13:48:48 RRSAgent has joined #dap 13:48:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/06-dap-irc 13:48:49 \invite trackbot 13:48:50 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:48:50 Zakim has joined #dap 13:48:52 Zakim, this will be DAP 13:48:52 ok, trackbot 13:48:53 Meeting: Device and Sensors Working Group Teleconference 13:48:53 Date: 06 October 2016 13:49:31 fjh has changed the topic to: das; agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Oct/0000.html 13:49:36 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Oct/0000.html 13:49:48 Chair: Frederick_Hirsch 13:50:00 Present+ Frederick_Hirsch 14:03:15 Present+ Riju_Bhaumik 14:03:28 Present+ Alex_Shalamov 14:05:00 anssik has joined #dap 14:05:36 ScribeNick: dom 14:05:38 riju has joined #dap 14:05:58 Topic: Welcome, scribe selection, agenda review, announcements 14:06:08 Updated minutes page, https://www.w3.org/2009/dap/minutes.html 14:06:17 add to agenda approval of 25 Aug minutes 14:06:22 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Oct/0000.html 14:06:28 Note - TPAC specific item at end of agenda 14:06:45 Present+ Mikhail_Pozdnyakov 14:07:16 Present+ Anssi_Kostiainen 14:07:17 Frederick: TPAC seems to have been great 14:07:37 ... agenda includes minutes approval, updates on WebIDL if possible, Vibration PER 14:08:02 ... Generic Sensor - I tried to pull out the various topics that were worth reviewing 14:08:13 Present+ riju, alexander 14:08:13 ... Concrete sensors - maybe review the naming issue 14:08:22 ... Battery - implementation status 14:08:28 ... *Sensor status check 14:08:36 mikhail has joined #dap 14:08:39 ... groups coordination - follow up to TPAC discussions 14:08:48 ... anything else that we need to talk about today? 14:09:16 Anssi: we can give an update on our priorities for sensors, both in terms of implementations and specs 14:09:30 Topic: Minutes approval 14:11:04 proposed RESOLUTION: Approve 8 Sept Minutes, https://www.w3.org/2016/09/08-dap-minutes.html 14:11:06 shalamov has joined #dap 14:11:42 Present+ Alexander_Shalamov 14:11:45 RESOLUTION: Approve 8 Sept Minutes, https://www.w3.org/2016/09/08-dap-minutes.html 14:12:01 Approve F2F minutes from TPAC F2F, 19-20 Sept 2016 14:12:02 https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-dap-minutes.html 14:12:03 https://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-dap-minutes.html 14:12:03 proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 19-20 Sept 2016 F2F are approved 14:12:15 RESOLUTION: Minutes from 19-20 Sept 2016 F2F are approved https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-dap-minutes.html https://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-dap-minutes.html 14:12:17 Present+ Mikhail_Pozdnyakov 14:12:24 Thanks to Anssi for chairing. 14:12:30 Frederick: Thanks Anssi for chairing that meeting! 14:12:43 Topic: WebIDL breakout report 14:12:50 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2016/SessionIdeas#WebIDL_Future_Work 14:12:58 Anssi: this was about soliciting feedback on new features that should be baked into WebIDL 14:13:11 ... there were minutes taken that I could find out 14:13:22 Frederick: any direct impact on our group? 14:13:29 Anssi: Tobie will also be editing the WebIDL spec now 14:13:31 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2016/SessionIdeas#WebIDL_Future_Work 14:13:39 ... if we need some WebIDL adjustment, it will just be easier :) 14:13:48 https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/webidl 14:14:03 -> https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/webidl Meeting notes for WebIDL breakout 14:14:26 Anssi: nothing specific that concerns us at the moment; the main message is that WebIDL is now evolving 14:14:36 Frederick: Level 1 got published, Level 2 started right 14:14:40 Topic: Vibration 14:14:45 PER https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PER-vibration-20160818/ 14:14:46 comments until 18 Sept. Next step to REC? 14:14:55 Frederick: the comment period for the Vibration PER has finished 14:15:08 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Sep/0024.html 