Device and Sensors Working Group Teleconference

<anssik> https://www.w3.org/TR/vibration/ points to REC, not PER

Minutes approval

RESOLUTION: Minutes from 14 July 2016 are approved,

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Jul/0035.html

Battery

Anssi: I haven't gotten any concrete feedback that would motivate spec changes
... there is some freedom for implementors to do things differently

<anssik> https://w3c.github.io/battery/#dfn-unable-to-report-the-battery-status-information

Anssi: you can be conformant with the spec, given the current prose, and address all the arguments I've heard

Dom: should we get confirmation from Marcos / Domenic about their satisfaction?

Anssi: yes, we should ask for concrete spec changes that would satisfy them

<anssik> https://github.com/w3c/battery/issues/5

<scribe> ACTION: Anssi to ping Marcos & Domenic on Battery issue #5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-dap-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-765 - Ping marcos & domenic on battery issue #5 [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2016-09-01].

Vibration

Dom: v2?

Anssi: WebVR will need more control on vibration intensity
... Vibration is also used by the Notifications API

https://github.com/w3c/vibration/issues

dom: chrome is going to block vibration in third-party iframes
... cf issue #15

Anssi: would be good to see if Mozilla is going in that direction too
... and if so, we should probably align the spec
... would that be more for a v2?

Dom: I think a v2 is useful if we add new features; I wouldn't do it "just" for adding this restriction

anssi: any other spec were that problem arises?

Dom: Wake Lock restricts its usage to same-origin contexts

Anssi: this reminds of the permission delegation discussion that happened in Chrome

Dom: right; same issue has arised for getUserMedia

<anssik> https://rawgit.com/noncombatant/permission-delegation-api/gh-pages/index.html

<anssik> https://noncombatant.github.io/permission-delegation-api/

<scribe> ACTION: Anssi to check for new requirements on vibration from Gamepad/VR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-dap-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-766 - Check for new requirements on vibration from gamepad/vr [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2016-09-01].

<anssik> https://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#sensors

Sensor

Anssi: the implementation team has promised to raise new issues very soon now
... we should wait to start the wide review

dom: but then we won't be able to use TPAC for processing feedback from such a review

<anssik> https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/115

<anssik> https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/110

Anssi: we received substantive feedback from the TAG
... the implementation feedback will be mostly filling gaps of undefined behavior

dom: I think we should start the wide review so that we have stuff worth discussing at TPAC

anssik: for wide review, do we need a new WD?

dom: it would be better (unless there have been no changes since last time)

<scribe> ACTION: Anssi to prepare new WD of sensors for Wide Review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-dap-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-767 - Prepare new wd of sensors for wide review [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2016-09-01].

<scribe> ACTION: Dom to start wide review of generic sensors & ambient light [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-dap-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-768 - Start wide review of generic sensors & ambient light [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2016-09-01].

<anssik> https://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#sensors

ACTION-768: wide review should mention other generic sensor specs https://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#sensors

<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-768 Start wide review of generic sensors & ambient light.

Concrete sensors

Anssi: the various concrete sensors are being implemented
... and thanks to the Generic Sensors API, it's fairly straightforward to add more sensors on many platforms we have
... it's been easy on Android and Windows for instance
... our plan is rapidly implement all of those
... on Chromium and Chrome-based platforms (e.g. ChromeOS)

Dom: where do we stand in terms of moving to FPWD?

Anssi: I would suggest moving to FPWD for the 3 concrete sensors fairly soon
... the drafts are missing a reference to WebIDL-1

<anssik> https://w3c.github.io/sensors/#index-defined-elsewhere

Anssi: due to my removal of bikeshed boilerplate in these documents

<scribe> ACTION: Dom to open issues on missing WebIDL ref in concrete sensors [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-dap-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-769 - Open issues on missing webidl ref in concrete sensors [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2016-09-01].

<scribe> ACTION: Dom to ask Frederick to start a FPWD call for consensus for concrete sensors once WebIDL references have been added [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-dap-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-770 - Ask frederick to start a fpwd call for consensus for concrete sensors once webidl references have been added [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2016-09-01].

WakeLock API

Andrey: PING teleconf in July raised the question of using wake lock as a side channel; also whether it should restricted to secure contexts only
... a more formal review is under preparation
... didn't receive much other feedback from wide review otherwise

<alogvinov_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2016JulSep/0034.html

<alogvinov_> https://github.com/w3c/ping/pull/1/files

TPAC

Anssi: we should aim at discussing our open issues during the Monday meeting at TPAC
... we have 41 open issues that need triaging
... some of them might have to closed or moved to v2
... Also, I hope we'll have more feedback from implementation by then
... we could also do demos
... I think it will be mostly about generic sensors and perhaps some of the concrete instances
... it would also be interesting to talk about the geolocation wg if they're around
... since the geo might be another target for generic sensor, the same way as deviceorientation is broken down into gyroscope, accelerometer, magnetometer
... in theory, you could polyfill deviceorientation based on these 3 drafts
... not clear who from geo will be at TPAC
... another potential topic is figuring where WoT could benefit from this work

<anssik> https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/18

Anssi: WoT interface with sensors
... a separate topic might be v2 (e.g. exposing this in worker contexts)
... and even beyond ("future work")

<anssik> Level 1: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/milestone/2

<anssik> Level 2: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/milestone/3

<anssik> Future Work: https://github.com/w3c/sensors/milestone/4

<scribe> ACTION: Anssi to prepare agenda for sensors meeting @ TPAC - due 2016-09-12 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-dap-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-771 - Prepare agenda for sensors meeting @ tpac [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2016-09-12].