16:29:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #coremob
16:29:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-irc
16:29:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 25
16:29:45 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #coremob
16:29:46 <darobin> trackbot: start meeting
16:29:47 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
16:29:47 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:29:48 <trackbot> Meeting: Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference
16:29:49 <trackbot> Date: 25 June 2012
16:29:52 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 25
16:29:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
16:29:56 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:29:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference
16:30:00 <trackbot> Date: 25 June 2012
16:30:28 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref has joined #coremob
16:30:34 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:30:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:30:47 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:30:49 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:30:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:32:57 <jfmoy> jfmoy has joined #coremob
16:33:10 <lbolstad> lbolstad has joined #coremob
16:34:38 <nghanavatian> nghanavatian has joined #coremob
16:35:56 <darobin> Present+ Robin Berjon
16:36:05 <darobin> Chairs: Jo Rabin, Robin Berjo
16:36:15 <jo> Present+ Jo Rabin
16:36:16 <Josh_Soref> s/Robin Berjon/Robin_Berjon/
16:36:17 <darobin> s/Chairs: Jo Rabin, Robin Berjo/Chairs: Jo Rabin, Robin Berjon/
16:36:23 <Josh_Soref> Present+ Josh_Soref
16:36:33 <Josh_Soref> s/Present+ Jo Rabin/Present+ Jo_Rabin/
16:36:35 <jo> zakim, who is here?
16:36:35 <Zakim> sorry, jo, I don't know what conference this is
16:36:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see nghanavatian, lbolstad, jfmoy, Josh_Soref, Zakim, RRSAgent, darobin, jo, betehess, trackbot
16:36:47 <darobin> Zakim, this is coremob
16:36:47 <Zakim> sorry, darobin, I do not see a conference named 'coremob' in progress or scheduled at this time
16:37:13 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:37:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:39:07 <tobie> tobie has joined #coremob
16:41:24 <Robert_Shilston> Robert_Shilston has joined #coremob
16:41:59 <andrewhubbs_> andrewhubbs_ has joined #coremob
16:43:14 <Josh_Soref> scribe: Josh_Soref 
16:43:18 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:43:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:44:20 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Welcome
16:44:25 <Josh_Soref> darobin: Good morning everyone
16:44:30 <Josh_Soref> ... I'm Robin Berjon
16:44:33 <Josh_Soref> ... one of the co-chairs
16:44:53 <Josh_Soref> ... along with jo Robin
16:45:24 <jet> jet has joined #coremob
16:45:47 <Josh_Soref> James: Welcome
16:45:52 <Josh_Soref> ... welcome to our warehouse
16:45:55 <Josh_Soref> ... my name is James
16:45:56 <darobin> s/jo Robin/jo Rabin/
16:46:06 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm responsible for our Advocacy work
16:46:13 <WaiSeto> WaiSeto has joined #coremob
16:46:18 <Josh_Soref> ... this as you might imagine is not where Facebook lives
16:46:27 <Josh_Soref> ... it's the remnants of our old building
16:46:41 <Josh_Soref> ... sadly we won't be able to bring you to our new campus
16:46:49 <Josh_Soref> ... I don't think I need to tell you about Facebook
16:46:57 <Josh_Soref> ... the web at the moment is in an interesting place
16:47:01 <Josh_Soref> ... with respect to moblie
16:47:05 <Josh_Soref> s/moblie/mobile/
16:47:13 <Josh_Soref> ... the web has been around for a long time
16:47:24 <Josh_Soref> ... a couple of years ago XXX had an article
16:47:28 <Josh_Soref> ... saying "The Web Is Dead"
16:47:35 <Dong-Young> Dong-Young has joined #coremob
16:47:42 <Josh_Soref> ... but there's a future with mobile
16:47:52 <Josh_Soref> ... at the moment for mobile, if you want to make an app for mobile
16:47:56 <Josh_Soref> ... the Web is not your first choice
16:48:03 <chisht> chisht has joined #coremob
16:48:03 <Josh_Soref> ... apart from the very simplest experiences
16:48:08 <Josh_Soref> ... it isn't the runtime
16:48:20 <jo> s/XXX/Wired Magazine/
16:48:35 <Josh_Soref> ... Mobile Web / Mobile HTML5 has passed the peak of excitement
16:48:51 <Josh_Soref> ... in 2012, there's a bit of disillusionment amongst developers
16:49:05 <Josh_Soref> ... if you're building a social-photo application, and you don't have access to the Camera api
16:49:08 <Josh_Soref> ... you don't have it
16:49:13 <mansoor> mansoor has joined #coremob
16:49:14 <Eunjoo> Eunjoo has joined #coremob
16:49:19 <Josh_Soref> ... if you're trying to build a music app and you don't have access to music apps, you don't have it
16:49:30 <Josh_Soref> ... if you're trying to build a game, and you don't have access to XX1
16:49:32 <Josh_Soref> ... you don't have it
16:49:52 <Josh_Soref> ... one of the reasons Facebook got excited about this group is because we feel that the world's web developers have an opportunity
16:49:55 <Josh_Soref> ... to speak to vendors
16:50:00 <Josh_Soref> ... in one voice about what they want
16:50:09 <Josh_Soref> ... the web developer community has been Defensive
16:50:20 <Josh_Soref> ... Graceful degradation, 
16:50:29 <Josh_Soref> ... I want web developers to say "No, we refuse to use this stack"
16:50:30 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #coremob
16:50:41 <fantasai> s/XX1/accelerated canvas/
16:50:41 <Josh_Soref> ... "until you provide Hardware orientation lock, audio apis, etc."
16:50:50 <Josh_Soref> ... this group is a chance is a way for us to stand up
16:50:56 <Josh_Soref> ... say what we want from browsers/standards
16:51:09 <Josh_Soref> ... and a chance for us to put the mobile web stack back into the running
16:51:18 <Josh_Soref> ... I look forward to seeing the results
16:51:30 <Josh_Soref> darobin: Thank you james
16:51:34 <Josh_Soref> ... can everyone here me?
16:51:37 <Josh_Soref> [ Yes ]
16:51:39 <Josh_Soref> darobin: thanks a lot
16:51:47 <Josh_Soref> ... one of the things this meeting is trying to do
16:51:52 <Josh_Soref> ... is to get people to know eachother
16:51:53 <fantasai> RRSAgent: pointer
16:51:53 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-irc#T16-51-53
16:51:56 <Josh_Soref> ... so we can work together
16:52:02 <Josh_Soref> ... the first step is to ask people to introduce themselves
16:52:12 <Josh_Soref> ... in addition to that, it'd be good if you had 2-3 sentences
16:52:20 <Josh_Soref> ... about what's important for you in this group
16:52:25 <Josh_Soref> ... what you hope to get out of it
16:52:32 <Josh_Soref> ... before we get started on this
16:52:41 <Josh_Soref> ... i'll ask you to say your name Clearly and Slowly
16:52:45 <Josh_Soref> ... I know you can say it really fast
16:52:48 <Josh_Soref> topic: Introductions
16:53:00 <Josh_Soref> darobin: I'm Robin Berjon, Freelancer, one of the co-chairs of the group
16:53:11 <fantasai> s/XXX/Wired/
16:53:11 <Josh_Soref> ... I'm hoping to get a description of a platform that developers and XX2 agree on
16:53:19 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:53:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:53:31 <Josh_Soref> ... and a testing system
16:53:36 <Josh_Soref> jo: I'm Jo Rabin
16:53:51 <Josh_Soref> ... I'm the new boy
16:53:55 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm delighted to be here
16:54:00 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm taking over for Tobie
16:54:12 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm CTO at a specialist mobile agency called Sponge in London
16:54:20 <Josh_Soref> ... specializing in mobile web apps
16:54:28 <fantasai> i/I look forward/I want to prove Wired wrong/
16:54:29 <Josh_Soref> ... prior to that I chaired Mobile Best Practices WG
16:54:39 <Josh_Soref> ... XX3
16:54:40 <mattkelly> mattkelly has joined #coremob
16:54:45 <Josh_Soref> ... I want to get out of this meeting
16:54:50 <Josh_Soref> ... working since 2000
16:54:54 <Josh_Soref> ... on mobile
16:55:00 <Josh_Soref> ... that hasn't happened until 2007
16:55:18 <Josh_Soref> ... I can't say it has happened yet (in 2012)
16:55:22 <Josh_Soref> ... my patience is running thin
16:55:30 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like this to be the year of the mobile web
16:55:36 <Josh_Soref> ... let's make it happen this year
16:55:46 <Josh_Soref> tobie: I'm Tobie XX4
16:55:52 <Josh_Soref> ... I used to co-chair this group
16:55:53 <darobin> s/XX4/Langel/
16:56:01 <Josh_Soref> ... I stepped down to focus on editing this spec
16:56:20 <Josh_Soref> XX5: Hello, my name is Andrea XX6
16:56:23 <Josh_Soref> ... I work for Nokia
16:56:31 <Josh_Soref> ... I want to get clarity on XX7
16:56:38 <fantasai> s/XX6/Trasatti/
16:56:41 <Josh_Soref> deanne: Deanne Sung, from Verizon wireless
16:56:48 <Josh_Soref> ... this is my first time in the w3c community
16:56:50 <darobin> s/deanne/dan/
16:56:56 <darobin> s/sung/sun/
16:56:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm here to hear from mobile experts
16:56:59 <fantasai> s/Sung/Sun/
16:57:46 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to get APIs into level 1
16:58:02 <Josh_Soref> wes: I'm Wes Johnston
16:58:07 <Josh_Soref> ... working for Mozilla on Mobile Firefox
16:58:14 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm here to learn what developers need
16:58:21 <Josh_Soref> ... trying to develop the right apis for what they need
16:58:32 <Josh_Soref> jet: I'm Jet XX8
16:58:39 <fantasai> s/XX8/Villegas/
16:58:40 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm the engineering manager for Mobile Firefox
16:58:50 <fantasai> for Gecko layout team
16:58:50 <Josh_Soref> ... we're about to ship mobile firefox
16:58:57 <Josh_Soref> s/Mobile Firefox/Gecko layout team/
16:59:17 <Josh_Soref> ... we'd like to accommodate UCs in future versions
16:59:27 <Josh_Soref> Yen: My name is Yen Yu
16:59:30 <Josh_Soref> ... from mobile ta
16:59:32 <Josh_Soref> s/ta/tab
16:59:33 <fantasai> s/Yen/Yan/
16:59:36 <fantasai> s/Yen/Yan
16:59:40 <andreatrasatti> andreatrasatti has joined #coremob
16:59:40 <Josh_Soref> ... we make the Dolphin Browser
16:59:52 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm interested in how HTML will evolve
17:00:12 <Josh_Soref> davidd: David Dehghan, representing Mobile Tab
17:00:15 <andreatrasatti> s/XX6/what developers want in the near future so that vendors can work with them/
17:00:26 <Josh_Soref> ... our goal is to find out how to prioritize HTML5 technologies in our browser
17:00:32 <Josh_Soref> ... and try to contribute to that prioritization
17:00:43 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: Jean-Francios Moy
17:00:51 <Josh_Soref> ... I work for France-Telecom Orange
17:00:56 <darobin> s/Jean-Francios/Jean-François/
17:01:05 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm here because i'd like developers to have more APIs
17:01:22 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like test coverage for current features to be improved
17:02:00 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I'll be your scribe for today and tomorrow
17:02:08 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: RIM
17:02:18 <Josh_Soref> ... we're mostly interested in the Runtime/Security model
17:02:29 <Josh_Soref> ... we're worried that working on too many APIs will distract us from that work
17:02:34 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: I'm fantasai 
17:02:37 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm on the CSS WG
17:02:50 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm here basically to be the liaison between CSS WG and this CG
17:02:55 <Josh_Soref> ... taking feedback on specs
17:03:09 <Josh_Soref> rob: Rob Shilston from FT
17:03:18 <Josh_Soref> ... here to share what we've experienced building web apps
17:03:29 <Josh_Soref> ... to ensure we can make apps that work really well for end users
17:04:06 <Josh_Soref> mlara: Marcos Lara
17:04:19 <Josh_Soref> ... I'm an HTML5 developer
17:04:33 <Josh_Soref> ... I was a web app launch partner with FB in Oct of last year
17:04:41 <Josh_Soref> ... as a developer, i'm here to see where standards are going
17:04:59 <Josh_Soref> ... I can agree with james there was an amount of exuberance that stalled out 
17:05:05 <Josh_Soref> ... and we want to pick that up
17:05:21 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: vidhya gholkar
17:05:26 <Josh_Soref> ... with Vodafone
17:05:37 <Josh_Soref> ... we'd like to see how much this CG can help us with Terminal testing
17:05:39 <Josh_Soref> ... for HTML5
17:05:43 <fantasai> i/taking feedback/help integrate our testing efforts and/
17:05:53 <Josh_Soref> mansoor: Mansoor Chistie
17:06:06 <Josh_Soref> ... I'm with Texas Instruments
17:06:15 <Josh_Soref> ... working on the Web Technology Architecture Team
17:06:18 <Josh_Soref> ... first time in W3C
17:06:28 <Josh_Soref> ... interested in direction and UCs and level-1 definition
17:06:35 <Josh_Soref> andrewhubbs: Andrew Hubbs
17:06:40 <Daniel_Samsung> Daniel_Samsung has joined #coremob
17:06:42 <Josh_Soref> ... web developer at Rally
17:06:46 <Josh_Soref> ... first time in W3C
17:06:58 <Josh_Soref> ... here to learn and see how I can contribute to ushering the mobile web forward
17:07:09 <Josh_Soref> hwu: Harrison Wu at HTC
17:07:15 <darobin> darobin has changed the topic to: CoreMob face to face (darobin)
17:07:17 <Josh_Soref> ... here to see what the next step in mobile web will be
17:07:25 <Josh_Soref> ... and HTML5 platform
17:07:34 <Josh_Soref> jshen: Julian Shen at HTC
17:07:38 <Josh_Soref> ... engineer on HTML5
17:07:45 <Josh_Soref> ... here with hwu
17:08:03 <Josh_Soref> itai: Itai Dadon with ST-Ericson
17:08:09 <Josh_Soref> ... from the hardware side
17:08:15 <Josh_Soref> ... our cycle is much longer than the software side
17:08:26 <Josh_Soref> Eunjoo: Eunjoo Lim from LG
17:08:34 <Josh_Soref> ... first time in W3C
17:08:42 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to learn the status of Ringmark
17:08:48 <Josh_Soref> Dong-Young: Dong-Young Lee
17:08:51 <Josh_Soref> ... also from LG
17:08:57 <Josh_Soref> ... here to see about priorities in web platform
17:09:12 <Josh_Soref> Daniel_Samsung: Soohong Daniel Park, Samsung
17:09:51 <Josh_Soref> bkelley: Brian Kelley, Qualcomm innovation center
17:10:02 <Josh_Soref> ... our interests are doing what we can to further this effort
17:10:02 <Daniel_Samsung> I want to understand how to use html5 features for Samsung AllShare solution in our products
17:10:13 <Josh_Soref> ... and provide input based on what we've heard from developers
17:10:31 <Josh_Soref> dno: Chihiro Dno
17:10:41 <Josh_Soref> ... KDDI
17:10:49 <Josh_Soref> ... a phone company in Japan
17:11:00 <Josh_Soref> takagi: Koichi Takagi
17:11:02 <Josh_Soref> ... KDDI
17:11:12 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm interested in Video/Audio streaming for mobile phone
17:11:16 <Josh_Soref> ... and the testing process
17:11:22 <Josh_Soref> ... since its cost is rising
17:11:39 <fantasai> ?: ... from RIM, working on the browser
17:11:51 <fantasai> ?: Interested in using Ringmark to test and validate the spec
17:11:57 <Josh_Soref> wonsuk: Wonsuk Lee, Samsung
17:12:04 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm in charge of HTML5 on Tizen
17:12:11 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't know how many people know about Tizen
17:12:22 <Josh_Soref> ... it's a web OS , open source project
17:12:36 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm here Widget requirement
17:12:44 <Josh_Soref> ... is important to our platform
17:12:56 <fantasai> ?: My English name is Patric. I work for MediaTech
17:13:02 <fantasai> ?: .. smart phone
17:13:09 <Harrison> Harrison has joined #coremob
17:13:16 <Josh_Soref> s/?:/ytsai:/
17:13:18 <Josh_Soref> s/?:/ytsai:/
17:13:20 <fantasai> ?: Part of my team is responsible for browser development. We attend this meeting because we want t omakei our browser a better patform for HTMl5
17:13:21 <Josh_Soref> s/../.../
17:13:23 <fantasai> applications
17:13:23 <Josh_Soref> s/?:/ytsai:/
17:13:34 <fantasai> s/t omakei/to make/
17:14:11 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:14:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:14:22 <fantasai> s/MediaTech/MediaTek/
17:14:33 <julianshen> julianshen has joined #coremob
17:14:49 <fantasai> ?: Minjing, work for Samsung on Taizen platform
17:15:06 <nghanavatian> s/... from RIM/Nima Ghanavatian from RIM
17:15:07 <fantasai> Minjing: Would like to find out from this F2F what is the req's for browser vendors and web developers
17:15:12 <Josh_Soref> s/Taizen/Tizen/
17:15:12 <fantasai> Minjin: Would like L1 defined asap
17:15:21 <fantasai> Minjing: Hope to contribute to defining L1 requirements
17:15:27 <Wonsuk> Wonsuk has joined #coremob
17:15:28 <Josh_Soref> s/?: Minjing/Minjing: Minjing:/
17:15:31 <fantasai> Chris Ramos, product manager for Nokia
17:15:35 <Josh_Soref> s/Minjin:/Minjing:/
17:15:37 <fantasai> Ramos: Work  on mobile browsers
17:15:37 <Wonsuk> Present+ Wonsuk_Lee
17:15:48 <fantasai> Lars Erik BOlstad, represent Opera Software
17:15:59 <darobin> s/BOlstad/Bolstad/
17:16:00 <fantasai> Lars: Responsible for Presto engine development. Also chair W3C geolocation WG
17:16:04 <Josh_Soref> s/Lars/lbolstad: Lars/
17:16:12 <fantasai> Lars: Interested in what the web devs think are the most important use cases and reqs for browsers
17:16:15 <Josh_Soref> s/Lars:/lbolstad:/
17:16:17 <Josh_Soref> s/Lars:/lbolstad:/
17:16:27 <fantasai> Lars: Hoping this group can help produce better test frameworks etc. 