14:15:12 ... we received comments from APA that Dom replied to indicating we can't do normative changes at this stage 14:15:32 dom: going to REC, have started process, waiting director decision 14:15:52 dom: need to formally handle APA WG comment 14:16:19 dom: especially if we add recommendation in next stage of spec 14:16:47 Present+ Tobie_Langel 14:18:18 dom: we probably should file the issue in our repo with a v2 label 14:18:34 ACTION: Anssi to file APA's comment as a GH issue on the vibration repo 14:18:35 Created ACTION-775 - File apa's comment as a gh issue on the vibration repo [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2016-10-13]. 14:18:52 ACTION-775: mark it as v2 14:18:52 Notes added to ACTION-775 File apa's comment as a gh issue on the vibration repo. 14:19:02 ACTION: Frederick to send formal answer to APA WG comment 14:19:02 Created ACTION-776 - Send formal answer to apa wg comment [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2016-10-13]. 14:19:06 I will formally respond with link to issue and noting this is deferred to v.nexst 14:19:13 s/nexst/next/ 14:19:27 Topic: Generic Sensor 14:19:42 Summary of long term vs short term issues/levels 14:19:42 Review next steps/plans for major issues and long term vs short term 14:19:44 - relationship to workers 14:19:45 - permissions (including workers) 14:19:47 - performance & scaling with # of sensors 14:19:47 Frederick: the discussions at the F2F meeting seem to have been good 14:19:48 - remote sensors 14:19:49 summary status of moving features from Level 2 to level 1 14:19:50 remaining open issues? 14:20:05 ... there is this discussion on short / long term evolutions, how to put that into levels 14:20:35 ... it wasn't entirely clear from the minutes which are which 14:21:25 Tobie: we had WIFI issues which prevented us from updating GH issues live 14:21:47 ... I have a good picture of what needs to be done for v1 14:22:06 ... I'll clean this all up and make it more palatable before the next call 14:22:13 Frederick: so - for workers? 14:22:24 Tobie: that's pretty much the only one we don't have a strong decision for 14:22:42 ... It was brought up in the TAG review by Alex for performance considerations 14:22:51 ... Kenneth has been arguing for Worklets rather than Workers 14:23:13 ... We assigned an action item to figure out in more depth Alex' concerns 14:23:24 ... it's pretty much the only req that is unclear for v1/v2 14:23:54 ... It also depends on how v1 ties with concrete sensors (it matters for some, not for others) 14:24:03 Tobie notes ambient light is a special case, with fewer performance concerns 14:24:13 so it can come first 14:24:17 ... getting the performance story is critical to get this shipped in implementations 14:24:44 maybe all motion sensors 14:25:03 Frederick: re permissions - what's the story? 14:25:15 Tobie: solving permissions is critical 14:25:28 ... there is also the question on how to hook with the permissions spec 14:25:52 ... I took an action item in the WebAppSec to make a PR for what we need, which I think is likely to be accepted 14:26:46 is Maryam_Mehrnezhad offering to help with security section of spec? 14:26:59 ... we also had discussions on privacy with maryam, a security researcher, and she was keen on helping with the privacy section of the specs 14:27:20 ... we need both generic guidelines and sensor specific ones 14:27:43 Frederick: so, for permissions, we need to register names, but won't need to rearchitect the permission spec 14:28:04 Tobie: there was a question on whether to target low or high level names for permissions 14:28:20 ... we've converged towards using low level names, and let UA deal with how to present the requests to the user 14:28:51 Frederick: this resolves the question of having confusing granularity of permissions, right? 14:28:52 Tobie: right 14:28:59 Frederick: remote sensors is deferred? 14:29:01 Tobie: right 14:29:26 Frederick: there was discussions of moving back quite a bit of stuff from level 2 to level 1 14:29:55 Tobie: what we did was work through the level 1, level 2, future work based on implementors feedback 14:30:11 ... what's in github right now should be mostly the correct outcome of our triage 14:30:43 ... 