TV Control API CG

12 Jan 2016


See also: IRC log


Kaz, amereu, Bin, Chris, Colin, Francois, Hyojin, Sean, Igarashi, Adam
Bin Hu


<kaz> scribe: Chris

<kaz> scribenick: cpn

TV Control API CG

Bin: recapping the agenda, any other suggestions?


Working Group Charter

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

Bin: Has everybody had a chance to review the charter?
... Are there any other comments or suggestions?

<inserted> scribenick: kaz

cpn: multiple deliverables?
... TV Control API is the main one
... but possibly to have multiple delivelables as Francois suggested

<inserted> scribenick: cpn

Francois: I have just updated the draft charter
... to mention one or more deliverables

<kaz> delivelables section

Chris: I think this is OK as it leaves the scope and decision open for discussion

kaz: I also agree. Some WGs produce one report, some produce multiple notes, but the structure can be determined later

Bin: If there are no more comments, I'd say we've achieved consensus on the draft charter
... The next step is for Francois to follow up with the AC

Francois: Actually, the next thing is to go to W3C management, before going to AC review
... It's minuted that we have consensus
... If anyone disagrees with the consensus, now would be a good time to say so

(no objections)

RESOLUTION: We have consensus on the wording of the draft WG charter so that we will create a WG

Transition plan from CG to WG

Bin: Once the WG charter is approved, the WG will be officially started
... And I'd encourage all CG members to join the WG
... We'll have the first joint meeting of the CG and WG, but there'll be a 3 month transition period
... During the joint meetings we'll discuss the WG structure, also the phase 2 work to improve the specification
... There'll be two tracks: the recommendation track and the phase 2 track, and members can decide where to contribute their efforts
... Looking at the current schedule, there's a meeting June 28th, and we'll propose to close the CG on June 30th and continue work in the WG
... But we can keep the existing conference call schedule
... The times could be adjusted based on the progress of work

Chris: At TPAC I think we discussed keeping the CG open to work on some of the phase 2 work, while the WG focuses on the specification

Bin: That's possible, but will be driven by the needs of the members, I'm open to that option

Kaz: I agree with both of you, and having two groups might make things complicated
... however, the automotive groups are structured with a WG and a BG. the WG works on specs, and the BG works on incubation kind of new work.

Bin: I agree, if the focus of each group is clear this can be help
... So, we'll keep the CG open
... Thanks Chris for the suggestion

RESOLUTION: We will keep the Community Group open while also creating the Working Group to proceed with the specification work

Bin: Regarding logistics, we should find another time slot for the CG phone call

Potential implementations

Bin: We'll need two independent implementations of the specification from the WG
... We have good representation now from implementers
... Will Mozilla, LG, and Sony be interested in working on implementations?

<inserted> scribenick: tidoust

Bin: Chris, do you expect an implementation on your side?

Chris: That's a good question. It's unlikely you will see a complete implementation from us. We're not browser manufacturers.

<inserted> scribenick: cpn

Chris: But we may want to do some prototyping work. I'll have to discuss with my team here.

Bin: Ok, maybe we can discuss this offline

Hyojin: I'll will check with the TV division in my company and let you know a contact

Francois: This is an important point that W3C management will review: that there are good implementation plans
... This is one of the criteria for the creation of a WG
... I'll need this information to go to W3C management, so will follow up privately if people don't want to say in public yet
... At this stage we just need to put forward a plan

Igarashi: In terms of implementation, should this be in product or as a prototype?

Francois: A prototype is fine, but all I need to know is that there's a plan to do it
... It doesn't have to be in product, just a plan to write concrete code that implements the spec
... If the community group can't show that there are potential implementers, the W3C management will see it as premature to move to standardisation

Bin: As Francois has mentioned, to move forward with standardisation, having 2 implementations is a must
... So we have to have implementations to create the WG

<inserted> scribenick: kaz

Kaz: please note that the AC Review will also have a question on potential implementations. So it would be nicer to have active group participants who are interested in implementing the proposed spec.

<scribe> scribenick: cpn

Hyojin: What are the scope of the implementations?

Bin: The implementation will need to cover the conformance class in the specification, and also be public

<kaz> Model CR Exit Criteria (by the HTML WG)

<tidoust> [I note that these exit criteria are those followed by the HTML WG. I think the Process document is less strict on the definition of what constitutes an implementation. These are good criteria though]

<Bin_Hu> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html

Igarashi: About the public availability, I think the TV Control API can't follow such a requirement, as it can't be implemented in a generic platform such as a PC or Android
... How can we demonstrate public availability?

Bin: I'll try to draft some language
... If it's not possible for a TV platform to be made public
... We can clarify the stability, and define a life-cycle for the implementation, e.g., showing it publicly at some event or trade show

Kaz: There are some basic descriptions in the process document, but the newly created WG can define criteria itself, so we can draft the text later when we go into the CR period

Bin: It will be useful to help Igarashi and others to know the implementation criteria at this stage, to know what they're committing to

Igarashi: I agree

Francois: I'm not really asking for commitment, only that it's something you want to push for

<kaz>[ kaz whispers that maybe we should say "expectation" at the moment. ]

Kaz: I think Hyojin was also asking about the coverage of the implementation
... One implementation doesn't have to include all the features
... The features could be implemented across two or three implementations

Bin: I'll draft something based on what we've just discussed

Test contributions

Bin: I assume anyone doing implementation will also cover testing
... But if anyone else wants to contributes, please get in touch

Kaz: We should think about using and contributing to the general W3C web platform testing effort

Bin: We'll need a specific test platform suitable for TVs
... We can also discuss testing offline
... I encourage everyone to look at the proposed phase 2 work and discuss offline
... Thank you all

[ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. We have consensus on the wording of the draft WG charter so that we will create a WG
  2. We will keep the Community Group open while also creating the Working Group to proceed with the specification work
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/01/12 15:55:24 $