17:16:27 <Josh_Soref> s/Lars:/lbolstad:/
17:16:35 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:16:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:16:37 <fantasai> Wai Sato, work for Nokia dev rel team
17:16:51 <andreatrasatti> s/Sato/Seto/
17:16:51 <Josh_Soref> s/Wai/WaiSeto: Wai/
17:17:10 <fantasai> Wai: Started 10 yrs ago, working with WML browser/scripts. Was fun. Now we're  10 years later working on core mobile community group
17:17:18 <fantasai> Wai: Joined this group repelatively recently. First want to make connections with all of you. Also participate in group to educate web developers on these mobile APIs
17:17:18 <Josh_Soref> s/Wai:/WaiSeto:/
17:17:19 <Josh_Soref> s/Wai:/WaiSeto:/
17:17:34 <mortisha> mortisha has joined #coremob
17:17:41 <fantasai> Tomoe Imura, recently joined Nokia dev rel
17:17:54 <Josh_Soref> s/Tomoe/Tomoe: Tomoe/
17:17:57 <darobin> s/Tomoe/Tomomi/
17:17:59 <fantasai> Tomoe: Worked as mobile web developer, huge passion for mobile web and web standards
17:18:04 <Josh_Soref> s/Tomoe/Tomomi/
17:18:04 <Josh_Soref> s/Tomoe/Tomomi/
17:18:08 <fantasai> Tomomi: Want this to become more than a buzzword
17:18:10 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:18:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:18:18 <fantasai> Tomomi: Want to learn more about Ringmark. Pretty new to this community.
17:18:37 <fantasai> Mat Kelly, work at Facebook. Work on Ringmark, helped organize coremob
17:18:43 <Josh_Soref> s/Mat/mattkelly: Mat/
17:18:54 <fantasai> MatKelly: Building web my whole life, want to build web on mobile
17:19:05 <andreatrasatti> s/XX7/what developers need to create great Web apps for mobile devices/
17:19:16 <fantasai> mattkelly: Worked with 100s of devs. Push for Ringmark and coremob came out of frustration of web devs
17:19:23 <fantasai> mattkelly: things that have disabled ppl from building for mobile web
17:19:36 <fantasai> mattkelly: Want to get us to agree on L1. Also would be great to have agreement on L0
17:19:47 <fantasai> mattkelly: Looking for consensus, open us to working on implementation
17:19:55 <fantasai> mattkelly: Also want to get a tes suite out that ppl can test products against
17:20:17 <Josh_Soref> Topic: XXA
17:20:27 <fantasai> Jo: Interesting to hear what people are interested in. Good to hear consistency of purpose.
17:20:39 <fantasai> Jo: Seems to me in joining the group, that there is continuing confusion between Ringmark and coremob
17:20:51 <fantasai> Jo: Since Tobie's here since the beginning, would like some bg on explaining the distinction
17:21:05 <Josh_Soref> s/XXA/CoreMob v. Ringmark/
17:21:19 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:21:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:21:19 <fantasai> Tobie: Coremob, first of all, is this group with all of you here. When we launched cooremob earlier this year in Barcelona, we announced
17:21:32 <fantasai> Tobie: FB announced Ringmark, which is a test suite that my clleague mattkelly now works on
17:21:43 <Josh_Soref> s|s/sung/sun/||
17:21:47 <fantasai> Tobie: Quite shortly afterwards, in 2 steps, donated the tests to W3C and open sourced the whole test suite
17:21:50 <fantasai> Tobie: That's what ringmark is
17:21:54 <fantasai> Tobie: Other side there's Coremob L1 spec
17:21:59 <Josh_Soref> s/XX5/Trasatti/
17:22:01 <fantasai> Tobie: Which is W3C CG specification
17:22:04 <fantasai> Tobie: Document we are working on
17:22:07 <wesj> wesj has joined #coremob
17:22:12 <Josh_Soref> s|s/XXX/Wired/||
17:22:18 <fantasai> Tobie: While FB gave test suite to group as a seed for a possible conformance ...
17:22:27 <fantasai> Tobie: and quality of implementation test suite
17:22:36 <fantasai> Tobie: Group has to decide what to do with it, pursue working with it, how etc.
17:22:47 <fantasai> Tobie: L0 spec has been mentioned a few times
17:22:48 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:22:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:22:51 <fantasai> Tobie: worth talking about that
17:23:04 <fantasai> Tobie: One idea when we launched the project was to first gie a kind of, what we felt, was a state of the world specification
17:23:07 <Josh_Soref> s/Trasatti:/andreatrasatti:/
17:23:07 <fantasai> Tobie: Which was to be L0
17:23:19 <Josh_Soref> s/Deanne/Dan/
17:23:22 <fantasai> Tobie: And to have a short set of really focused goals on what was missing, what could be improved in reasonable amount of time, that was L`
17:23:25 <fantasai> L1
17:23:28 <fantasai> Tobie: Quickly appeared two things
17:23:44 <fantasai> Tobie: First was getting ocnsensus on what current state fo the world is happened to b emore difficult than expected
17:23:52 <fantasai> Tobie: Those of you that follow mailing list, seen a lot of debate about this
17:23:59 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:23:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:24:05 <fantasai> Tobie: 2nd thing, very difficult to make a spec that describes that which is existing
17:24:19 <fantasai> Tobie: A lot of imples moving from HTMl4 to HTMl5, ECMAScript 3 to 4
17:24:33 <fantasai> Tobie: Delimiting current state of the world happened to be technically so challenging, 
17:24:35 <chrisramos> chrisramos has joined #coremob
17:24:53 <fantasai> Tobie thought it better to move into a forward-looking aspirational document rather than anything describing current state of the  world
17:25:04 <fantasai> Dehghan: How does Rignmark test suite correspond to coremob L1
17:25:16 <ytsai> ytsai has joined #coremob
17:25:27 <fantasai> Tobie: Originally each ring corresponded to each level. But now there's this misalignment
17:25:31 <fantasai> Tobie: Need to fix
17:26:02 <fantasai> DanSun: what's the relation of levels and rings?
17:26:17 <fantasai> Tobie: ... distinguish actual spec from conformance test for it
17:26:35 <fantasai> Tobie: Clarify this one last thing, important when we talk about this, have issues about this, make sure we're talking about the right things
17:26:47 <fantasai> Tobie: If it's issue with spec, talk about spec. If it's issue with test, how test is implemented, it's a test problem
17:27:00 <fantasai> ?: How has contents of L1 document, where does it come from?
17:27:21 <fantasai> ?: Is Is you r inspiration other W3C groups, or is ti tlooking what you're needing at Facebook, what functionality you think you'd like to turn to in the future.
17:27:48 <fantasai> Tobie: When we started on that project Q4 last year, we talked to a number of developers and number of people in industry to gather best possible picture of what first of all was the curretn state.
17:27:56 <fantasai> Tobie: What were devs currently basing their applications on
17:28:01 <fantasai> Tobie: That was a first step
17:28:12 <fantasai> Tobie: Second step was looking at what exactly are ppl requesting that is a problem
17:28:18 <fantasai> Tobie: What is missing, imporperly implemented, etc.
17:28:25 <fantasai> Tobie: Talking to developers mostly, our partners
17:28:49 <fantasai> Tobie: Also looked at what applications were built, what were top 100 apps built on native platforms and what features were missing from Web platform to build those on the web platform
17:29:08 <fantasai> Tobie: Finally looked at the existing implementations and existing specifications to see what was possible and what made sense to target in a small amount of time
17:29:21 <fantasai> Tobie: That's why some are separated into L1 and what will probably become L2
17:30:01 <fantasai> Tobie: want a reasonable amount of feature in reasonable amount of time
17:30:21 <fantasai> Tobie: Once we have an L1 spec and implementations conformant to L1, then app devs can look at that and look at "now what"
17:30:33 <fantasai> ?: Mobile web moves really fast. What cadence do you have in mind for iterating these?
17:30:42 <fantasai> Tobie: I think once a year would be awesome
17:30:56 <fantasai> s/?/Robert Shilston/
17:30:59 <fantasai> s/?/Robert Shilston/
17:31:01 <fantasai> s/?/Robert Shilston/
17:32:04 <ytsai> ytsai has left #coremob
17:32:07 <fantasai> Jo: Looking at L1 spec, and taling about testcases
17:32:15 <ytsai> ytsai has joined #coremob
17:32:18 <fantasai> Jo: I think it's important for us to come out of this meeting with some lcearly defined objectives
17:32:30 <fantasai> Jo: One objective would be to have a timetable in mind for completing a substantial phase of work
17:32:47 <fantasai> Jo: So working backwards, my suggestion would be that we define for the purpose of the gorup, what can we do, by the end of this calendar year
17:32:53 <fantasai> Jo: And leave some time for tidying up
17:33:06 <fantasai> Jo: SO what can we realizistically achieve here is a question for the objectives of this phase of work
17:33:20 <fantasai> Jo: There are a lot of tests to write, seems unlikelyu that all will be assembled by then
17:33:25 <fantasai> Jo: So let's define the scope of the tests
17:33:29 <fantasai> Jo: e.g. L1 use cases
17:33:33 <fantasai> Jo: tests can continue after that point
17:33:49 <fantasai> Jo: I want to throw that suggestion out onto the floor, before coming to point of this meeting
17:33:59 <fantasai> Jet: I have something to add to that
17:34:09 <fantasai> Jet: As browser implementers, we submit 10s of thousands of tests to W3C,
17:34:16 <fantasai> Jet: And we have tens of thousadns of tests at Mozilla
17:34:22 <fantasai> Jet: We are very interested in having this gorup leverage that
17:34:26 <fantasai> Jet: Several years worth of work
17:34:38 <fantasai> Jet: We think on the mobile platform, we want to get parity with mobile and desktop and beyond
17:34:51 <fantasai> Jet: We would like this group to work within existing infrastructure, rather than writing tests from the ground up
17:34:59 <fantasai> Tobie: I agree with that, part of group's charter
17:35:25 <fantasai> Tobie: have that discussion tomorrow
17:35:48 <fantasai> darobin: Please come to that discussion having thought about what you want to get out of that discussion
17:36:16 <fantasai> darobin: I would be interested in hearing requirements before talking about our existing system, so people aren't influenced by what we have
17:36:54 <fantasai> Dehghan: What is coremob's relationship with major providers of browsers, e.g. Apple and Google, who are not represented here?
17:37:00 <fantasai> Dehghan: What do they care about?
17:37:09 <fantasai> Dehghan: How seriously will they take our recommendations
17:39:09 <fantasai> fantasai: If producing good work, basically doing research for them, think they will take into consideration
17:39:25 <fantasai> fantasai: Good test suites also puts PR pressure on browsers to implement thigns better
17:39:35 <fantasai> fantasai: if test results are well-reported
17:39:52 <fantasai> DanSun: ...
17:40:00 <fantasai> Jo: I think L1 is to say that we are done with the document Tobie has done
17:40:15 <fantasai> darobin: There's no way we'll have tests for everything in the spec by the end of the year
17:40:31 <fantasai> darobin: The chapters that we'll have tests for by the end of the year will be extremely low
17:40:49 <fantasai> darobin: But could have a document, and a large and growing body of tests, which would give us increasing confidence that that document is supported or not
17:41:03 <fantasai> darobin: Probably won't have it by the end of hte decade... but that's another problem
17:41:10 <fantasai> Jo: So what do we want to achieve by the end of today?
17:41:35 <fantasai> Jo: Would like to have gone through current draft line by line and for any major issues, on what should not be there, or what's missing, and what's wrong
17:41:54 <fantasai> Jo: Work item from this meeting would be to fix all those issues
17:42:32 <fantasai> Jo: If you have something to raise, mae sure you raise it. Doesn't matter whether minor or major
17:42:56 <fantasai> darobin: Would be really good to have document in publishable state so we can push out to community with feedback
17:43:05 <fantasai> darobin: Need sufficient consensus in group that it has the right shape overall
17:43:13 <Yan> Yan has joined #coremob
17:44:02 <fantasai> Topic: L0 vs L1
17:44:27 <fantasai> Jo: What's not clear from the list is ...
17:44:43 <fantasai> Jo: First point for newcomers, want .. understood by new members.
17:44:58 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:44:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:45:02 <fantasai> Jo: Important to get stuff on the list, so as ppl join the grou pthere's  atrail of stuff that can be referred to
17:45:10 <fantasai> Jo: People will not be able to find things on the list
17:45:14 <Josh_Soref> s/davidd:/Dehghan:/g
17:45:27 <fantasai> Jo: Not everything has been documented
17:45:32 <fantasai> Jo: L0, L1 thing
17:45:34 <fantasai> Jo: ...
17:45:41 <fantasai> Jo: why L0 is not there, or has been shelved
17:46:01 <fantasai> Jo: I noticed that Nokia referenced the "default delivery context"
17:46:11 <fantasai> Jo: SOmething that we discussed at lenght in best practices wg
17:46:16 <Josh_Soref> s/theseRobert Shilston/these?/
17:46:33 <Josh_Soref> s/Robert Shilston:/rob:/g
17:46:42 <fantasai> Jo: Why does this cause contention? Similar to L0
17:47:01 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:47:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:47:09 <fantasai> Jo: What we needed to clearly identify was that mobile best practices were not about WML
17:47:16 <fantasai> Jo: that were about the web
17:47:33 <fantasai> Jo: Wasn't talking about webapps, bc this was 2005/6, but about old-fashioned web pages on mobile devices
17:47:53 <fantasai> Jo: OneWeb was also something that caused a lot of contention
17:48:01 <Josh_Soref> s/MatKelly:/mattkelly:/
17:48:07 <fantasai> Jo: All kinds of ppl saying, mobile web thing can't be allowed to exist, because there is only one Web
17:48:16 <Josh_Soref> s/lbolstad: lbolstad:/lbolstad:/
17:48:19 <fantasai> Jo: But what some ppl meant by One Web was different by what other ppl meant
17:48:28 <Josh_Soref> s/Lars Erik/lbolstad: Lars Erik/
17:48:43 <fantasai> Jo: I think that discussion is over, different representations at one URI is accepted
17:48:51 <Josh_Soref> s/Chris Ramos/chrisramos: Chris Ramos/
17:48:57 <Josh_Soref> s/Ramos:/chrisramos:/
17:49:11 <fantasai> Jo: we could have said this is way too contentious and avoided issue, but didn't and made progression
17:49:15 <Josh_Soref> s/patform for HTMl5/platform for HTML5/
17:49:22 <fantasai> Jo: I'm not averse to lifting the lid off some topics to find consensus
17:49:32 <Josh_Soref> s/Minjing: Minjing:,/Minjing: Minjing,/
17:49:36 <fantasai> Jo: If we start at L1, we start a little bit in midair, don't have our feet on the ground. Potentially dangerous.
17:49:47 <fantasai> Jo: "Defautl delivery context", what is meant by a browser on a device
17:49:52 <fantasai> Jo: Lots of ppl complained this was to dumb things down
17:49:54 <Josh_Soref> s/?: Nima/nghanavatian: Nima/
17:50:05 <fantasai> Jo: and that ppl would develop web pages to a least common denominator
17:50:07 <Josh_Soref> s/?: Interested/nghanavatian: Interested/
17:50:20 <fantasai> Jo: Device vendors wanted to exploit things beyond the LCD
17:50:33 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:50:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:50:35 <fantasai> Jo: Intention was to distinguish mobile web browser from house brick
17:51:09 <fantasai> Jo: If you fall below this level, then you can do some things but not all things that are fundamental to web
17:51:22 <fantasai> Jo: One issue that year was "is table support mandatory in a mobile web browser"?
17:51:36 <fantasai> Jo: Seems ridiculous now, but a bunch of browsers that supported tables in a very buggy way
17:51:48 <Josh_Soref> s/was L`/was L1/
17:51:55 <fantasai> Jo: I think there's a case fo rsaying we don't consider browsers that have lower than a certain level of support as in scope for this discussion
17:52:02 <Josh_Soref> s/HTMl4 to HTMl5/HTML4 to HTML5/
17:52:03 <andreatrasatti> Josh_Soref I still see an incomplete XX7 and my name is still XX5
17:52:19 <fantasai> Jo: L1 seems to me is a goal that has not been achieved by anybody. It's forward-looking. But we have no retrospective
17:52:20 <Josh_Soref> s/Josh_Soref I still see an incomplete XX7 and my name is still XX5//
17:52:27 <fantasai> Jo: We don't have a "no, that's not a mobile web browser"
17:52:50 <fantasai> Jo: Anyone have things to say about why L0 is a useful thing to have
17:53:03 <fantasai> Vidhya: Devs don't give two hoots about this. They just want stuff to work.
17:53:17 <fantasai> Vidhya: What you call it is irrelevant. We just want tests that ensure that the stuff in there work.
17:53:36 <fantasai> Stilston: I echo that, and testing is important
17:53:46 <fantasai> Stilston: We can't change what we're building base don where things are going to go
17:53:57 <Josh_Soref> s/base don/based on/
17:54:04 <fantasai> Stilston: We had a problem where locla storage got purged if you got a calendar invite that was 7 lines long
17:54:09 <Josh_Soref> s/locla/local/
17:54:28 <fantasai> Stilston: How much is defining best practices for browser and web devs to work together to make things work
17:54:44 <fantasai> Stilston: The headline of what you want to do is to enable highest number of applications short term
17:54:59 <fantasai> Stilston: Is that best done by working on a toolkit? Is that best done by ...?