80% of the open issues just need to be folded into the spec 14:30:57 ... once they are closed, it will get much clearer 14:31:27 Topic: Concrete sensors 14:31:41 Frederick: there were discussions on spec naming 14:31:52 ... I've wondered if we should include "concrete sensor" somewhere in the title 14:32:13 ... anything else that spans across multiple specs beyond naming? 14:32:19 consistent spec naming (include 'concrete sensor'?) 14:32:30 Tobie: I think it was just naming (with the rest covered by the generic sensor spec) 14:32:52 Topic: Battery 14:33:01 Frederick: what's the status? 14:33:02 Status re implementations 14:33:03 https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-battery-status-20160707/ 14:33:35 https://github.com/w3c/battery/issues/5 14:33:43 this is blocking issue 14:33:43 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Jul/0000.html 14:33:44 Anssi: mozilla had raised a concern back in June 14:34:03 ... of possible misuse by some services, and mozilla might consider unship this 14:34:17 ... since then, we haven't seen concrete proposals, nor have we heard back 14:34:33 http://caniuse.com/#search=battery 14:34:35 ... my suggestion is that we should document the privacy concerns and ship the spec 14:34:42 ... it's already shipping in browsers in any case 14:35:18 ... I haven't heard suggestions for normative improvements, and the spec gives already a lot of freedom to UA vendors to make their implementation privacy-sensitive 14:35:32 Frederick: I think that the API is well in-line with privacy BP 14:35:41 ... this sounds like a good approach 14:36:52 action: anssik to edit Battery to document privacy concerns related to issue 5 14:36:52 Created ACTION-777 - Edit battery to document privacy concerns related to issue 5 [on Anssi Kostiainen - due 2016-10-13]. 14:37:27 note, a pull request would be welcome 14:37:32 I might be able to help here 14:38:01 then next step would be PR transition request 14:38:23 Topic: Ambient Light 14:38:31 next steps 14:38:32 https://www.w3.org/TR/ambient-light/ 14:39:14 Anssi: we are looking to shipping this by the end of this year - it would the first one to ship 14:39:37 Frederick: are we going to get another implementation of that API? 14:39:45 Anssi: do you want us to get one pre-CR? 14:39:54 Frederick: no, was just wondering 14:40:57 Dom: I was thinking this would move to CR at the same time as Generic Sensor (although they don't have to) 14:41:04 Tobie: that makes sense to me too 14:41:09 Frederick: to me too 14:42:19 I think CR would be a good tool to generate interest and implementation participation 14:42:33 Tobie: we should aim at making our docs CR-ready around the same time as the implementation ships 14:42:50 Frederick: the goal of CR is to get interest and involvement from implementors 14:44:24 ... I think we have consensus that the two specs should go together to CR 14:44:44 ... I would like to see it this year 14:44:47 Anssi: me too 14:44:51 Tobie: let's have this as our goal then 14:45:37 Anssi: current focus is on getting ambient light out of the door 14:45:46 Topic: proximity 14:46:04 Anssi: main issue here is whether to split the low / high level features 14:46:10 ... (boolean vs distance) 14:46:17 ... but probably not worth discussing today 14:46:22 https://www.w3.org/TR/proximity/ 14:46:24 https://github.com/w3c/proximity/issues/4 14:46:50 Topic: Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Magnetometer (concrete sensor) 14:46:50 Topic: Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Magnetometer 14:46:57 https://www.w3.org/TR/accelerometer/ 14:46:58 https://www.w3.org/TR/gyroscope/ 14:46:59 https://www.w3.org/TR/magnetometer/ 14:47:01 Anssi: there was some renaming of interfaces and properties 14:47:08 ... they are experimentally implemented as well 14:47:15 ... these ones have a strong performance component 14:47:17 s/Topic: Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Magnetometer (concrete sensor)// 