify the cas-related changes proposed. -- due 2015-10-06 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/41

bin: already done

close action-41

<trackbot> Closed action-41.


<trackbot> action-42 -- Sean Lin to Review the emails around program.data.detail and implement/remove requirement. -- due 2015-10-06 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/42

close action-42

<trackbot> Closed action-42.

publish TV Control API v1.0 and next steps

bin: sent out the review request
... Sean has revised the spec based on the comments
... also we got a liaison statement from ATSC
... they're evaluating the spec
... one of the questions was the plan for the spec
... would proposed we go ahead and publish the spec by the end of November
... the quality of the spec is not perfect but could be implementable
... next step would be bringing it to the WG status to make it a W3C Rec

paul: we started the CG to create the draft
... would this CG continue the work after the publication?
... what would be the procedure?

bin: good question
... there is the Web&TV IG which work on use cases and requirements
... 2 years ago we collected use cases within the IG
... and then we created this CG to generate a spec
... that's the background
... the IG and the CG are separate from the process viewpoint
... there are two possibilities
... 1. we continue to work as a CG
... we had a collection of technical use cases and requirements
... we can continue this model within the CG
... basically no big changes
... 2. another possibility given the broader interest from, e.g., ATSC
... is creating a WG to generate a formal W3C Rec
... Working Group is a formal group of W3C which generates W3C Recommendations
... starting with WD followed by LC/CR, PR and Rec
... need to develop test cases as well
... define test success criteria
... check successfully passed all the tests
... we have done a great job and generated a spec draft
... the possible WG would help us improve the spec draft
... W3C specs require stricter procedures
... W3C Team Staff (Yosuke, Francois and Kaz) are involved
... Francois has generated a draft charter document

<Bin_Hu> http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html

bin: email discussion with Francois yesterday
... would suggest we review the draft charter
... scope, further work, etc.
... after that the charter will be reviewed by all the AC Reps
... considering the timing as well
... WG need, e.g., 2 years, to make the spec a W3C Rec.
... HTML5 needed 7 years
... the official AC Review may end up with a formal objection
... a very early draft of the proposed WG Charter is generated by Francois
... would review until the next call on Dec. 8
... and at the Dec. 8 call, would make a consensus
... and in January we'd ask the AC for review
... the AC might be going to support our proposal, but maybe not

igarashi: some comment
... Sony has joined this CG recently because of the ATSC standardization
... during the f2f meeting in Sapporo, we discussed ATSC liaison as well
... can't say beyond the liaison, but Sony would like to create a WG and work with you

bin: tx!
... glad to hear you would support the WG and contribute to it
... helpful to everybody here
... great news
... what do you think, Chris?

cpn: their contribution is very welcome

bin: what do you think about the plan?

cpn: the plan sounds good
... with the support from Sony
... a question about the spec in the current shape
... which should be the final spec of the CG
... and what should be taken over by the WG?

bin: security/privacy, hardware issues may take another 6 months
... need coordination with the other groups
... we should discuss that

cpn: agree
... possibly new spec for the CG
... existing spec for WG

bin: right
... need to have something closed
... having the current spec closed and let people give us feedback
... would help us
... and minimize the issues

igarashi: security and privacy is a new issue
... CG could continue to address that
... but we should keep the momentum
... the core spec should be brought to the REC stage asap
... we need implementations
... and we could handle security&privacy in parallel

kaz: explains the situation of the Automotive BG/WG
... the BG generated a draft spec and the WG took over it and focus on the REC track side
... on the other hand, both the BG and WG form a TF and collaboratively work on security&privacy incident cases/requirements

bin: tx!
... our core group should focus on the REC trac work
... and the TF (or the CG) handles the security&privacy portion
... similar to the Automotive groups and HTML5/5.1

cpn: will we continue email discussions?

bin: first review the Charter till Dec. 8
... clarify why we need to work in this WG setting
... would create an entry to the wiki
... so that people can raise issues and use case/requirements
... we can start the work immediately

cpn: yeah
... so your suggestion is creating a wiki
... and I can add descriptions

bin: yes, I'll create a wiki
... also would work with Francois, Kaz, etc.
... and all the participants, please give your feedback
... and we'd have more stable and improved Charter document by Dec. 8

paul: we need implementations
... not sure what that really means
... in Chrome, IE, Safari, etc.?
... if somebody implemented the feature within Blink
... would that suffice?

bin: implementation means user agents
... and generally available
... another possibility is non-shipping products
... to check conformance we need test specs
... implementations must be stable but not have to be a formal product

kaz: explains the implementation mechanism
... need two implementations for each feature from the spec
... if got two implementations but both are from a specific source code trunk, sometimes we need to count them as one implementation

paul: ok

igarashi: tv control api itself is independent from the rendering engine
... so more than one implementations which share the same rendering engine could be counted as two (unless they are from one specific code trunk)

kaz: right
... so web runtimes which don't have rendering part should be also included

igarashi: another question is if a prototype implementation ok?

bin: could be a preview release or non-shipping product

igarashi: tv control api strongly depends on hardware
... so we need prototype implementations

bin: yes
... that should be considered
... but the detail of the criteria is not defined by the W3C Process
... so we need to check with the W3C Team

kaz: yes, that is the case with the Automotive group as well

bin: for CR, we need to define the exit criteria

kaz: right
... and would confirm that everybody here is interested in creating a WG :)

bin: yes, that's my understanding
... we'll discuss the draft charter on Dec. 8
... after this call, I'll create a wiki page to gather opinions

cpn: just one comment
... raised during the IG
... the ML is very quiet
... somebody should respond to the comments

bin: good suggestion
... e.g., the one from Sangwhan
... let me respond to him
... think all the comments should be handled by the next version
... tx for reminding me of that

[ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/11/10 15:19:16 $