17:55:17 <fantasai> Jo: Does anybody care about L0?
17:55:35 <fantasai> Jet: We do. Levelling in Coremob seems to imply that you build levels upon others. Have a strong foundation to build on, and then build L1
17:55:42 <fantasai> Jet: I like that, otherwise all aspirational
17:56:07 <fantasai> Jet: We should work on things like tables, where need a spec there. Want the foundation to be there rigorous and correct. Not just about what was in Mobile Safari last year
17:56:12 <fantasai> Jet: We don't think that was rigorous enough
17:56:22 <fantasai> darobin: Do you have a strong notion of what how to build this rigorously?
17:56:31 <fantasai> Jet: There's testing, that's single most important thing.
17:56:38 <fantasai> Jet: Agree on a certain set of rigor on L0
17:56:53 <fantasai> Jet: If we can apply that similar notion to ..., would be good use of time
17:57:00 <fantasai> Jet: Both correctness and pef
17:57:09 <fantasai> darobin: What kind of resources do you have to commit to that
17:57:23 <fantasai> Jet: We'll see what the need is. As said, we've already submitted thousands of tests
17:57:37 <jo> q+ tobie
17:57:39 <fantasai> Jet: To call it L0, it allows use cases to happen
17:57:40 <Josh_Soref> q+
17:57:53 <Josh_Soref> q+ fantasai 
17:58:12 <mattkelly> q+
17:58:21 <jo> ack tobie
17:58:21 <Josh_Soref> ack tobie 
17:58:29 <fantasai> Tobie: Wanted to point out confusion on spec vs tests
17:58:39 <fantasai> Tobie: The problem I see was, suggestion you're making here. Tests. But test what?
17:58:48 <fantasai> Tobie: Until we define precisely what's in L0, can't test it
17:58:53 <fantasai> Tobie: What do we put in L0?
17:59:05 <fantasai> Tobie: I don't see how we can possibly have a full test suite for something we haven't defined.
17:59:24 <fantasai> Tobie: I'm very concerned that we are going to spend a lot of things make it into L0
17:59:26 <Josh_Soref> q+ darobin 
17:59:28 <fantasai> Tobie: What's the baseline, what's not
18:00:06 <fantasai> darobin: I agree with where you're coming from but wondering, if we rwote the tests to match level 1, could we not call L0 as the subset that is passed by implementations?
18:00:07 <Josh_Soref> s/rwote/wrote/
18:00:21 <jfmoy> q+
18:00:29 <fantasai> darobin: We could say L1 is what we aspire to, and L0 is the rising level of actual implementation support
18:00:38 <fantasai> darobin: Then don't have to jump through hoops of creating another spec
18:01:01 <fantasai> darobin: whenever the L0 line meets L1, then everyone is happy
18:01:10 <tobie> q+
18:01:16 <fantasai> Jo: Don't see L0 as capturing state of art of current browsers
18:01:46 <fantasai> Jo: Think L0 is reasonably some abstract feature set that majority of vendors support but probably none of them support correctly
18:02:02 <fantasai> Jo: interop seems to serve dev community most urgently
18:02:06 <jfmoy> ack jfmoy
18:02:11 <darobin> ack Josh_Soref 
18:02:40 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Someone used analogy of building a house with bricks and levels. One of the thing slooking at Ringmark and what we have, a lot of these things are not things you build one level at a time. They're more components
18:03:00 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: If I have an office and a stereo system and a library. FO rthe library I need shelves, for the music room I might need just a table
18:03:09 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Building levels on levels doesn't seem to do much good.
18:03:32 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: If you're building an audio app, you don't really care if canvas is doing wonderful things, unles syou're also building something that's using canvas. Not necessarily useful to you
18:03:40 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Fighting over L0, energy spent is already too much.
18:03:50 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I also don't want to canonicize that you must support -webkit-.
18:03:56 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I don't think that's the right way to go
18:04:11 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I don't want us to write tests that make it easier to support vendor-prefixed versions of things than to support standardized things
18:04:25 <fantasai> Jo: Can we steer clear of specific implementers technologies for now.
18:04:49 <fantasai> Jo: ...
18:04:54 <Josh_Soref> s/FO r/For /
18:04:59 <fantasai> Jo: Vendor prefixes not part of that discussion
18:05:48 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I don't see any benefit in having a L0, and think we can work from defining L1.
18:06:18 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: If someone wants to come up with a list of things that theoretically work but arent quite there.
18:06:36 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Things that most browsers have some impl, that people use, but not implementations are not correct.
18:06:42 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: A lot of people are more interested in new features.
18:07:02 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I think that having ppl submitting tests to improve quality of implementation on old features
18:07:03 <Josh_Soref> q?
18:07:27 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:07:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
18:07:34 <fantasai> davidd: In my mind maybe we just have a classic feature prioritization issue, and if we could apply some kind of objective measure
18:07:50 <Josh_Soref> s/davidd:/Dehghan:/G
18:07:51 <fantasai> davidd: mentioned searching top 100 native apps, what feature sets would be needed to get htere
18:08:01 <mortisha> mortisha has left #coremob
18:08:06 <Josh_Soref> s/htere/there/
18:08:17 <fantasai> davidd: Fact htat in L1 if we add in all of HMTL5 and CSS3, such a gigantic step, not all browsers will implement features in same order
18:08:24 <Josh_Soref> s/htat/that/
18:08:26 <fantasai> davidd: It's a multi-release kind of problem for any browser
18:08:30 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:08:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
18:08:42 <girlie_mac> girlie_mac has joined #coremob
18:08:45 <fantasai> davidd: So  if we could consolidation industry around implementing features in same order, then devs can rely on those features earlier on
18:08:49 <fantasai> davdd++
18:08:54 <jfmoy> s/consolidation/consolidate
18:09:07 <fantasai> davidd: Different browsers will get to L1 at different speeds, and entire patform will be fragmented.
18:09:20 <Josh_Soref> s/My English name is Patric/Yinghau Tsai, "Patrick"/
18:09:29 <Josh_Soref> s/asap/ASAP/
18:09:32 <fantasai> davidd: Come up with some test for what should be included, search for existing usage, vote by community, etc.
18:09:40 <Josh_Soref> s/repelatively/relatively/
18:09:42 <darobin> ack fantasai 
18:09:56 <Josh_Soref> s/clleague/colleague/
18:10:07 <darobin> ack me
18:10:08 <Josh_Soref> s/ocnsensus/consensus/
18:10:15 <Josh_Soref> s/state fo/state of/
18:10:22 <Josh_Soref> s/b emore/be more/
18:10:32 <Josh_Soref> s/imples/implementations/
18:10:41 <Josh_Soref> s/Rignmark/Ringmark/
18:10:59 <Josh_Soref> s/ti tlooking/it looking/
18:11:07 <Josh_Soref> s/curretn/current/
18:11:17 <Josh_Soref> s/imporperly/improperly/
18:11:30 <Josh_Soref> s/taling/talking/
18:11:37 <Josh_Soref> s/lcearly/clearly/
18:11:42 <darobin> ack mattkelly 
18:11:42 <fantasai> fantasai sez stuff
18:11:43 <Josh_Soref> s/gorup/group
18:11:53 <Josh_Soref> s/realizistically/realistically/
18:11:59 <fantasai> mattkelly: I think the main goal, was one drive implementations, and two, reduce fragmentation
18:12:02 <Josh_Soref> s/unlikelyu/unlikely/
18:12:10 <Josh_Soref> s/thousadns/thousands/
18:12:16 <Josh_Soref> s/gorup/group
18:12:19 <fantasai> mattkelly: The goal for launching group and Ringmark, was not to say "we need all of HTMl5", but to say "this feature is important for ppl to build their app"
18:12:32 <Josh_Soref> s/thigns/things/
18:12:40 <Josh_Soref> s/of hte/of the/
18:12:40 <fantasai> mattkelly: So we're purely taking pragmatic standpoint of what are ppl trying to build, what can't be built and why, what features are missing and what perf problems are there
18:12:48 <fantasai> mattkelly: I think L0 is important for reasons stated before
18:12:51 <Josh_Soref> s/mae sure/make sure/
18:12:54 <fantasai> mattkelly: It's what app devs are building on today
18:13:06 <fantasai> mattkelly: When FB builds mobile web app, we have limited engineers that can work on it
18:13:08 <Josh_Soref> s/grou pthere's atrail/group there's a trail/
18:13:15 <fantasai> mattkelly: only a few engineers.
18:13:18 <Josh_Soref> s/SOmething/Something/
18:13:24 <Josh_Soref> s/lenght/length/
18:13:25 <fantasai> mattkelly: We generally only test the most popular browsers: iOS and android
18:13:35 <Josh_Soref> s/Defautl/Default/
18:13:36 <fantasai> mattkelly: Any app dev team, is going to do the same
18:13:44 <Josh_Soref> s/fo rsaying/for saying/
18:13:55 <fantasai> mattkelly: Problem with not having L0 and jumping to L1, we'll say we want X perf on canvas,
18:13:58 <Josh_Soref> s/Stilston:/rob:/G
18:14:10 <fantasai> mattkelly: but there aren't things that ppl are relying on today that are missing from cutting edge browser that make web app breaks
18:14:10 <Josh_Soref> s/and pef/and perf/
18:14:18 <fantasai> mattkelly: maybe has fast sprites, but audio doesn't work
18:14:26 <Josh_Soref> s/thing slooking/things looking/
18:14:30 <fantasai> mattkelly: outside this group, would be good to understnad ppl are building today
18:14:34 <Josh_Soref> s/unles syou're/unless you're/
18:14:43 <fantasai> mattkelly: web apps won't work in your browser if don't support L0
18:14:48 <Josh_Soref> s/canonicize/canonize/
18:14:50 <fantasai> mattkelly: what are people trying to build now, 
18:14:56 <Josh_Soref> s/arent/aren't/
18:15:00 <fantasai> mattkelly: currently playing catch-up to native
18:15:06 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:15:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
18:15:16 <fantasai> mattkelly: fixing those problems, and hopefully tipping point then can reach for things that will set mobile web apart
18:15:21 <fantasai> mattkelly: boils down to pragmatism
18:15:36 <fantasai> mattkelly: for L1, we targetted 2D games, camera apps, and ?
18:15:40 <fantasai> mattkelly: That's what sells devices
18:15:51 <Josh_Soref> q?
18:16:00 <Josh_Soref> ack tobie 
18:16:07 <fantasai> RRSAgent: this meeting spans midnight
18:16:13 <ming_jin> ming_jin has joined #coremob
18:16:29 <jo> q+
18:16:55 <fantasai> Tobie: Should we rename L1 spec to L0, or should we not have a level now at all until we actually work on a L2 spec and figure out whether this is a building block on foundations or different rooms
18:17:14 <fantasai> Tobie: Could very well be that the levels would be better seen as timestamps
18:17:18 <fantasai> Tobie; This is 2012 goals
18:17:23 <fantasai> Tobie: Here are 2013 goals
18:17:39 <jfmoy> q+
18:17:48 <fantasai> Tobie: Given that we actually are working on only one level spec at the moment, not two or more, why not drop level idea and bring it back when we actually have a conversation with data 
18:17:52 <Josh_Soref> present+ Andrea_Trasatti
18:18:02 <Josh_Soref> present+ Andrew_Hubbs
18:18:11 <fantasai> Tobie: Second thing wanted to say is, I'ave had a deep and serious look at editing L0 and trying to make it a good picture of what's going on right now.
18:18:14 <Josh_Soref> present+ Brian_Kelley
18:18:18 <fantasai> Tobie: It's super hard, I don't want to do it
18:18:33 <fantasai> Tobie: I think david's point about feature prioritization is exactly what we're trying to do
18:18:36 <Josh_Soref> present+ Dan_Sun
18:18:40 <fantasai> Tobie: What are things are really needed now, and focus on it
18:18:46 <Dong-Young> present+ Dong-Young_Lee
18:18:49 <Josh_Soref> present+ David_Dehghan
18:18:50 <fantasai> Tobie: So whole industry is focused on it
18:18:59 <Josh_Soref> present+ Dong-Young_Lee
18:19:07 <Josh_Soref> present+ Eunjoo_Lim
18:19:20 <fantasai> Tobie: one reason mobile web runtime isn't as good as it should be, and different vendors don't have a common view of what's important
18:19:21 <Josh_Soref> present+ Itai_Dadon
18:19:40 <darobin> q?
18:19:41 <fantasai> tobie: One feature requested is fast WebGL, but actually web devs want fast canvas
18:19:45 <darobin> Zakim, close queue
18:19:45 <Zakim> ok, darobin, the speaker queue is closed
18:20:03 <fantasai> tobie: Regarding HTML5, dicuss as part of L1 document
18:20:08 <Josh_Soref> present+ James_Pearce
18:20:20 <fantasai> Tobie: what do we include
18:20:27 <fantasai> Tobie: easier to do with CSS3, since modularized
18:20:32 <Josh_Soref> present+ Jet_Villegas
18:20:53 <fantasai> Tobie: Want to make a compelling platform for app development
18:20:57 <fantasai> q+
18:21:01 <Josh_Soref> present+ Yan_Yu
18:21:13 <fantasai> Jean-françois: Imo Levels are a really good notation,
18:21:30 <Josh_Soref> present+ Jean-François_Moy
18:21:33 <fantasai> JFç: Easy for browser to say "I'm compatible with L1"
18:21:41 <Josh_Soref> s/Jean-françois:/jfmoy:/
18:21:47 <Josh_Soref> s/JFç:/jfmoy:/
18:21:51 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:21:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
18:21:53 <fantasai> JFç: Helps developers to understand what browsers they can target, what features they can use for a given target
18:21:57 <Josh_Soref> s/JFç:/jfmoy:/
18:22:00 <fantasai> JFç: I really like the level notation, want to keep it
18:22:04 <Josh_Soref> s/JFç:/jfmoy:/G
18:23:17 <fantasai> fantasai: Listening to Matt Kelly, seems L1 should be the set of features that we want and need, and L0 should be about defragmenting the current mobile web
18:23:42 <fantasai> Jo: Exactly, it's about what can developers expect to be there
18:23:52 <fantasai> Jo: Expect reasonable support for these features, not being broken
18:24:01 <bejram> bejram has joined #coremob
18:24:09 <fantasai> Jo: Seems to be moderate support for something that is L0, what constitutes L0 is still open to discussion
18:24:28 <fantasai> Jo: I have a proposal that L0 represents features that we desire that have stable specs
18:24:39 <Josh_Soref> present+ Soohong_Daniel_Park_(Daniel_Samsung)
18:24:55 <Josh_Soref> present+ Julian_Shen
18:25:03 <fantasai> Jo: One can reasonably produce a set of tests that can ascertain the implementations
18:25:12 <Josh_Soref> present+ Harrison_Wu
18:25:31 <fantasai> Jo: The world is short of public tests. Seems browser vendors do have loads of tests they're willing to contribute
18:25:34 <fantasai> Jo: We should encourage that
18:25:40 <fantasai> Jo: Matt made some interesting points
18:25:41 <Josh_Soref> present+ Marcos_Lara
18:25:49 <fantasai> Matt: What types of apps require what types of features?
18:25:50 <Josh_Soref> present+ Tobie_Langel
18:26:08 <Josh_Soref> present+ Vidhya_Gholkar
18:26:18 <Josh_Soref> present+ Wes_Johnston
18:26:28 <Josh_Soref> present+ Koichi_Takagi
18:26:33 <fantasai> Matt: In rounding out this particular discussion, can you take an action to create that map
18:26:38 <Josh_Soref> present+ Chihiro_Dno
18:27:00 <fantasai> Jo: My part what I'm going to do is to try and create a working discussion wiki document with a view to seeing if we can find a consensus position which is sensible about L0
18:27:06 <Josh_Soref> present+ Koichi_Takagi
18:27:09 <fantasai> Jo: Suggest we spent rest of day talking about L1
18:27:21 <fantasai> Tobie: that's an open issue
18:27:25 <fantasai> Jo: Suggest making that assumption for now
18:27:28 <andreatrasatti> Zakim, list participants
18:27:28 <Zakim> sorry, andreatrasatti, I don't know what conference this is
18:27:31 <Josh_Soref> s/present+ Koichi_Takagi//
18:27:39 <fantasai> Jo: As Tobie points out, if want L0 spec, need a L0 spec editor
18:27:47 <bejram> bejram has joined #coremob
18:27:48 <fantasai> Jo: So if we want an L0 spec, need an editor
18:27:56 <fantasai> Jo: look at what resources you can bring
18:28:45 <fantasai> ACTION mattkelly to circulate his research on types of apps requiring types of features
18:28:45 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - mattkelly
18:29:00 <fantasai> ACTION Jo Rabin: Short document on how to get an L0 out and what it might mean
18:29:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Rabin: Short document on how to get an L0 out and what it might mean [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-07-02].
18:29:07 <Josh_Soref> present+ Rob_Shilston
18:29:27 <Josh_Soref> present+ Tomomi_Imura_(girlie_mac)
18:30:24 <fantasai> Vidhya: So, what is the message to developershere?
18:30:35 <fantasai> Vidhya: we're not doing L0, so what are we actually telling developers
18:31:06 <fantasai> Jo: I don't think we're saying we're not doing L0. It's shelved. I'm trying to ascertain whether the group wants to take it down and take it on, or to put it in the trash.
18:31:09 <tobie> delta between L0 and L1 roughly described here in terms of features: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/Specs/Coremob_Level_1
18:31:27 <fantasai> Jo: It seems to me that from dev point of view, seems very useful.
18:32:03 <fantasai> Jo: L0 is something that a dev can reasonably expect a consistency of implementation and a reasonable set of good quality tests to ensure conformance
18:32:37 <tobie> problem with describing L0 is current implementations are in-between HTML4 and HTML5 and ES3 and ES5 right now, and as these aren't backwards compatible, this is difficult.
18:32:39 <fantasai> Vidhya: So you're saying that is the expectation a devoper to have
18:32:43 <fantasai> Vidhya: Are we there today?