14:47:51 goal is to CR on generic sensor & ambient light this year, others follow later 14:48:03 Tobie: I've been thinking of folding all these motion sensors into a single spec 14:48:45 ... it would provide the low level as well as high level sensors that developers would like want to use in most common cases 14:48:53 ... that's my mid-term plan for this 14:49:17 mikhail: so you'd like to join them into a motion sensor spec? 14:49:33 tobie: I would keep the API as is, but put them together in a single spec 14:49:44 ... all motion sensors rely on these 3 low level sensors 14:49:50 ... fused in different ways 14:50:18 ... this would also allow to address high level sensors on platforms that don't have e.g. a gyroscope 14:50:51 Tobie: I'm not suggesting a generic motion sensor 14:50:54 rationale is not just spec packaging but need to account for fusion and combined use of the lower level sensors 14:50:57 is that right? 14:52:00 Tobie: having them into a single spec makes sense e.g. from a security / privacy perspective 14:52:12 kotakag__ has joined #dap 14:52:14 kotaka___ has joined #dap 14:52:16 ... it would have high-level sensors such as gravity, device orientation 14:52:39 kotakag__ has joined #dap 14:52:41 kotaka___ has joined #dap 14:52:51 ... it will likely be a big spec 14:53:27 ... the spec would have at the top the 3 low level APIs (gyroscope, magnetometer, accelerometer), and then the derived high level APIs (orientation, gravity, etc) 14:53:58 tobie notes some security concerns will relate to the combination of lower level APIs 14:54:00 mikhail: dev would still be able to use low and high level, right? 14:54:08 tobie: yes - they may come with different permissions 14:54:24 ... but having it all together in a single spec will help make it more consistent 14:54:36 riju: but won't privacy & security moved up to generic sensor? 14:54:45 tobie: everything that's common should move to generic 14:54:57 ... but there are specificities that need to appear in concrete sensors 14:55:29 ... e.g. security concerns specific to high frequency sensors such as key logging don't belong in generic sensor 14:55:52 tobie: that's my current thinking - nothing set in stone 14:56:11 Topic: Wake Lock 14:56:22 Frederick: let's skip 14:56:31 Topic: Coordination with Other Groups 14:56:42 incubating a generic-sensor based geo API (noted during F2F) - next step? 14:56:48 Frederick: so there was this plan to incubate a geo location API as generic sensor? 14:57:03 Anssi: no high priority, but Giri was happy for us to incubate something 14:57:11 ... plan is to do it in the WICG 14:57:50 ... geo requires some of the v2 features (e.g. one-shot request) 14:58:06 coordinate with Web of Things CG/IG, review security/privacy practices? 14:58:34 Frederick: what was the outcome of the discussions with WoT IG? 14:58:53 ... was that mostly a shared awareness discussion? 14:59:01 Anssi: yes - no specific action out of this 14:59:22 ... we also had a TAG member (Hadley) attending during the first day 14:59:35 Topic: TPAC follow up 14:59:40 Anssi: great wine and food! 14:59:59 ... no wine for lunch as in France though 15:00:22 ... Next one is in the San Francisco Airport >:) 15:01:02 Anssi: thanks riju, mikhail, alex, tobie for joining 15:01:03 Updated minutes page, https://www.w3.org/2009/dap/minutes.html 15:01:22 -> https://www.w3.org/2009/dap/teleconferences.ics DAS teleconferences calendar 15:01:34 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:01:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/06-dap-minutes.html dom 15:01:37 Topic: Other Business 15:01:38 none 15:01:42 Topic: Adjourn 15:01:45 s/ ->/ ->/g 15:01:49 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:01:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/06-dap-minutes.html fjh 15:02:32 s/.invite trackbot// 15:03:46 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:03:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/06-dap-minutes.html fjh 15:07:05 tobie has joined #dap 15:07:52 hadleybeeman has joined #dap 15:29:23 dougt has joined #DAP 16:20:09 Zakim has left #dap