18:33:00 <fantasai> MarcosLara: 0 is there today, I built an app today with mattkelly as my guide
18:33:57 <fantasai> Jo: Who has experience with acid tests?
18:34:17 <darobin> fantasai: Eric Meyer wrote ACID1, trying to point out the most egregious interop issues with CSS at the time
18:34:38 <darobin> ... and then many years later Hixie, while at Opera, wrote ACID2 to do the same thing
18:34:53 <darobin> ... and then ACID3 started up, but it was less strong and more random
18:35:24 <darobin> jo: it is important to keep that in mind because ACID has been successful
18:35:29 <darobin> ... and we have a lot of the same goals
18:36:12 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Want to point out that Acid tests have occasionally introduced bugs in the platform, because of errors in the tests 
18:36:31 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: and developers trying to match the test, and therefore mismatching the specs
18:36:39 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Trying to beat those problems out
18:37:12 <fantasai> <br type=coffee>
18:40:17 <Josh_Soref> present+ Mansoor_Chistie
18:40:37 <andrewhubbs> andrewhubbs has joined #coremob
18:40:46 <Josh_Soref> s/Tomomi:/girlie_mac:/g
18:41:06 <Josh_Soref> present+ Wai_Seto
18:41:27 <Josh_Soref> s/<br type=coffee>/[ Break for Coffee ]
18:41:45 <Josh_Soref> present+ Chris_Ramos
18:42:42 <bejram1> bejram1 has joined #coremob
18:47:58 <chihiro> chihiro has joined #coremob
18:48:13 <bejram> bejram has joined #coremob
18:48:34 <nghanavatian> hi chihiro 
18:48:34 <Josh_Soref> s/dan:/DanSun:/
18:48:42 <Josh_Soref> s/hi chihiro//
18:48:51 <Josh_Soref> s/Jet:/jet:/g
18:48:58 <Josh_Soref> s/Jo:/jo:/g
18:51:03 <nghanavatian> chihiro: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html
18:56:24 <Josh_Soref> s/Mat Kelly/Matt Kelly/
18:56:31 <Josh_Soref> s|chihiro: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html||
18:56:34 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, pointer
18:56:34 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-irc#T18-56-34
18:57:11 <Josh_Soref> s/Tobie:/tobie:/g
18:57:37 <Josh_Soref> s/Matt:/mattkelly:/
18:58:08 <Josh_Soref> present+ Lars_Erik_Bolstad
18:58:20 <Josh_Soref> present+ Yinghau_Tsai
19:01:39 <Josh_Soref> s/RRSAgent: pointer/RRSAgent, pointer/
19:02:16 <Josh_Soref> s/MarcosLara:/mlara:/
19:02:24 <lgombos> lgombos has joined #coremob
19:02:30 <Josh_Soref> s/Vidhya:/vidhya:/
19:02:53 <Josh_Soref> present+ Matt_Kelly
19:05:02 <WaiSeto> WaiSeto has joined #coremob
19:05:19 <Josh_Soref> s/ACTION mattkelly/ACTION: mattkelly/
19:05:24 <tobie> tobie has joined #coremob
19:05:29 <Josh_Soref> s/ACTION Jo/ACTION: Jo/
19:06:00 <Josh_Soref> ACTION: jo to ACTION mattkelly to circulate his research on types of apps requiring types of features
19:06:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - ACTION mattkelly to circulate his research on types of apps requiring types of features [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-07-02].
19:06:12 <mattkelly> mattkelly has joined #coremob
19:06:24 <tobie> http://coremob.github.com/level-1/
19:06:46 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1
19:07:15 <Josh_Soref> darobin: if people aren't happy with the abstract
19:07:22 <Josh_Soref> ... we can fix it fairly easily
19:07:52 <Josh_Soref> ... note that this document is on GitHub, you can fork and submit pull requests to the editor
19:07:58 <Josh_Soref> tobie: a couple of things i'd like to say
19:08:03 <Josh_Soref> ... i made this document as thin as possible
19:08:26 <Robert_Shilston> Robert_Shilston has joined #coremob
19:08:29 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, open the queue
19:08:29 <Zakim> ok, Josh_Soref, the speaker queue is open
19:08:47 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i tried to make the document as thin as possible
19:09:01 <Josh_Soref> ... i'll have another document for Requirements and Use Cases
19:09:17 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm planning to do the same kind of work that mattkelly has an action to do
19:09:27 <Josh_Soref> ... a list of applications we're hoping that Level 1 would enable
19:09:35 <Josh_Soref> ... listing the features an application will need
19:09:48 <Josh_Soref> ... the introduction restates the goals of the CG as expressed in the Charter
19:09:56 <Josh_Soref> ... same balancing idea
19:10:05 <Josh_Soref> ... between what developers would like to see in the specification
19:10:11 <Josh_Soref> ... and what's doable in a reasonable period of time
19:10:11 <koichi> koichi has joined #coremob
19:10:27 <Josh_Soref> ... i tried to group things in a sensible way
19:10:41 <Josh_Soref> ... i filed a number of issues on the spec which i'd like to discuss with you today
19:10:42 <jo> q+ 
19:10:44 <Josh_Soref> tobie: 1. HTML5
19:10:56 <Josh_Soref> ... an implementation must support HTML5
19:11:07 <Josh_Soref> q- jfmoy 
19:11:08 <darobin> ack jfmoy 
19:11:22 <darobin> Zakim, open the queue
19:11:22 <Zakim> ok, darobin, the speaker queue is open
19:11:38 <Josh_Soref> jo: over coffee, "what is the meaning of mobile/web applications?"
19:11:51 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to see a link to any discussion we'd like to have
19:11:55 <Josh_Soref> ... possibly removed later
19:12:18 <Josh_Soref> ACTION jo to start a discussion on "what is the meaning of mobile web applications?"
19:12:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Start a discussion on "what is the meaning of mobile web applications?" [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-07-02].
19:12:29 <Josh_Soref> s/ACTION jo/ACTION: jo/
19:12:33 <jo> ?
19:12:36 <jo> q?
19:12:39 <jo> ack me
19:13:07 <Josh_Soref> jo: second, can we remove the word "Core" from the introduction
19:13:12 <darobin> ISSUE: Should "core features" actually be core at Level 1, or should we just consider features (in Level 1 Intro)
19:13:12 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-18 - Should "core features" actually be core at Level 1, or should we just consider features (in Level 1 Intro) ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/18/edit .
19:13:58 <Josh_Soref> DanSun: maybe we should add the application categories we wanted to facilitate
19:14:15 <Josh_Soref> ... were we going to move the messaging application to level 2?
19:14:23 <Josh_Soref> tobie: Rich wanted that in networking
19:14:33 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't think it's in scope for level 1
19:14:41 <Josh_Soref> DanSun: because the technology isn't there?
19:14:53 <Josh_Soref> tobie: both that, because the apis to access it aren't there
19:15:05 <Josh_Soref> ... and because it isn't a core feature
19:15:22 <Josh_Soref> darobin: we don't have Push Notifications
19:15:27 <Josh_Soref> ... Web Apps WG is working on it
19:15:30 <Josh_Soref> ... but we can't reference it
19:16:01 <Josh_Soref> jo: can we record that SMS is a key feature of mobile
19:16:05 <Josh_Soref> ... it's a key feature for mobile
19:16:14 <Josh_Soref> ... having SMS interop outside of scope of level 1 is odd
19:16:21 <darobin> ISSUE: Lack of a push notification system, important feature, but no sufficient specification at this time
19:16:21 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-19 - Lack of a push notification system, important feature, but no sufficient specification at this time ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/19/edit .
19:16:21 <Josh_Soref> DanSun: and Push
19:16:32 <mattkelly> q+
19:16:39 <Josh_Soref> tobie: having a list of targeted applications and requirements
19:16:46 <Josh_Soref> ... is something i'm working on now in another document
19:16:59 <jo> ack mattkelly
19:17:00 <Josh_Soref> tobie: we can see if we include it directly in this document, or reference it
19:17:18 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly: i think re Push notification / SMS
19:17:31 <Josh_Soref> ... another class is distribution of Web Apps
19:17:43 <Josh_Soref> ... getting bookmarks of web apps on the homescreen
19:17:48 <Josh_Soref> ... or more easily bookmarked
19:17:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it's a much harder thing to accomplish
19:18:33 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 - Scope
19:18:38 <Josh_Soref> q?
19:19:19 <Josh_Soref> s/Scope/Markup/
19:19:33 <Josh_Soref> tobie: 2.1 UAs must support HTML5
19:19:50 <Josh_Soref> tobie: HTML5, today, the spec is a lot smaller than it used to be
19:20:00 <Josh_Soref> tobie: I think supporting it is a more achievable goal
19:20:12 <darobin> [documentation for trackbot, for actions and issues management: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc]
19:20:15 <Josh_Soref> tobie: I haven't looked to see if we could slice it into bits and pieces
19:20:25 <Josh_Soref> tobie: and only require support for some bits
19:20:28 <mattkelly> issue-19: It might be useful to expand the issue of SMS/push notifications to include other points of distribution/engagement features. Eg, bookmarking mobile web apps to the home screen, how they can be bookmarked, etc.  Basically features that enable developers to get better distribution/re-engagement of their apps.
19:20:28 <trackbot> ISSUE-19 Lack of a push notification system, important feature, but no sufficient specification at this time notes added
19:20:33 <darobin> [documentation for Zakim, for meeeting management: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot]
19:20:36 <Josh_Soref> q+ to note that subsetting specs is a disaster
19:21:01 <Josh_Soref> tobie: in the case where we believe 1/2 or 3/4 of a spec are really useful
19:21:08 <Robert_Shilston> During the break, Robert Shilston, Fantasai, Marcos Lara were chatting about the structure of the ringmark.  There were two aspects to this.  Firstly, dividing the ring circles into wedges:  As an example, this would enable developers interested in audio apps could look at the audio wedge and disregard the typography wedge.  Secondly, how to capture what's currently available for developers, and this could form a L0.  There was discussion as to how 
19:21:08 <Josh_Soref> tobie: and the rest not so much
19:21:21 <Josh_Soref> tobie: should the CG give feedback to the editors of that spec?
19:21:30 <Josh_Soref> ack me
19:21:30 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that subsetting specs is a disaster
19:21:39 <darobin> q+ fantasai 
19:21:55 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: from the point of view of a developer, i don't know what it means
19:22:00 <Josh_Soref> ... <DOCTYPE> is html5
19:22:06 <Josh_Soref> ... is it even a reasonable
19:22:11 <Josh_Soref> ... it's not even a reasonable requirement
19:22:14 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd argue
19:22:19 <jfmoy> +q
19:22:24 <Josh_Soref> s/+q/q+/
19:22:48 <Josh_Soref> darobin: there's a difference between this spec asking the browsers to implement things
19:23:00 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: you have the spec, it's full of optional features
19:23:05 <Josh_Soref> darobin: no, it's not
19:23:09 <jo> q+
19:23:23 <Josh_Soref> ... the html5 spec has been trimmed down to features that are thought to be interoperable
19:23:33 <Josh_Soref> ... when we looked at this with tobie recently
19:23:46 <Josh_Soref> ... they removed the future bits to the next specification
19:23:50 <andreatrasatti> HTML5 is still marked as a "working draft"
19:23:52 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: so there's no shoulds?
19:24:01 <Josh_Soref> darobin: there's only a few shoulds
19:24:08 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: i'm happy with what you're saying
19:24:18 <Josh_Soref> ... you should say here
19:24:29 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: it should have a conformance section
19:24:37 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: that's clearer
19:24:48 <Josh_Soref> darobin: perhaps we should to address your point
19:25:15 <mattkelly> q+
19:25:18 <Robert_Shilston> ACTION: Clarify on the wiki that the active L1 spec document is on github, and describe when things should be discussed on the wiki and when Github issues are used to further the discussion.
19:25:18 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Clarify
19:25:35 <Josh_Soref> ... we could say "whenever you see UAs MUST support Document
19:25:45 <Josh_Soref> ... it means UAs must conform to Document"
19:26:21 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: my preference is to say instead of "MUST support" say "MUST conform to the Document specification"
19:26:22 <jo> ?
19:26:26 <jo> q?
19:26:32 <darobin> RESOLUTION: Add a conformance section to Level 1
19:26:32 <Josh_Soref> tobie: group gives me something, i'll use it consistently
19:26:34 <Josh_Soref> ack fantasai 
19:26:36 <jo> ack f
19:26:42 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: your question was to break down specs
19:26:53 <Josh_Soref> ... for example Values and Units, you might want to exclude Cycle
19:27:03 <darobin> ACTION: Tobie to add a conformance section to Level 1 that explains what it means to say "User agents MUST support Foo [FOO]"
19:27:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Add a conformance section to Level 1 that explains what it means to say "User agents MUST support Foo [FOO]" [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
19:27:13 <Josh_Soref> tobie: should we break them down here, or go to them
19:27:24 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: there's no reason to say it to the CSS WG
19:27:33 <Josh_Soref> ... you may want to cut out page-break
19:27:38 <Josh_Soref> ... but CSS WG might need it
19:27:47 <jo> note that consensus of the group re the above resolution was that in general reference should be made to the conformance section of the referenced spec by way of specifying conformance
19:27:50 <Josh_Soref> darobin: 1. features we might not need
19:27:57 <Josh_Soref> ... 2. features holding things from being finalized
19:28:08 <Josh_Soref> ... when we went to CSS WG, we found things were AT-RISK
19:28:11 <Josh_Soref> ... which made us happy
19:28:22 <Josh_Soref> ... we want other groups to ship their specs
19:28:25 <jo> q?
19:28:25 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: right
19:28:57 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Mobile groups have a bad track record of subsetting specs
19:29:04 <jo> ack j
19:29:12 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: we started this discussion about reducing fragmentation
19:29:14 <jo> ack jfm
19:29:20 <Josh_Soref> ... subseting could make it worse
19:29:28 <Josh_Soref> ... it's easier to say this is "in complete conformance"
19:29:37 <Josh_Soref> ... it sounds like it'll make the same mistake as was done before
19:29:45 <darobin> q+ Vidhya
19:29:51 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i'm raising that as i don't have an idea of how to handle it
19:30:05 <Josh_Soref> jo: it seems to me there's a logical disconnect between us cherry-picking
19:30:10 <fantasai> q+
19:30:14 <Josh_Soref> ... saying "you made the wrong choice"
19:30:21 <Josh_Soref> ... in general we shouldn't subset secs
19:30:33 <Josh_Soref> ... we should say to groups "you should subset specs"
19:30:34 <jo> ack m
19:30:42 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly: from the dev perspective
19:30:50 <Josh_Soref> ... it isn't introducing fragmentation to subset
19:30:56 <Josh_Soref> ... Google came out w/ Glasses
19:31:00 <Josh_Soref> ... they need WebRTC
19:31:05 <Josh_Soref> ... vs Mobile Web
19:31:13 <Josh_Soref> ... where the popular item is 2d games
19:31:20 <Josh_Soref> ... Mobile Web reduced fragmentation
19:31:34 <Josh_Soref> ... saying we don't want to push....
19:31:44 <Josh_Soref> ... it's more about not reducing fragmentation globally, but within
19:31:57 <Josh_Soref> ... saying these are the apps we're trying to build
19:32:05 <Josh_Soref> ... and saying these are the features we're trying to build
19:32:10 <jo> ack v
19:32:14 <jo> ack f
19:32:15 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: i think the points i wanted to make have been made
19:32:22 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: the grouping of specs
19:32:28 <Josh_Soref> ... as a group working on specs
19:32:35 <Josh_Soref> ... won't be driven by one consumer
19:32:49 <Josh_Soref> ... CSS WG takes input from you, EPUB (very different), and things that are just simple
19:32:58 <Josh_Soref> ... some you might not want browser devs to implement
19:33:03 <Josh_Soref> ... (urgently)
19:33:15 <jo> q?
19:33:17 <Josh_Soref> ... it might hurt your ability to ask browser devs to focus
19:33:31 <Josh_Soref> ... the considerations we have for subsetting are not the same as you have
19:33:46 <Josh_Soref> ... you can have things you want us to prioritize when we're in DRAFT
19:33:55 <Josh_Soref> ... but it's not going to work for things closer to REC
19:34:10 <Josh_Soref> jo: in subseting other's specs
19:34:20 <Josh_Soref> ... aren't we diluting other people's specs
19:34:28 <Josh_Soref> darobin: we're affecting other people's focus
19:34:49 <Josh_Soref> jo: specs that are already baked
19:34:58 <Josh_Soref> ... it would be unreasonable to require conformance to every last one of them
19:35:12 <Josh_Soref> ... where we do subset, we should be clear at the top of the document
19:35:14 <fantasai> fantasai^: if you request features that aren't important to you just because they're in the same spec, that dilutes your message about what is important to you
19:35:18 <Josh_Soref> ... that it isn't intended to subset the spec
19:35:33 <Josh_Soref> ... but the testing and urgency of work on portions of the sepc
19:35:36 <Josh_Soref> s/sepc/spec/
19:36:14 <Josh_Soref> tobie: are you suggesting we'd make supporting the whole spec a requirement
19:36:20 <Josh_Soref> ... and only test a subset?
19:36:32 <Josh_Soref> darobin: we're weasel wording our way out of subsetting
19:36:51 <Josh_Soref> jo: anyone with a problem with articulating the thought subsetting for the reasons described
19:36:58 <Josh_Soref> ... having clarified the reasons described
19:36:59 <darobin> proposed RESOLUTION: Subsetting is undesirable and will be avoided as much as possible; however it is pragmatically required in some cases. When subsetting does happen, it should not be understood as a subsetting of the specification itself but rather as a prioritisation of our testing efforts
19:37:09 <Josh_Soref> [ No objections ]
19:37:13 <darobin> RESOLUTION: Subsetting is undesirable and will be avoided as much as possible; however it is pragmatically required in some cases. When subsetting does happen, it should not be understood as a subsetting of the specification itself but rather as a prioritisation of our testing efforts
19:37:43 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i added as notes QoI issues in relevant sections
19:38:11 <jo> q?
19:38:26 <Josh_Soref> ... for html5 spec, the main issue is poorly implemented audio playback
19:38:28 <jo> q+ to talk about quality of implementation issues
19:38:37 <Josh_Soref> ... playing sounds in parallel and latency
19:38:45 <Josh_Soref> ... i identified sub 10ms latency
19:38:53 <Josh_Soref> ... if someone has a better number
19:39:46 <Josh_Soref> jo: say you're doing DOM Tree Traversal
19:39:47 <mattkelly> +q
19:39:56 <Josh_Soref> ... are you interested in performance?
19:40:05 <Josh_Soref> ... you almost certainly need it to be reasonable
19:40:06 <darobin> ack mattkelly 
19:40:12 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly: we need to avoid surface area testing
19:40:14 <jo> ack j
19:40:14 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to talk about quality of implementation issues
19:40:21 <Josh_Soref> ... saying "audio is supported"
19:40:26 <Josh_Soref> ... saying you can support one file
19:40:39 <Josh_Soref> ... in mobile browsers, you get popping / audio artifacts
19:40:49 <Josh_Soref> ... a 2d game developer doesn't want that
19:41:00 <Josh_Soref> ... say <canvas> is supported, but how many sprites can you do @30fps?
19:41:18 <Josh_Soref> ... but you can't build Angry Birds/Words With Friends
19:41:31 <Josh_Soref> ... the hard part is understanding where those gotchas are
19:41:43 <Josh_Soref> ... it's hard for nuanced bugs in browsers
19:42:04 <Josh_Soref> ... on Android, there's an issue where if you animated something horizontally/vertically, it was accelerated
19:42:16 <Josh_Soref> ... but if you animate diagonally, it drops (frames/perf)
19:42:23 <Josh_Soref> ... it's important to test QoI
19:42:30 <Josh_Soref> jo: what would your proposal be?
19:42:38 <Josh_Soref> mattkelly: it's hard
19:42:42 <jo> q?
19:42:42 <Josh_Soref> ... in a doc
19:42:46 <Josh_Soref> ... it's easier in a test suite
19:42:50 <Josh_Soref> ... you can also evolve it
19:43:02 <Josh_Soref> ... there are 2 ends
19:43:05 <Josh_Soref> ... incredibly detailed
19:43:15 <Josh_Soref> ... or preface to the doc "QoI is expected"
19:43:24 <Josh_Soref> ... performance/avoiding artifacts
19:44:37 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: for this doc/spec
19:44:41 <Josh_Soref> ... it's useful on one level
19:45:01 <Josh_Soref> ... but it needs to address QoI
19:45:08 <Josh_Soref> ... with ACID3, it doesn't address QoI
19:45:20 <Josh_Soref> ... you need to be able to animate with a certain speed
19:45:29 <Josh_Soref> ... but it quickly becomes hardware / device dependent
19:45:48 <Josh_Soref> ... there's certain iOS/Android 
19:46:06 <Josh_Soref> jo: it seems it's very hard given device dependencies
19:46:21 <darobin> q?
19:46:25 <Josh_Soref> DanSun: i don't think we should depend on Hardware
19:46:28 <darobin> q+ Rob
19:46:43 <Josh_Soref> ... it depends on the hardware/application
19:46:57 <Josh_Soref> jet: despite the difficulty of hardware stacks
19:47:05 <Josh_Soref> ... i like the idea of supporting games
19:47:15 <Josh_Soref> ... getting games to run well gets everything else to run well
19:47:18 <jo> ack rob
19:47:28 <Josh_Soref> ... i want to encourage the group to look at it
19:47:52 <Josh_Soref> rob: i want to show a demo based on jsFiddle to test a browser bug
19:48:01 <Josh_Soref> [ Demos 2 browsers running concurrently ]
19:48:09 <Josh_Soref> rob: we thought it was a hardware constraint
19:48:21 <Josh_Soref> ... until we got to browsers on the same and distilled it
19:48:25 <darobin> q?
19:48:46 <Robert_Shilston> Robert_Shilston has joined #coremob
19:48:50 <Josh_Soref> bkelley: any perf test, it's impossible to factor out hardware
19:49:00 <Robert_Shilston> My example URL was http://jsfiddle.net/v7C4a/
19:49:19 <Josh_Soref> s/rob:/Robert_Shilston:/g
19:49:38 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i think we can survive this by defining a particular hardware
19:49:51 <Josh_Soref> ... such as Galaxy S2
19:50:01 <Josh_Soref> ... on a feature phone 120 sprites @60 fps
19:50:08 <Josh_Soref> ... is understandably not going to work
19:50:12 <Josh_Soref> ... users understand this
19:50:21 <jfmoy> +q
19:50:23 <Josh_Soref> ... we should be able to try to work our way out of the slippery slope
19:50:27 <Josh_Soref> s/+q/q+
19:50:32 <Josh_Soref> ack jfmoy 
19:50:42 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: do you want to write out the hardware into the spec?
19:50:49 <Josh_Soref> darobin: not in the spec
19:50:58 <Josh_Soref> ... if we have a QoI Test Suite
19:51:06 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd write that into the test
19:51:18 <Josh_Soref> ... if you have hardware with roughly these specs
19:51:23 <Josh_Soref> ... you should do this well
19:51:31 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: do you want Pass/Fail, or a scale?
19:51:36 <Josh_Soref> s/scale/score/
19:51:54 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i'd like to get into them, but not now
19:52:29 <Josh_Soref> jo: i find it seriously problematic to have numbers
19:52:37 <Josh_Soref> ... because they quickly become obsolete
19:52:58 <Josh_Soref> ... rather than specific numbers
19:53:05 <Josh_Soref> ... you have cross browser comparisons
19:53:13 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd rather relativistic nature
19:53:18 <Josh_Soref> ... than a specific numeric measurement
19:53:43 <Josh_Soref> Robert_Shilston: i object
19:54:04 <Josh_Soref> ... in some areas, only iOS performs reasonably
19:54:12 <Josh_Soref> ... and in others, only Android performs reasonably
19:54:26 <Josh_Soref> ... you'll drag down the result
19:54:59 <Josh_Soref> ... it's reasonable to compare multiple browsers on a single Android device
19:55:15 <Josh_Soref> ... but what do you do comparing across different hardware (iPad, Galaxy Tab)
19:55:31 <Josh_Soref> tobie: that metric is Requirement driven
19:55:35 <Josh_Soref> ... ask a game developer
19:55:45 <Josh_Soref> ... he'll say they have a sound file in the background
19:55:52 <Josh_Soref> ... and game triggered events
19:56:10 <Josh_Soref> ... 8 will work for most games
19:56:16 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe eventually 12 might be used
19:56:21 <Josh_Soref> ... but the number won't generally change
19:56:56 <Josh_Soref> jo: i think it's problematic to code in numbers
19:57:09 <jo> q?
19:57:11 <Josh_Soref> tobie: 2 games is a certain case
19:57:20 <Josh_Soref> ... an audio synthesizer s different
19:57:25 <Josh_Soref> s/ s / is /
19:57:53 <Josh_Soref> bkelley: how would we phrase a relativistic test as a requirement
19:58:21 <Josh_Soref> jo: i'm trying to explore taking these outside the test domain entirely
19:58:27 <Josh_Soref> ... a matter of public record
19:58:37 <Josh_Soref> bkelley: in terms of a specification?
19:59:47 <fantasai> ...
20:00:05 <Josh_Soref> tobie: I want to thank Vanessa for organizing everything
20:00:08 <Josh_Soref> [ Applause ]
20:00:24 <darobin> RESOLUTION: there is no strong interest in producing relativistic tests at this point in the group, we will keep focusing our Quality of Implementation efforts on absolute measures
20:00:25 <jo> RESOLUTION: The group has no taste for making qualitative issues into relative measurement and wishes to continue to try to formulate specific objective tests
20:59:22 <tobie> tobie has joined #coremob
21:00:58 <Dong-Young> Dong-Young has joined #coremob
21:04:22 <lbolstad> lbolstad has joined #coremob
21:05:50 <jfmoy> jfmoy has joined #coremob
21:06:07 <Josh_Soref> tobie: ... to close up on HTML5
21:06:13 <Josh_Soref> ... issue 1 ... about AppCache
21:06:24 <Josh_Soref> ... there was a Workshop organized by Vodafone
21:06:35 <Eunjoo> Eunjoo has joined #coremob
21:06:35 <Wonsuk> Wonsuk has joined #coremob
21:06:35 <Josh_Soref> ... where we talked about the problems with AppCache
21:06:51 <Josh_Soref> ... it didn't work very well with content generated on the server
21:07:05 <Josh_Soref> ... an index page of a blog would always display a cached version and not a live one
21:07:19 <Josh_Soref> ... that issue was fixed in the living HTML spec... worked on by WHATWG
21:07:24 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it's a critical issue
21:07:43 <Josh_Soref> ... the question is whether this group should lobby the HTML WG to include that in the HTML5 document
21:08:32 <Josh_Soref> andreatrasatti: what is the time frame
21:08:40 <Josh_Soref> ... if the group wanted to lobby for it for HTML5
21:08:40 <ming> ming has joined #coremob
21:08:53 <Josh_Soref> ... if we also pushed for people to implement it
21:09:05 <Josh_Soref> ... you or darobin said HTML5 is basically stable
21:09:12 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The Coremob CG requests the HTML WG to move fixing AppCache to the current version of HTML5
21:09:13 <Josh_Soref> darobin: it's a very good question
21:09:28 <Josh_Soref> ... in this case, the problem is serious enough
21:09:40 <Josh_Soref> ... browser vendors have indicated they're willing to update it
21:09:52 <Josh_Soref> ... we could lobby the HTML WG to reopen
21:09:56 <Josh_Soref> ... at the cost of delaying
21:10:05 <Josh_Soref> ... we could ask HTML WG to move to a separate document
21:10:18 <koichi> koichi has joined #coremob
21:10:24 <Josh_Soref> ... but it would allow it to progress on REC track w/o holding things up
21:10:32 <Josh_Soref> tobie: AFAIK,
21:10:47 <Josh_Soref> ... HTML5 will probably have a second LC
21:10:49 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The Coremob CG requests the HTML WG to move fixing AppCache to a separate document and progress apace with moving that document down Rec Track
21:11:01 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't think that particular issue would change timings of the spec
21:11:06 <harrison> harrison has joined #coremob
21:11:17 <Josh_Soref> ... of course, if everyone asks for changes, that would delay it
21:11:23 <Josh_Soref> q?
21:11:47 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: we know this is important
21:11:50 <Josh_Soref> ... we know we need this
21:11:54 <Josh_Soref> ... what's being asked for?
21:12:07 <Josh_Soref> tobie: there's an issue filed in HTML WG against the spec for that feature request
21:12:14 <Josh_Soref> ... it was fixed in the WHAT WG spec
21:12:29 <Josh_Soref> ... but the issue was closed by the HTML WG as "wontfix" for HTML5 as it's in LC
21:12:43 <Josh_Soref> ... and they don't want to add what they technically consider it to be a new feature
21:12:57 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: AppCache needs to work, and it needs to work properly
21:13:06 <Josh_Soref> q+ to favor splitting it out of HTML5
21:13:17 <Josh_Soref> darobin: do we want to leave the somewhat broken in HTML5?
21:13:22 <Josh_Soref> ... or delay HTML5?
21:13:26 <Josh_Soref> ... or split it up?
21:13:31 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: maybe i don't understand process
21:13:37 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't understand what this group can do
21:13:43 <Josh_Soref> darobin: first ...
21:13:51 <Josh_Soref> ... can we live with the broken version?
21:13:55 <Josh_Soref> ... i think the answer is not
21:14:01 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: i don't think we can live with it
21:14:15 <Josh_Soref> ... if we can encourage the group to fix it
21:14:20 <Josh_Soref> darobin: if we can't live with it
21:14:21 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The Coremob CG considers the current version of AppCache to be damaging and requests that the HTML WG does not progress to Rec without fixing it
21:14:27 <Josh_Soref> ... then we need to negotiate w/ the HTML WG
21:14:37 <Josh_Soref> tobie: is this change in itself sufficient to make AppCache not broken?
21:14:43 <Josh_Soref> ... my feeling is "kind of"
21:14:50 <Josh_Soref> ... which is another aspect to consider
21:15:00 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: looking at Blogs, how people are talking about this
21:15:16 <Josh_Soref> ... people look at this and say "let's not use AppCache at all... because it's so useless"
21:15:27 <Josh_Soref> ... so hosted apps become irrelevant
21:15:54 <Josh_Soref> jo: rob, do you want to add input?
21:16:01 <Josh_Soref> rob: from our perspective
21:16:07 <Josh_Soref> ... one vendor, 80% of devices in the wild
21:16:15 <Josh_Soref> ... never request the manifest
21:16:27 <Josh_Soref> ... so we use appcache for a bootstrap process
21:16:40 <Josh_Soref> ... and use it as a bootstrapping which does its own caching in storage
21:16:45 <Josh_Soref> ... the spec as it stands is ok
21:16:50 <Josh_Soref> ... it's just the implementation
21:16:58 <Josh_Soref> jo: so you're saying you don't agree w/ tobie that it's broken
21:17:05 <Josh_Soref> rob: i agree it could be improved
21:17:10 <Josh_Soref> ... but it's perfectly usable as is
21:17:16 <Josh_Soref> ... we can build an app today
21:17:35 <Josh_Soref> ... an app robustly implemented could work
21:17:36 <Josh_Soref> q?
21:17:44 <Josh_Soref> ack me
21:17:44 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to favor splitting it out of HTML5
21:18:09 <Josh_Soref> rob: i think suggesting AppCache separate from the HTML5 spec is preferable
21:18:14 <Josh_Soref> ... it gives the most flexibility
21:18:17 <Josh_Soref> jo: the shades are
21:18:22 <Josh_Soref> ... asking to remove it from the spec
21:18:25 <Josh_Soref> ... fixing it in the spec
21:18:29 <Josh_Soref> ... leaving as is
21:18:36 <Josh_Soref> ... - and quickly coming out with an update
21:18:47 <Josh_Soref> ... is it damaging to have what's currently in?
21:19:03 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: rob: did you mean that there isn't anything wrong with the spec
21:19:10 <Josh_Soref> rob: the problem we have is an implementation (QoI) detail
21:19:41 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: mandating some degree of stability to HTML5
21:20:00 <Josh_Soref> ... to what extent should this document be very specific
21:20:06 <Josh_Soref> ... in addition to mandating support for a spec
21:20:15 <Josh_Soref> darobin: if the requirements we have require that spec to be supported
21:20:30 <Josh_Soref> ... there's little reason to go into detail in the spec itself
21:20:35 <Josh_Soref> ... outside of the test suite
21:20:44 <Josh_Soref> ... the reason AppCache is listed as an issue in the document
21:21:06 <Josh_Soref> ... if you look at developer blogs, what they're saying about AppCache is different from rob's perspective
21:21:30 <Josh_Soref> tobie: Facebook started using AppCache and stopped because of this issue
21:21:35 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, who is on the call?
21:21:35 <Zakim> sorry, Josh_Soref, I don't know what conference this is
21:21:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see harrison, koichi, ming, Wonsuk, Eunjoo, jfmoy, lbolstad, Dong-Young, tobie, WaiSeto, lgombos, bejram, chihiro, andrewhubbs, girlie_mac, ytsai, chrisramos, wesj,
21:21:36 <Zakim> ... julianshen, andreatrasatti, fantasai, mansoor, jet, nghanavatian, Josh_Soref, Zakim, RRSAgent, darobin, jo, betehess, trackbot
21:22:05 <Josh_Soref> jo: what support is there in this group for removing AppCache from the current spec?
21:22:16 <Josh_Soref> darobin: rather than straw poll on the variations
21:22:41 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd rather say to the html group is "here is the issue, could you do something about it?"
21:22:53 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it's an extra feature
21:23:00 <Josh_Soref> ... which is why it's a wontfix
21:23:08 <Josh_Soref> darobin: HTML WG is in LC
21:23:19 <Josh_Soref> ... and refuses to accept Features since that immediately voids LC
21:23:33 <Josh_Soref> jo: if we ask them to do something that ruins their time scales
21:24:05 <Josh_Soref> rob: tobie is saying Facebook doesn't use AppCache because of the additional feature they want in HTML5
21:24:27 <Josh_Soref> ... adding a feature to HTML5 would enable you to use AppCache in the way we need
21:24:32 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it's more complicated than that
21:24:39 <Josh_Soref> ... this fix fixes some UCs, but not all of them
21:24:45 <Josh_Soref> ... we have extra challenges
21:24:55 <Josh_Soref> ... as we push new versions of our web site on a daily basis
21:24:58 <Josh_Soref> ... we have a lot of servers
21:24:59 <bejram1> bejram1 has joined #coremob
21:25:03 <Josh_Soref> ... pushing a new version takes time
21:25:10 <Josh_Soref> ... on a daily basis we have 2 versions
21:25:32 <Josh_Soref> ... you can get into a state where the AppCache thinks it's correctly synchronized
21:25:41 <Josh_Soref> ... but its manifest is v49 and the code is v50
21:25:49 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't know that just solving that problem would make it work
21:26:00 <Josh_Soref> ... but i know that something like that would make it work for MS Hotmail
21:26:07 <Josh_Soref> ... it isn't implemented right now
21:26:15 <Josh_Soref> ... if you don't specify the master entry in the spec
21:26:18 <Josh_Soref> ... it's always loaded live
21:26:25 <Josh_Soref> ... MS solved it for hotmail
21:27:30 <Josh_Soref> tobie: the app renders the cached index page
21:27:41 <Josh_Soref> ... the contents have to be the same
21:27:45 <Josh_Soref> ... otherwise you bust the cache
21:28:09 <Josh_Soref> ... the app checks the manifest in the background
21:28:31 <Josh_Soref> jo: who does not feel qualified to make a contribution to this discussion?
21:29:11 <Josh_Soref> 18
21:29:21 <bejram> bejram has joined #coremob
21:29:25 <Josh_Soref> jo: who does feel qualified to discuss this issue?
21:29:26 <Josh_Soref> 7
21:29:57 <Josh_Soref> darobin: of people who feel qualified
21:30:27 <Josh_Soref> ... who wants to make a suggestion to HTML WG
21:30:35 <Josh_Soref> ... can the html spec keep the current version?
21:31:47 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: if we leave it alone, could we publish a doc explaining how to work around it, based on Rob's solution
21:31:57 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: are the only options a change or not
21:32:04 <Josh_Soref> ... or maybe create a test suite demoing the behavior
21:32:12 <Josh_Soref> ... as we go through specs
21:32:34 <Josh_Soref> ... some may be averse to changes
21:32:52 <Josh_Soref> ... the next, MC, easier to change
21:32:58 <Josh_Soref> ... Geolocation is unreceptive
21:33:04 <Josh_Soref> ... talking to that group isn't going to help
21:33:07 <Josh_Soref> darobin: never has
21:33:10 <Josh_Soref> [ laughter ]
21:33:30 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: do we always resolve by talking to the WG?
21:33:31 <Josh_Soref> darobin: no
21:33:36 <Josh_Soref> ... sometimes it's a QoI item
21:33:42 <Josh_Soref> ... we write a test, and show people
21:33:52 <Josh_Soref> ... sometimes it's a relatively mature spec
21:33:58 <Josh_Soref> ... where we might want a spec change
21:34:09 <Josh_Soref> ... we won't have this discussion for each item
21:34:19 <Josh_Soref> tobie: which is why we don't want to go meta
21:34:30 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i think AppCache is broadly classified as broken
21:34:37 <Josh_Soref> ... do we ask for a change or live with it?
21:34:53 <Josh_Soref> jo: even those of us who aren't qualified from a technical perspective
21:35:05 <Josh_Soref> ... may feel that we have input to this question
21:35:12 <Josh_Soref> ... yada yada yada
21:35:25 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i.e. Everyone can/should vote
21:35:28 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: +1
21:35:39 <Josh_Soref> bkelley: can we live with it *and* lobby for a fix
21:35:56 <Josh_Soref> darobin: if you ask the html wg to change it
21:36:07 <Josh_Soref> ... you're still allowed to have a hack in your app
21:36:26 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: HTML.next already has a fix for this
21:36:47 <Josh_Soref> jo: do we as a group for substantive technological or reputational reasons 
21:36:52 <Josh_Soref> ... think it'll obstruct the web
21:37:01 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: at TPAC in Nov
21:37:09 <Josh_Soref> ... that was the biggest problem on the mobile web
21:37:22 <Josh_Soref> ... personally i think pushing for that in HTML5 is important
21:37:40 <Josh_Soref> ... it's really important that it's fixed ASAP
21:37:51 <Josh_Soref> darobin: who votes in favor of leaving it as is?
21:37:56 <Josh_Soref> [ Hands ? ]
21:38:55 <Josh_Soref> jo: who votes in favor of asking for a change?
21:39:06 <Josh_Soref> 17
21:39:36 <Josh_Soref> rob: can we distinguish between finding AppCache not specified as is
21:39:42 <Josh_Soref> ... some people are able to use it
21:39:49 <Josh_Soref> ... others find it not fit for their purpose
21:40:03 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: i don't quite agree with that formulation
21:40:07 <Josh_Soref> ... you can make a lot of things work
21:40:11 <Josh_Soref> ... that doesn't mean
21:40:16 <Josh_Soref> ... - This thing is not right
21:40:23 <Josh_Soref> tobie: +1
21:40:54 <darobin> RESOLUTION: CoreMob notes that many developers find AppCache as currently specified to be broken for their requirements or to require workarounds and requests that the HTML WG consider resolving this issue before shipping (either by fixing it in the specification, or by splitting it off to a separate specification that can be fixed standalone)
21:41:03 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 - HTML Media Capture
21:41:24 <Josh_Soref> tobie: MC (DAP+WebRTC) is working on this in a TF
21:41:38 <Josh_Soref> ... it looks bad initially
21:41:43 <darobin> ACTION: Robin to talk to the HTML WG about fixing/splitting AppCache
21:41:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Talk to the HTML WG about fixing/splitting AppCache [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-02].
21:41:45 <Josh_Soref> ... but the more you look at it, the better it seems to be
21:42:03 <Josh_Soref> ... it's the spec that enables camera access
21:42:06 <Josh_Soref> ... there are 2 issues
21:42:09 <Josh_Soref> ... it's a WD
21:42:38 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a bug against HTML5 spec for direct inclusion
21:42:41 <Josh_Soref> q+
21:42:50 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i'd ignore the merge into html
21:42:57 <Josh_Soref> ... it might happen, but it'll happen later
21:42:58 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: +1
21:43:04 <Josh_Soref> darobin: if it's adopted
21:43:13 <Josh_Soref> ... whatever is done will be integrated
21:43:25 <koichi> koichi has joined #coremob
21:43:28 <Josh_Soref> ... the reason it's a WD is we're waiting on implementer feedback
21:43:37 <Josh_Soref> ... once we get feedback
21:43:40 <Josh_Soref> ... we'll move forward
21:43:51 <Josh_Soref> ... we've started getting feedback, notably from webkit
21:43:58 <Josh_Soref> ... and it can quickly move to REC
21:44:16 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't know if lbolstad has been working on it
21:44:21 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: why is it a problem that it's a WD?
21:44:30 <Josh_Soref> darobin: the concern is that it might change
21:44:45 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: if the concern is that you need feedback, why not issue an LC?
21:44:49 <Josh_Soref> darobin: it's an option
21:45:00 <Josh_Soref> ... would implementers be concerned with an LC
21:45:11 <Josh_Soref> wesj: we have an accept attribute
21:45:19 <Josh_Soref> tobie: mounir+jonas are working on Accept
21:45:25 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i'm happy to ask DAP to issue a LC
21:45:27 <Josh_Soref> ack me
21:45:38 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I've a feeling that you sent it to the wrong list
21:45:48 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: You sent it to DAP
21:46:09 <fantasai> some confusion over mailing lists and stuff
21:46:19 <fantasai> Jo: What do we ask the group?
21:46:28 <fantasai> Tobie: Is the fact that it's WD an issue?
21:46:45 <fantasai> Robin: Depends, in some cases it's an issue and others not
21:47:04 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: different vendor classes care differently about status of specs
21:47:16 <fantasai> Jo: Proposed to close issue 3
21:47:25 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close issue 3 wrt media capture being a WD
21:47:27 <darobin> ACTION: Robin to ask DAP to push HTML Media Capture to LC
21:47:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Ask DAP to push HTML Media Capture to LC [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-02].
21:47:42 <jo> trackbot: close ISSUE-3
21:47:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-3 HTML Media Capture is just a Working Draft closed
21:47:43 <fantasai> Tobie: HTML Media Capture introduces the 'capture' attribute 
21:47:50 <Josh_Soref> q?
21:47:58 <fantasai> Tobie: let's developer specify what kind of capture device to present to the user
21:48:04 <fantasai> Tobie: take a picture, record something, etc.
21:48:07 <WaiSeto> WaiSeto has joined #coremob
21:48:09 <fantasai> Tobie: Currently in the spec this is mentioned as a hint
21:48:24 <fantasai> Tobie: Feel that if this is a hint, spec has not much meat, so started a thread on DAP group about this
21:48:25 <Josh_Soref> q+ to note to tobie that UAs will let users select files (i need to reply to your thread)
21:48:32 <Josh_Soref> q+ to note to tobie that UAs will let users select files (i need to reply to your thread)
21:48:56 <fantasai> Tobie: Suggest to change that requirement is stronger
21:49:03 <jo> ack j
21:49:03 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note to tobie that UAs will let users select files (i need to reply to your thread) and to note to tobie that UAs will let users select files (i need to
21:49:06 <Zakim> ... reply to your thread)
21:49:38 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: So supporting capture attr is fine and dandy, but for device that doesn't have such an input device, or user who wants to take an existing file, should allow file picker
21:49:51 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I've been worried about how things are written, that might overspecify
21:50:23 <fantasai> Tobie: If this change is made to the document, no need to say anything here
21:50:33 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Drop note about capture attribute
21:50:48 <darobin> close ISSUE-4
21:50:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-4 HTML Media Capture `capture` attribute is just a "hint" closed
21:50:54 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 SVG
21:51:29 <Josh_Soref> s/Topic: Level 1 SVG//
21:51:35 <fantasai> Jo: One thing we discussed over lunch is devices that don't fundamentally support a feature
21:51:38 <fantasai> Jo: so have to think about that
21:52:02 <fantasai> Jo: E.g. a TV likely doesn't have file storage or a camera, so what's conformance for that device on capture?
21:52:14 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 SVG
21:52:32 <Josh_Soref> tobie: using SVG 1.1....
21:52:43 <Josh_Soref> jo: i've got SVG rocks, they're uncomfortable to sit on
21:52:54 <Josh_Soref> ... is everything in SVG 
21:53:08 <Josh_Soref> ... SVG requirements will point to the MANDATORY SVG elements
21:53:27 <Josh_Soref> q+ to warn about SVG tiny subsetting
21:53:43 <Josh_Soref> ... are we sure we want to point to the whole thing?
21:53:49 <Josh_Soref> darobin: having wasted 5 years on SVG
21:53:52 <Josh_Soref> ... subsetting it
21:53:57 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we want to take the whole thing
21:54:03 <Josh_Soref> ack me
21:54:03 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to warn about SVG tiny subsetting
21:54:22 <darobin> ISSUE: We need to have a way to express how conformance interacts with the availability of hardware 
21:54:23 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-20 - We need to have a way to express how conformance interacts with the availability of hardware  ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/20/edit .
21:54:42 <darobin> ACTION: Robin to come up with some text for ISSUE-20
21:54:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Come up with some text for ISSUE-20 [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-02].
21:54:51 <darobin> RESOLUTION: we take all of SVG 1.1. ed2
21:54:57 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 meta viewport
21:55:04 <Josh_Soref> darobin: can we have a meta discussion about hta?
21:55:08 <Josh_Soref> s/hta/that/
21:55:29 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it's describing the viewport with a weird syntax
21:55:33 <Josh_Soref> ... inside the meta element
21:55:37 <jo> q?
21:55:50 <Josh_Soref> ... using meta elements for that is specified in HTML5 or HTML@HTMLWG
21:55:57 <Josh_Soref> ... with a reference to a HTML Wiki
21:56:03 <Josh_Soref> ... which references a CSS WG page
21:56:08 <Josh_Soref> ... which is marked as exploratory
21:56:12 <Josh_Soref> ... it's awkward
21:56:20 <Josh_Soref> ... everyone building for the mobile web strongly relies on it
21:56:26 <Josh_Soref> ... but the specification is very lousy
21:56:36 <Josh_Soref> ... i want to bring it up because of that problem
21:56:59 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd argue against objections to this requirement
21:57:23 <Josh_Soref> ... since we have a CSS WG liaison here
21:57:27 <Josh_Soref> ... fantasai 
21:57:36 <Josh_Soref> ... do you have anything to say about this
21:57:39 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: sorry, what?
21:57:53 <Josh_Soref> ... CSS-ADAPTATION
21:58:00 <Josh_Soref> ... what's holding back is a review of the spec
21:58:08 <Josh_Soref> ... to give us some confidence that it has been reviewed
21:58:10 <Josh_Soref> ... and is in a good state
21:58:22 <Josh_Soref> ... i think opera and ie might have exploratory impls
21:58:25 <Josh_Soref> ... it's pretty unstable
21:58:30 <Josh_Soref> ... but if people want it to progress
21:58:45 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i think people wants everything in that spec except CSS syntax
21:58:51 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i don't know how that is
21:58:59 <Josh_Soref> ... it depends on how much the spec matches implementations
21:59:14 <Josh_Soref> darobin: css-syntax probably matches only experimental implementations
22:00:01 <Josh_Soref> jo: it seems like 
22:00:07 <Josh_Soref> darobin: a test suite on the html bits
22:00:20 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a suite by andreas XXC
22:00:23 <Josh_Soref> ... which we could steal
22:00:31 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: we could send review feedback
22:00:35 <Josh_Soref> ... and test resources/reports
22:00:49 <Josh_Soref> ... to help CSS have confidence to move it forward
22:00:53 <darobin> close ISSUE-5
22:00:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-5 CSS-ADAPTATION spec currently marked as exploratory closed
22:01:15 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 App Config
22:01:18 <darobin> RESOLUTION: we don't care that CSS-ADAPTATION is marked "exploratory" as it will happen anyway
22:01:28 <Josh_Soref> s/Topic: Level 1 App Config//
22:01:29 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 App Config
22:02:06 <Josh_Soref> tobie: App Config is something i've been trying to push for for a while
22:02:09 <Josh_Soref> ... it's metadata
22:02:12 <Josh_Soref> ... name, icons
22:02:24 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a different standard for everything
22:03:14 <Josh_Soref> ... each vendors has done their own
22:03:23 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: the PlayBook actually uses this for its apps
22:03:36 <Josh_Soref> tobie: Widget is a silly name, and in a language everyone loves to hate
22:03:37 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: +1
22:03:53 <Josh_Soref> tobie: the idea is to move WebApps to JSON, because everyone loves JSON
22:04:00 <Josh_Soref> ... it would pretty much piggy back on the existing work
22:04:16 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a lo of movement in that area
22:04:21 <Josh_Soref> ... nothing much to point to
22:04:26 <Josh_Soref> ... we could have a resolution to close
22:04:31 <mattkelly> mattkelly has joined #coremob
22:05:56 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: what's the reason this group can't point to widgets spec
22:05:59 <jo> q?
22:06:03 <Josh_Soref> tobie: this group doesn't believe it's the right solution going forward
22:06:08 <Josh_Soref> ... mostly, most vendors don't agree to implement it
22:06:28 <Josh_Soref> ... outside of Opera
22:06:38 <Josh_Soref> ... Nokia's WebKit
22:06:52 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: RIM's WebWorks implemented this
22:07:02 <Josh_Soref> darobin: there are 40-80 implementations of widgets implementation
22:07:07 <Josh_Soref> ... it has failed to get market traction
22:07:18 <Josh_Soref> ... most major browser vendors haven't implemented and don't plan to implement
22:07:24 <Josh_Soref> ... it also has issues defining runtime
22:07:32 <Josh_Soref> ... i say this as an author of this
22:07:35 <Josh_Soref> ... specification
22:07:39 <Josh_Soref> ... there's no vendor behind it
22:07:42 <Josh_Soref> ... no implementation plans
22:07:49 <Josh_Soref> ... putting this in the spec will not make it happen
22:07:54 <Josh_Soref> tobie: and it has a silly name
22:08:04 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i don't think there's any point in pushing it
22:08:15 <Josh_Soref> jo: it isn't in any sense desirable for browser vendors to support it
22:08:57 <Josh_Soref> darobin: it'll come out of web apps "pretty much soon"
22:09:20 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: so you're confident that this will be ready before we're done
22:09:28 <Josh_Soref> vidhya: i agree
22:10:29 <darobin> RESOLUTION: the group asks the editor to update ISSUE-6 to mention that there is replacement technology on the way and that we'll point to it
22:10:40 <darobin> <br data-type=coffee>
22:38:46 <tobie> http://tobie.github.com/ORIENTATIONLOCK-UCR/
22:39:23 <bejram1> bejram1 has joined #coremob
22:39:31 <jo> q?
22:39:40 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 View orientation
22:40:24 <Josh_Soref> s/Topic: Level 1 View orientation//
22:40:32 <Josh_Soref> i/github/Topic: Level 1 View orientation/
22:40:45 <Josh_Soref> tobie: depending on the level/support
22:40:51 <Josh_Soref> ... it could end up a property of a config file
22:41:05 <Josh_Soref> ... it's important, but there's no spec
22:41:09 <Josh_Soref> ... it's similar
22:41:15 <Josh_Soref> ... to Full Screen
22:41:22 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 Fullscreen
22:41:32 <Josh_Soref> tobie: we had a discussion on the list w/ chaals
22:41:56 <Josh_Soref> ... about splitting full screen and chromeless-ness
22:42:24 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: there are specs
22:42:33 <Josh_Soref> tobie: the problem is that they don't do what we need
22:42:39 <Josh_Soref> ... what fits best is "floating"
22:42:43 <Josh_Soref> ... which doesn't make sense to me
22:42:58 <Josh_Soref> ... and it won't fare well w/ devs to suggest "floating" for mobile-web apps
22:43:07 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i don't think floating was meant to do that
22:43:12 <Josh_Soref> tobie: the outcome
22:43:18 <Josh_Soref> ... of my discussion w/ chaals
22:43:29 <Josh_Soref> ... is to have distinct things
22:43:34 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: there's two things
22:43:38 <Josh_Soref> ... "my thing should be in"
22:43:43 <Josh_Soref> ... "is my thing in"
22:43:52 <Josh_Soref> tobie: this is signalling a preference
22:44:04 <Josh_Soref> darobin: we already have a way to ask for is-my
22:44:14 <Josh_Soref> ... what's missing is a way to say "i would like to run chromeless"
22:44:26 <Josh_Soref> tobie: similar to apple's mobile-web-app-capable meta tag
22:44:59 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: it's similar to viewport-meta
22:45:07 <darobin> q?
22:45:11 <Josh_Soref> darobin: we'd like a P&C to be able to express the preference
22:45:26 <Josh_Soref> rob: wondering about SSL/browser padlocks
22:45:49 <darobin> s/P&C/WebApps Application Configuration/
22:46:43 <Josh_Soref> jo: rob, do you have a proposal?
22:46:44 <Josh_Soref> rob: no
22:46:59 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: "it's a bad idea to have this discussion here, or anywhere else"
22:47:01 <Wonsuk> Concerning to View Orientation, there is a WD of The Screen Orientation API, http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
22:47:06 <Josh_Soref> darobin: WebAppSec had this discussion and lost 3 years
22:47:15 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd rather leave that as a QoI for implementers
22:47:17 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: +1
22:47:24 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i don't think the padlock worked in the first place
22:47:52 <Josh_Soref> jo: it's a legitimate concern
22:48:17 <Josh_Soref> ... but it seems like we can delegate that to WebApps
22:48:21 <Josh_Soref> ... or Native Web Apps
22:48:49 <Josh_Soref> rob: could we pass a REQUIREMENT to the WebApps group to ensure they consider PCI requirements
22:49:01 <darobin> proposed RESOLUTION: CoreMob asks WebApps to include "chromelessness" in its configuration document, and to take PCI requirements into account there
22:50:03 <bejram> bejram has joined #coremob
22:50:17 <darobin> RESOLUTION: CoreMob asks WebApps to include "chromelessness" in its configuration document, and to take PCI requirements into account there
22:50:26 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: the SSL only item could be suggested to DAP for its best-practices document...
22:51:24 <Josh_Soref> jo: do we want to take a resolution that View Orientation/Full-screen be listed as essential
22:51:35 <Josh_Soref> darobin: not full-screen, but chromeless
22:51:40 <darobin> proposed RESOLUTION: both View Orientation and Chromeless are essential requirements and we would like WebApps to include them in configuration
22:51:50 <darobin> RESOLUTION: both View Orientation and Chromeless are essential requirements and we would like WebApps to include them in configuration
22:52:06 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 - Style
22:52:09 <darobin> ACTION: Tobie to s/full-screen/chromeless/
22:52:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - S/full-screen/chromeless/ [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
22:52:31 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i don't do as much CSS as i used to
22:52:33 <Josh_Soref> ... thankfully
22:52:43 <Josh_Soref> ... slightly more rusted
22:52:48 <Josh_Soref> ... help is welcome
22:53:05 <Josh_Soref> ... we split the sections into Core, Layout, Typography, Animations and Transitions
22:53:16 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 Style - Core
22:53:52 <koichi> koichi has joined #coremob
22:53:55 <Josh_Soref> jet: how many pages is CSS2.1?
22:54:02 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: something like 300
22:54:11 <Josh_Soref> ... anyone developing web sites today
22:54:19 <Josh_Soref> ... assuming all of 2.1 is implemented everywhere
22:54:27 <Josh_Soref> ... excluding page breaks
22:54:32 <Josh_Soref> ... people will probably depend on most of it
22:54:41 <Josh_Soref> jet: is it reasonable to expect printing
22:54:46 <Josh_Soref> ... which is a chunk of 2.1
22:54:48 <Josh_Soref> ... to work
22:54:55 <Josh_Soref> ... i've never seen a phone try to print
22:55:00 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: that might be an exception
22:55:08 <Josh_Soref> jet: could we say it's not a requirement
22:55:16 <jo> q?
22:55:20 <Josh_Soref> darobin: if your phone is able to print
22:55:28 <Josh_Soref> .... should it not support pages media?
22:55:30 <Josh_Soref> q+
22:55:39 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: there are UCs for paged media other than printing
22:55:46 <Josh_Soref> jo: a tablet could be paged medium
22:56:17 <jo> ack j
22:56:17 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I know that Mozilla has the ability to generate PDFs, and other groups are capable as well
22:56:36 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: While printing to a dead tree is slightly more rare, printing to a persistent medium and push it off somewhere else isn't a useless requirement
22:56:43 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I have a number of cases where I want to do that
22:56:58 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: E.g. a receipt generated on the fly
22:57:20 <fantasai> darobin: or printing your boarding pass
22:57:44 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: precisely that
22:58:19 <darobin> ACTION: Tobie to document that we have printing use cases in the UC&R document
22:58:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Document that we have printing use cases in the UC&R document [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
22:58:37 <Robert_Shilston> Robert_Shilston has joined #coremob
22:59:04 <tobie> ACTION: tobie to add subsection numbers.
22:59:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Add subsection numbers. [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
22:59:34 <Josh_Soref> tobie: CSS3 backgrounds and borders
22:59:42 <Josh_Soref> ... if you have something to say, please speak up
22:59:59 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: people will depend on most of those
23:00:13 <Josh_Soref> ... the exception is box-decoration-break
23:00:18 <Josh_Soref> ... which is AT-RISK
23:00:24 <Eunjoo> Eunjoo has joined #Coremob
23:00:26 <Josh_Soref> jo: objections?
23:00:28 <Josh_Soref> [ None ]
23:00:32 <Josh_Soref> tobie: CSS Color?
23:00:36 <Josh_Soref> ... straightforward
23:00:41 <Josh_Soref> jo: objections?
23:00:43 <Josh_Soref> [ None ]
23:00:48 <Josh_Soref> tobie: CSS Values?
23:00:59 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: Values and Units will go to CR once we finish DoC
23:01:05 <Josh_Soref> ... what would be useful to the CSS WG is
23:01:14 <Josh_Soref> ... if people took a stab at figuring out prioritization
23:01:19 <Josh_Soref> ... and addressed UCs
23:01:31 <Josh_Soref> ... this is a collection of features that can be independently in any order
23:01:44 <Josh_Soref> ... if CoreMob has feedback on implementation order
23:01:56 <Josh_Soref> darobin: we want rem and calc()
23:02:04 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: what about viewport units?
23:02:10 <Josh_Soref> darobin: nice to have, but less important
23:02:35 <darobin> ACTION: Robin to propose priorities for CSS Values parts, get agreement from CG, send to CSS WG
23:02:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Propose priorities for CSS Values parts, get agreement from CG, send to CSS WG [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-02].
23:02:52 <Josh_Soref> tobie: Image Values and Replaced Content
23:03:06 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: again, a handful of features implementable in any order
23:03:16 <Josh_Soref> ... prioritization, testing efforts, lobbying everforts
23:03:21 <Josh_Soref> darobin: we want gradients
23:03:31 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: yeah, i think that's on everyone's list
23:03:47 <darobin> ACTION: Robin to propose priorities for CSS Image Values and Replaced Content parts, get agreement from CG, send to CSS WG
23:03:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Propose priorities for CSS Image Values and Replaced Content parts, get agreement from CG, send to CSS WG [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-07-02].
23:03:53 <Josh_Soref> tobie: Media Queries
23:03:57 <fantasai> s/prioritization,/would be helpful to have a prioritized list to focus/
23:03:59 <Josh_Soref> ... i think that reached REC two days ago
23:04:10 <Josh_Soref> issue-11?
23:04:10 <trackbot> ISSUE-11 -- No spec effort around momentum scrolling -- raised
23:04:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/11
23:04:22 <Josh_Soref> tobie: a core request is momentum scrolling
23:04:29 <Josh_Soref> ... probably 100 libraries that fake that
23:04:33 <Josh_Soref> darobin: poorly
23:04:39 <Josh_Soref> tobie: there's no spec effort at this point
23:04:49 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i do :)
23:04:59 <Josh_Soref> ... one would be to start a thread on www-style explaining what you want
23:05:06 <Josh_Soref> ... we don't have any open requests on the list
23:05:31 <Josh_Soref> ... so the ability to turn on momentum scrolling somehow
23:05:36 <Josh_Soref> darobin: without scripting
23:05:40 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: said a note
23:06:05 <ming> we need to check whether momentum scrolling has anything to do with patent
23:06:07 <Josh_Soref> wesj: can you explain this
23:06:13 <Josh_Soref> ... how does this different from overflow:scroll
23:06:20 <Josh_Soref> rob: on iOS, you need two fingers
23:06:24 <Josh_Soref> ... instead of 1
23:06:28 <Josh_Soref> wesj: is that a bug?
23:06:38 <Josh_Soref> darobin: it's the difference between panning and scrolling
23:06:49 <Josh_Soref> wesj: in our implementation, we try to figure it out
23:06:53 <darobin> ACTION: Tobie to send use cases about overflow scrolling to www-style
23:06:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Send use cases about overflow scrolling to www-style [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
23:06:59 <Josh_Soref> tobie: as far as i'm concerned, it can be an implementation issue
23:07:17 <Josh_Soref> dehghan: i think hardware issues will influence what can be done
23:07:29 <darobin> ISSUE-11?
23:07:29 <trackbot> ISSUE-11 -- No spec effort around momentum scrolling -- raised
23:07:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/11
23:07:39 <darobin> ISSUE-11: Tobie has ACTION-14 on this
23:07:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-11 No spec effort around momentum scrolling notes added
23:07:48 <darobin> ACTION-14: this relates to ISSUE-11
23:07:48 <trackbot> ACTION-14 Send use cases about overflow scrolling to www-style notes added
23:07:52 <Josh_Soref> jfmoy: i have a comment on MQs
23:08:20 <darobin> ISSUE-9: Robin has ACTION-10 on this
23:08:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-9 CSS Values is still a WD notes added
23:08:37 <darobin> ISSUE-10: Robin has ACTION-13 on this
23:08:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-10 CSS Image Values is a CR notes added
23:08:44 <Josh_Soref> ... as a developer, i'd like to be able to have a way for resources not to be downloaded
23:09:02 <Josh_Soref> ... for inactive MQs
23:09:57 <Josh_Soref> tobie: are you saying implementations should only be downloading stuff that's in the MQ that's active?
23:10:03 <Josh_Soref> darobin: that's a thorny issue
23:10:11 <Josh_Soref> ... imagine you have a MQ that triggers off rotation
23:10:19 <Josh_Soref> ... you now need to load stuff for landscape
23:10:42 <Josh_Soref> ... for wrong res resources
23:10:45 <Josh_Soref> ... you don't want that
23:11:14 <fantasai> darobin: on the other hand, if your device is 800x600, know you won't need resources for sizes above that
23:11:24 <fantasai> darobin: This is probably a quality of implementation issue
23:11:31 <tobie> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10XvzfAOVx2di22xtvs9TXXNH4d3tmDtGg8XiKScnR7E/edit?pli=1
23:11:44 <jo> q?
23:11:57 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: why not just ask consumers two specify resources once in a preload area
23:12:16 <Josh_Soref> rob: why not ask for a way to a specify "only download if X is active"
23:12:23 <Josh_Soref> darobin: that's what i was thinking
23:12:29 <Josh_Soref> ... but i don't think we want that to be normative
23:12:35 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we can publish a NOTE
23:12:49 <Josh_Soref> ... if you want to take an ACTION to draft something like that
23:12:53 <Josh_Soref> ... it doesn't have to be long
23:13:01 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe a two page document describing how this can work
23:13:06 <Josh_Soref> ... i can help
23:13:15 <Josh_Soref> ... circulate it among implementations
23:13:41 <Josh_Soref> jo: i don't think it's this group's responsibility to do it
23:14:07 <Josh_Soref> ... we could suggest app producers to do things server side to suggest preloading
23:14:18 <Josh_Soref> ... from the CSS WG perspective, is "Core" the right word
23:14:23 <darobin> ACTION: Rob to draft a non-normative document with Implementation Notes about how to load assets depending on MQs that can never become true (with help from Robin)
23:14:23 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Rob
23:14:26 <Josh_Soref> ... is there a preferred term?
23:14:39 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i don't understand what you're trying to say
23:14:49 <Robert_Shilston> Robert_Shilston has joined #coremob
23:15:02 <darobin> ACTION: Robert to draft a non-normative document with Implementation Notes about how to load assets depending on MQs that can never become true (with help from Robin)
23:15:02 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Robert
23:15:02 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. rshilsto2, raccettu)
23:15:05 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i bucketed layout, typography, animation
23:15:10 <Josh_Soref> ... and had something left over
23:15:15 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i don't see Selectors 3
23:15:23 <Josh_Soref> ... it's a Core thing, it's done
23:15:28 <darobin> ACTION: Shilston to draft a non-normative document with Implementation Notes about how to load assets depending on MQs that can never become true (with help from Robin)
23:15:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Draft a non-normative document with Implementation Notes about how to load assets depending on MQs that can never become true (with help from Robin) [on Robert Shilston - due 2012-07-02].
23:15:30 <Josh_Soref> ... it's a REC and has been a while
23:15:38 <Josh_Soref> ... i think you can split this into Graphical and Processing
23:15:48 <Josh_Soref> ... values, units, selectors, MQs are processing
23:16:02 <Josh_Soref> ... color, backgrounds and borders, image values are graphical
23:16:32 <jo> ACTION: Tobie to split section 3.1 per fantasia's suggestion
23:16:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-16 - Split section 3.1 per fantasia's suggestion [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
23:16:45 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i split things in CSS3 into graphical, typographic, layout, processing
23:16:59 <jo> ACTION: Tobie to add CSS-3 selectors to section 3.1
23:16:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - Add CSS-3 selectors to section 3.1 [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
23:17:00 <Josh_Soref> tobie: => chairs, and add Selectors, which is an oversight
23:17:07 <fantasai> These are the categories I had in a presentation I wrote:
23:17:17 <fantasai> Processing Power, Decoration, Typography & Internationalization, Layout 
23:17:26 <Josh_Soref> issue-17?
23:17:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- Resolution-friendly image format (for responsive images) -- raised
23:17:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/17
23:17:30 <fantasai> (Animations might be another category)
23:17:31 <darobin> ACTION-15: jfmoy also wants to participate
23:17:31 <trackbot> ACTION-15 Draft a non-normative document with Implementation Notes about how to load assets depending on MQs that can never become true (with help from Robin) notes added
23:17:50 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i pasted a link on irc from Paul Irish on Chrome
23:17:56 <Josh_Soref> ... asking for input from web developers
23:18:06 <Josh_Soref> ... asking what they were missing in mobile browsers
23:18:27 <Josh_Soref> ... one thing missing was
23:18:32 <Josh_Soref> ... a way to have pictures
23:18:57 <Josh_Soref> ... different size/resolutions selected automatically
23:19:03 <Josh_Soref> ... there was a CG that worked on it
23:19:16 <Josh_Soref> ... what came out was a proposal overloading src
23:19:36 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: Flexbox should be in CR by end of July
23:19:43 <Josh_Soref> ... w/ 4 impls by end of the year
23:20:01 <Josh_Soref> tobie: "srcset"
23:20:32 <Josh_Soref> jo: what do you want from this group?
23:20:41 <Josh_Soref> tobie: this is something developers are requesting as something they really need
23:20:55 <Josh_Soref> ... members of this group have expressed the network info api could be a solution
23:20:58 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't think it is
23:21:01 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: it isn't <period>
23:21:10 <Josh_Soref> tobie: it's an issue developers are facing
23:21:16 <Josh_Soref> ... given the scope of this group
23:22:12 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: tobie could write an informative note explaining what network info won't help
23:22:18 <darobin> ACTION: Tobie to write up an informative note about why Network Information API does not solve the responsive images issue
23:22:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Write up an informative note about why Network Information API does not solve the responsive images issue [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
23:23:12 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 Layout
23:23:18 <Josh_Soref> tobie: CSS Flex Box
23:23:25 <Josh_Soref> rob: can we add CSS3 to this?
23:23:29 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i don't think you want to do that.
23:23:42 <Josh_Soref> tobie: haven't 2d and 3d transforms been merged into the same spec?
23:23:49 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: yes, they have
23:23:54 <Josh_Soref> ... and they're moving forward
23:24:06 <Josh_Soref> s/CSS3/CSS3 Regions/
23:24:20 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: there doesn't seem to be consensus in CSS WG that regions in the current state is what we want
23:24:28 <Josh_Soref> ... so i'm not sure it's a good idea to include it here
23:24:52 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i'm not sure what the status of flexbox is
23:25:01 <Josh_Soref> ... my understanding is mozilla implemented and speced a while back
23:25:07 <Josh_Soref> ... it was sent to W3
23:25:18 <Josh_Soref> ... and then redone by webkit
23:25:26 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: the spec was sent to w3 a while back
23:25:40 <Josh_Soref> ... a couple of years ago Tab from Google and Alex from MS have been working on it
23:25:46 <Josh_Soref> ... LC will be ending next week
23:25:49 <Josh_Soref> ... comments need to be sent now
23:25:57 <Josh_Soref> ... Opera, Mozilla, WebKit, MS are all implementing
23:26:08 <Josh_Soref> ... expect Impls and CR by end of year
23:26:23 <jo> close ISSUE-12
23:26:23 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 Flexbox is a WD closed
23:26:50 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: since 3d transforms is part of the same spec
23:27:07 <Josh_Soref> ... is it intentional to reference it as required in the same way as 2d?
23:27:13 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i don't have an opinion
23:27:22 <Josh_Soref> jo: anyone have an opinion?
23:27:48 <Josh_Soref> ... would 3d be performant on the devices that interest us?
23:28:31 <Josh_Soref> lbolstad: 3d transforms have other requirements on underlying hardware
23:29:11 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i think 3d transforms are in there
23:29:22 <Josh_Soref> ... i think originally only 2d transforms were in there
23:29:28 <jo> ISSUE: Is 3D in scope under 3.2 Layout?
23:29:28 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-21 - Is 3D in scope under 3.2 Layout? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/21/edit .
23:29:30 <Josh_Soref> ... when i was writing the document
23:29:38 <Josh_Soref> ... i saw it was going to be folded in there
23:29:48 <Josh_Soref> ... so i saw an easy solution to just reference the single document
23:29:54 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 Typography
23:30:09 <Josh_Soref> tobie: CSS Fonts, WOFF, CSS Text
23:30:32 <Josh_Soref> ... there's an issue w/ CSS Text
23:30:36 <Josh_Soref> ... darobin and i looked at it
23:30:42 <Josh_Soref> ... the only thing we needed was text-shadow
23:30:52 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i recall ringmark also wanted word-break
23:31:01 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm wondering why that wound up in ringmark
23:31:11 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe it's a typo for word-wrap
23:31:14 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i don't know
23:31:25 <darobin> ISSUE-13?
23:31:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- CSS Text is in WD -- raised
23:31:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/13
23:31:33 <Josh_Soref> fantasai: i think subsetting css text is what you want to do
23:31:37 <darobin> ISSUE-13: do we need word-break as in the tests?
23:31:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-13 CSS Text is in WD notes added
23:32:02 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Does Ringmark know why it's adding tests for something?
23:32:21 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: Can we have an explanation of why things are added?
23:32:35 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i think this is best asked tomorrow morning
23:32:39 <Josh_Soref> ... with mattkelly answering
23:32:41 <girlie_mac> word-break is needed for Asian chars, probably?
23:33:06 <Dong-Young> I don't think word-break is needed for Asian chars
23:33:24 <Josh_Soref> jet: same comments as lbolstad apply for animations
23:33:46 <Josh_Soref> i/apply/Topic: Level 1 Animations and Transitions/
23:34:14 <jo> ISSUE: do we consider 3D in scope under 3.4 Animations?
23:34:14 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-22 - Do we consider 3D in scope under 3.4 Animations? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/22/edit .
23:34:49 <Josh_Soref> rob: could people think about how we'd test performance on animations?
23:35:05 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 Scripting
23:35:08 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
23:35:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
23:35:40 <Josh_Soref> tobie: are we ok w/ ECMAScript 5.1?
23:35:53 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Level 1 DOM
23:35:59 <Josh_Soref> tobie: are we ok w/ DOM4?
23:36:03 <Josh_Soref> tobie: are we ok w/ Selectors?
23:36:44 <Josh_Soref> jet: Touch Events had a PAG
23:36:58 <Josh_Soref> tobie: i believe the PAG concluded
23:37:14 <Josh_Soref> darobin: those patents were /mocked/
23:37:22 <Josh_Soref> tobie: ... as non essential
23:37:52 <Josh_Soref> darobin: i'd like to add a section "for each thing that is hardware dependent"
23:38:02 <Josh_Soref> rob: this should is for hardware-dependence?
23:38:06 <Josh_Soref> [ Yes ]
23:39:06 <Josh_Soref> darobin: you don't want should's because otherwise you'd need a should for CSS in case a monochrome couldn't support 'red'
23:39:39 <Josh_Soref> s/Topic: Level 1 /Topic: /g
23:39:43 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Storage
23:39:57 <Josh_Soref> DanSun: can we expand storage to include quota management?
23:40:14 <darobin> ACTION: Tobie to throw in Quota API
23:40:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Throw in Quota API [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
23:40:51 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: I believe some browser vendors don't agree with direction filewriter is going in
23:41:08 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: There are several specs evolving in diff directions that not everyone agrees with
23:41:15 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: What are they trying to do, do we need all of them
23:41:29 <fantasai> Tobie: Should be trivial to implement on top of indexedDB
23:41:47 <fantasai> Tobie: Would like to pose this as an area where there is no agreement in terms of what spec is going to do what and what implementers are going to do
23:42:15 <fantasai> Jo: Is your suggestion that we should include, or should come back to it when it becomes clearer?
23:42:31 <fantasai> DanSun: What's the alternate solution?
23:42:48 <fantasai> Jo: Let's raise an issue then on including file writer api or an alternate solution in this spec
23:43:04 <darobin> ACTION: Tobie to include FileWriter or an alternative to the spec
23:43:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Include FileWriter or an alternative to the spec [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-07-02].
23:43:25 <darobin> ISSUE: is there an alternative to FileWriter? FileSaver? Something else?
23:43:25 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-23 - Is there an alternative to FileWriter? FileSaver? Something else? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/23/edit .
23:43:29 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: There are at least 3 apis running around
23:43:39 <fantasai> Tobie: Any other issues with this section?
23:43:45 <fantasai> Tobie: Moving to 4.4 Networking
23:43:50 <fantasai> Tobie: i.e. XHR
23:44:06 <fantasai> Tobie: Opened an issue because there used to be 2 specs, L1 and L2. They're folded together in the editor's draft
23:44:10 <fantasai> Tobie: not reflected in /TR yet
23:44:32 <fantasai> Tobie: it's an editing issue
23:45:08 <fantasai> Tobie: Question about web sockets
23:45:17 <fantasai> Tobie: Not that many use cases for it that have been brought up
23:45:26 <fantasai> Tobie: A lot of .. among imples due to protocol problem
23:45:47 <fantasai> Tobie: I still stand that it's great ot do demos at this point, but I don't think there's a compelling use case for mobile apps today
23:46:06 <fantasai> Tobie: However if every impl has it, and agreement on the spec, could add it. Don't have a strong opinion
23:46:30 <fantasai> Wes: Seemed useful for mobile gaming and multiplayer apps, chat, etc.
23:46:51 <fantasai> ACTION: Wesley Jonston to do something useful
23:46:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Jonston to do something useful [on Wesley Johnston - due 2012-07-02].
23:46:55 <darobin> ACTION: Wesley to provide use cases for WebSockets
23:46:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Provide use cases for WebSockets [on Wesley Johnston - due 2012-07-02].
23:48:07 <fantasai> Vidhya: Notifications used for activity streams etc., I've written code to do that. Haven't done it with mobile, but you can.
23:48:22 <fantasai> Vidhya: Whatever you say here, it will be widely supported. Will be de facto capability
23:48:35 <fantasai> Tobie: 2s background on why this is not in the spec
23:48:50 <fantasai> Tobie: We were targetting existing browsers, and those don't support websockets
23:48:51 <Josh_Soref> s/Robin:/darobin:/
23:49:00 <fantasai> Tobie: We picked up features not supported yet
23:49:06 <Josh_Soref> s/Vidhya:/vidhya:/G
23:49:11 <fantasai> Tobie: Some things that are de facto standards didn't make it in
23:49:18 <Josh_Soref> s/Tobie:/tobie:/G
23:49:20 <fantasai> Tobie: If there are ubiquitous in near future, then yes should be in the spec
23:49:25 <fantasai> Vidhya: It's de facto now
23:49:27 <Josh_Soref> s/Jo:/jo:/G
23:49:40 <fantasai> Vidhya: Think it's much more in gaming. It's only one use case.
23:49:44 <fantasai> Jo: interest of time...
23:49:49 <Josh_Soref> s/wonsuk:/Wonsuk:/G
23:49:55 <fantasai> Tobie: web messaging api and web workers
23:50:07 <fantasai> Tobie: I have an issue with webworker mostly because of shared webworkers
23:50:18 <Josh_Soref> s/Minjing:/ming:/g
23:50:22 <fantasai> Tobie: I'm not sure.. I thought there were some issues with implementing shared workers ~ security
23:50:31 <fantasai> Tobie: Not sure there are plans to implement them or not
23:50:36 <fantasai> Tobie: Feedback on that would be useful
23:51:01 <fantasai> Jo: Noted that Tobie would like feedback on that. Anything else to say on that?
23:51:20 <fantasai> Jo: Not sure what's the difference between netowkrin and network here, and can we include online state and network information?
23:51:30 <fantasai> darobin: Network info api? If pp want it...
23:51:36 <fantasai> Jo: Seems useless to me
23:51:43 <fantasai> tobie: It was in L1 before, but removed from spec
23:52:03 <fantasai> tobie: use cases, other than an app that tells you what your network status is, better solved by other things
23:52:08 <fantasai> darobin: doesn't even tell you [...]
23:52:21 <fantasai> tobie: there was a Mozilla proposal and another, confusing on which would do what
23:52:30 <fantasai> tobie: if there was consensus on what to ship, will add. But if not, want use cases
23:52:49 <fantasai> Jo: I asked for use cases and nobody came up with any
23:52:57 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: You can't give something particularly useful on average
23:53:08 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: The quality of service I have to one service and to another service might be totally different.
23:53:27 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: We talk in the US about Net Neutrality
23:53:34 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: it's relevant to this
23:53:48 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: If I'm on a network that's fast, doesn't mean my connection to a particular service is fast.
23:54:07 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: The only way to get a relevant answer is timing your own traffic
23:54:25 <fantasai> DanSung: From ? perspective, in certain perspectives, want to pick network you want traffic to go out on
23:54:30 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: This api doesn't help at all
23:54:40 <fantasai> darobin: you'd want something at the sysapps level
23:54:57 <fantasai> darobin: currently DAP has dropped what kind of network your'e on
23:55:08 <fantasai> darobin: dropped pretty much everything except notion of bandwidth, which is useless
23:55:21 <fantasai> darobin: and also notion of metered which is also useless
23:55:35 <fantasai> darobin: because roaming might be expensive in e.g. europe, but cheap in africa
23:55:49 <fantasai> darobin: Wouldn't include it here, bc don't know where it's going
23:56:09 <fantasai> tobie: only use case I've heard is switching to 3G to get location info for payments
23:56:18 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: That's the use case??!
23:56:39 <fantasai> Jean-françois: Not only use case, also about ...
23:56:59 <fantasai> DanSun: What about online state?
23:57:05 <fantasai> darobin: it's in HTML5
23:57:23 <fantasai> Robert_Shilston: That should be deprecated. We should advocate that that be deprecated.
23:57:30 <darobin> ACTION: Shilston to draft a proposal to drop online events from HTML5
23:57:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Draft a proposal to drop online events from HTML5 [on Robert Shilston - due 2012-07-02].
23:57:34 <Josh_Soref> s/Jean-françois:/jfmoy:/
23:58:22 <fantasai> Robert_Shilston: HTTP1.1 has proxy-switching features
23:58:37 <fantasai> ... that could be used for some of these use cases
23:59:09 <darobin> ACTION: Jean-François to send a note with the actual real use cases for Network Information (with help from Dan Sun)
23:59:09 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jean-François
23:59:14 <darobin> ACTION: Jean-Francois to send a note with the actual real use cases for Network Information (with help from Dan Sun)
23:59:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Send a note with the actual real use cases for Network Information (with help from Dan Sun) [on Jean-Francois Moy - due 2012-07-02].
23:59:43 <fantasai> tobie: Sensors should be pretty straightforward.
23:59:59 <fantasai> darobin: There are no two browsers that will return the same info for DeviceOrientation, and none of them matches the spec
00:00:13 <fantasai> Sun: Can we include the proximity sensor?
00:00:21 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: There's a spec for that in DAP
00:00:30 <fantasai> tobie: what are vendors going to do about that?
00:01:01 <fantasai> ...
00:01:12 <fantasai> darobin: it's about not pressing buttons when on a call
00:01:16 <fantasai> tobie: not valid use cases
00:01:30 <darobin> ISSUE: Should we require Proximity Events?
00:01:30 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-24 - Should we require Proximity Events? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/24/edit .
00:01:37 <fantasai> Josh_Soref questioned whether either use cases was used for app as opposed to runtime/device
00:02:07 <Josh_Soref> s/Josh_Soref questioned/Josh_Soref: I question/
00:02:13 <fantasai> topic: Multimedia
00:02:24 <fantasai> tobie: 2 items: canvas2d api and timing animations api
00:02:35 <fantasai> tobie: quality of implementation issues there
00:02:45 <fantasai> darobin: I would rather not rathole in the note, deal as part of testing
00:03:08 <fantasai> sun: web audio apis?
00:03:20 <fantasai> darobin: I don't think they have anything that's anywhere near stable enough
00:03:27 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: does any implementer plan to implement it?
00:03:58 <fantasai> sun: 2 levels - 1 is prioritizing features for the browsers, another is to prioritize features for w3c to make a spec
00:04:10 <fantasai> darobin: The web audio Wg has as its one and only priority to do this
00:04:24 <Josh_Soref> s/Wg/WG/
00:04:29 <fantasai> darobin: reason not more finalized is because it's actually a hard problem. They've been working reasonably fast, but will take 1-2 years before what they have is anywhere near ready
00:04:38 <fantasai> darobin: gathering a lot of implementation experience, moving forward, but not mature enough
00:04:53 <fantasai> darobin: Everything in that spec will change over the next few months and years
00:05:02 <fantasai> sun: Contacts and calendar?
00:05:11 <fantasai> tobie: new proposal a day and a half ago, didn't have time to look into it
00:05:37 <fantasai> darobin: Just to be clear, in this case  we would not include support for calendar or ?, because all UA needs to do is support WebIntents
00:05:42 <fantasai> darobin: question is, do we want to include that in L1
00:05:58 <fantasai> tobie: a lot of questions around that spec
00:06:04 <Josh_Soref> s/Sun: Can/DanSun: Can/
00:06:08 <fantasai> tobie: Mozilla shipped proposal just 1.5 weeks ago on web activities
00:06:14 <Josh_Soref> s/sun: web/DanSun: web/
00:06:28 <fantasai> DanSun: ... still think it's super early to include it in there and hope to have implementations within the timeframe of the spec
00:07:17 <fantasai> fantasai: What is the timeframe for the spec?
00:07:21 <fantasai> tobie: Q4
00:07:26 <fantasai> fantasai: And implementing the spec?
00:07:29 <fantasai> tobie: Q4
00:07:31 <darobin> ISSUE: Should Level 1 include Web Intents?
00:07:32 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-25 - Should Level 1 include Web Intents? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/25/edit .
00:07:45 <fantasai> fantasai: Semes like you might want to revisit some of these, especially ones that you're including that don't have a spec
00:08:09 <fantasai> ...
00:08:24 <fantasai> darobin: For notification vibrations, you don't want vibration api -- that's for games. For notifications you want the notification api
00:08:34 <Josh_Soref> s/Wes:/wesj:/
00:08:36 <Josh_Soref> s/wes:/wesj:/
00:08:44 <darobin> ISSUE-25: use cases include contacts and calendar for instance
00:08:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-25 Should Level 1 include Web Intents? notes added
00:08:46 <fantasai> darobin: that being said, vibration api might be something to consider
00:09:02 <fantasai> tobie: consider impl state
00:09:05 <Josh_Soref> s/DanSung:/DanSun:/
00:09:08 <fantasai> darobin: in webkit and gecko already, don't know about Opera
00:09:20 <fantasai> tobie: ok, let's open an issue and try to get developer feedback
00:09:21 <darobin> ISSUE: Should we include the Vibration API?
00:09:21 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-26 - Should we include the Vibration API? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/26/edit .
00:09:30 <fantasai> tobie: one thing not in there, don't remember why, is event source
00:09:40 <fantasai> darobin to track it
00:09:40 <darobin> ISSUE-26: we should ask developers
00:09:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-26 Should we include the Vibration API? notes added
00:09:48 <darobin> ISSUE: Should Level 1 include SSE?
00:09:48 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-27 - Should Level 1 include SSE? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/27/edit .
00:09:54 <fantasai> tobie: No comments on this section? Move on to network?
00:10:04 <fantasai> tobie: this is the last section
00:10:22 <fantasai> tobie: if anyone can help me find the OMA mmsto spec, that'd be helpful
00:11:15 <fantasai> Jo: I think we need to look at HTTP1.1 in more granularity
00:11:24 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: data is a problem
00:11:35 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: there's a number of browsers get things wrong with it
00:11:39 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: need testcases
00:11:44 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: but can't assume it'll be fixed quickly
00:12:24 <fantasai> Jo: HTTP1.1 tests will be hard to write
00:12:35 <fantasai> darobin: but that won't be solved by referencing HTTP1.0
00:12:44 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: reference BIZ
00:13:01 <fantasai> Josh_Soref: and SPDY / HTTP 2
00:13:05 <darobin> s/BIZ/bis/
00:13:19 <fantasai> Jo: Do we want to mandate the whole of 1.1?
00:13:42 <fantasai> Josh_Soref is conerned about testing difficulty of writing tests
00:13:53 <fantasai> tobie think that's not a reason to include/exclude a thing that devs need
00:14:10 <fantasai> tobie: whether it's hard to test is orthogonal to whether it's required to build a certain app
00:15:30 <fantasai> Jo: conformance is measured by conf test suite of referenced spec
00:15:40 <fantasai> Jo: There isn't one here. And a lot of HTTP that isn't necessary here
00:15:53 <fantasai> jo: I don't want to spend any more of my life on that rfc...
00:16:12 <darobin> ACTION: Jo to write something about conforming to HTTP/1.1
00:16:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Write something about conforming to HTTP/1.1 [on Jo Rabin - due 2012-07-03].
00:16:13 <Dong-Young> this seems to be mmsto spec: http://openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/docs/uri_schemes/v1_0-20080626-a/oma-ts-uri_schemes-v1_0-20080626-a.pdf
00:16:55 <darobin> ISSUE: Should the HTTP11 reference go to bis?
00:16:55 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-28 - Should the HTTP11 reference go to bis? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/28/edit .
00:18:41 <fantasai> Jo: Let's thank authors of this document for preparing it so that we could review it
00:18:48 <darobin> RESOLUTION: thanks for the authors
00:18:54 <fantasai> Jo: would like to also thank our wonderful scribes for today and look forward to their scribing for tomorrow
00:19:00 <fantasai> Jo: ditto hosts
00:19:04 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
00:19:50 <darobin> RESOLUTION: thanks to our wonderful scribes, we look forward to more of their scribing tomorrow
00:19:59 <Josh_Soref> http://www.openmobilealliance.org/Technical/release_program/docs/URI_Schemes/V1_0-20080626-A/OMA-TS-URI_Schemes-V1_0-20080626-A.pdf
00:20:01 <darobin> RESOLUTION: many thanks for Facebook for excellent hosting
00:20:43 <Wonsuk> Wonsuk has left #coremob
00:20:56 <ming> RRSAgent, generate notes
00:20:56 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'generate notes', ming.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
00:21:53 <Josh_Soref> s/Minjing/Ming Jin/
00:22:01 <Josh_Soref> present+ Ming_Jin
00:22:11 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
00:22:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
00:24:08 <Josh_Soref> s/Rob_Shilston/Robert_Shilston/g
00:24:21 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
00:24:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/25-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref
00:25:40 <Josh_Soref> s/sun: 2/DanSun: 2/
00:25:50 <Josh_Soref> s/sun: Contacts/DanSun: Contacts/