- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:43:25 +0900
- To: "public-tvapi@w3.org" <public-tvapi@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9XgBhNRgH1MU5VO59cRo9hctUs8bjWVFp_FVgbyGbg=JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi group, Bin has kindly created the wiki page for our Phase 2 contribution at: https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/wiki/Main_Page/Phase2_Technical_Use_Cases Your contributions are very welcome :) Thanks, Kazuyuki On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote: > available at: > http://www.w3.org/2015/11/10-tvapi-minutes.html > > also as text below. > > Congrats for publishing the spec draft and the group's > next steps, Bin and all the participants! > > Kazuyuki > > --- > > [1]W3C > > [1] http://www.w3.org/ > > - DRAFT - > > TV Control API CG > > 10 Nov 2015 > > [2]Agenda > > [2] https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/wiki/Main_Page/Agenda_Telco_Nov_10_2015 > > See also: [3]IRC log > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/10-tvapi-irc > > Attendees > > Present > Kaz_Ashimura, Tatsuya_Igarashi, Bin_Hu, Chris_Needham, > Paul_Higgs, Sean_Lin, SungHei_Kim > > Regrets > Chair > Bin_Hu > > Scribe > Kaz > > Contents > > * [4]Topics > 1. [5]action items > 2. [6]publish TV Control API v1.0 and next steps > * [7]Summary of Action Items > __________________________________________________________ > > <Bin_Hu> > [8]https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/wiki/Main_Page/Agenda_Tel > co_Nov_10_2015 > > [8] https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/wiki/Main_Page/Agenda_Telco_Nov_10_2015 > > <scribe> scribe: Kaz > > <scribe> scribenick: kaz > > action items > > -> [9]http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/open > actions > > [9] http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/open > > action-41? > > <trackbot> action-41 -- Sean Lin to Verify the cas-related > changes proposed. -- due 2015-10-06 -- OPEN > > <trackbot> > [10]http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/41 > > [10] http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/41 > > bin: already done > > close action-41 > > <trackbot> Closed action-41. > > action-42? > > <trackbot> action-42 -- Sean Lin to Review the emails around > program.data.detail and implement/remove requirement. -- due > 2015-10-06 -- OPEN > > <trackbot> > [11]http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/42 > > [11] http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/42 > > close action-42 > > <trackbot> Closed action-42. > > publish TV Control API v1.0 and next steps > > bin: sent out the review request > ... Sean has revised the spec based on the comments > ... also we got a liaison statement from ATSC > ... they're evaluating the spec > ... one of the questions was the plan for the spec > ... would proposed we go ahead and publish the spec by the end > of November > ... the quality of the spec is not perfect but could be > implementable > ... next step would be bringing it to the WG status to make it > a W3C Rec > > paul: we started the CG to create the draft > ... would this CG continue the work after the publication? > ... what would be the procedure? > > bin: good question > ... there is the Web&TV IG which work on use cases and > requirements > ... 2 years ago we collected use cases within the IG > ... and then we created this CG to generate a spec > ... that's the background > ... the IG and the CG are separate from the process viewpoint > ... there are two possibilities > ... 1. we continue to work as a CG > ... we had a collection of technical use cases and requirements > ... we can continue this model within the CG > ... basically no big changes > ... 2. another possibility given the broader interest from, > e.g., ATSC > ... is creating a WG to generate a formal W3C Rec > ... Working Group is a formal group of W3C which generates W3C > Recommendations > ... starting with WD followed by LC/CR, PR and Rec > ... need to develop test cases as well > ... define test success criteria > ... check successfully passed all the tests > ... we have done a great job and generated a spec draft > ... the possible WG would help us improve the spec draft > ... W3C specs require stricter procedures > ... W3C Team Staff (Yosuke, Francois and Kaz) are involved > ... Francois has generated a draft charter document > > <Bin_Hu> > [12]http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html > > [12] http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html > > bin: email discussion with Francois yesterday > ... would suggest we review the draft charter > ... scope, further work, etc. > ... after that the charter will be reviewed by all the AC Reps > ... considering the timing as well > ... WG need, e.g., 2 years, to make the spec a W3C Rec. > ... HTML5 needed 7 years > ... the official AC Review may end up with a formal objection > ... a very early draft of the proposed WG Charter is generated > by Francois > ... would review until the next call on Dec. 8 > ... and at the Dec. 8 call, would make a consensus > ... and in January we'd ask the AC for review > ... the AC might be going to support our proposal, but maybe > not > > igarashi: some comment > ... Sony has joined this CG recently because of the ATSC > standardization > ... during the f2f meeting in Sapporo, we discussed ATSC > liaison as well > ... can't say beyond the liaison, but Sony would like to create > a WG and work with you > > bin: tx! > ... glad to hear you would support the WG and contribute to it > ... helpful to everybody here > ... great news > ... what do you think, Chris? > > cpn: their contribution is very welcome > > bin: what do you think about the plan? > > cpn: the plan sounds good > ... with the support from Sony > ... a question about the spec in the current shape > ... which should be the final spec of the CG > ... and what should be taken over by the WG? > > bin: security/privacy, hardware issues may take another 6 > months > ... need coordination with the other groups > ... we should discuss that > > cpn: agree > ... possibly new spec for the CG > ... existing spec for WG > > bin: right > ... need to have something closed > ... having the current spec closed and let people give us > feedback > ... would help us > ... and minimize the issues > > igarashi: security and privacy is a new issue > ... CG could continue to address that > ... but we should keep the momentum > ... the core spec should be brought to the REC stage asap > ... we need implementations > ... and we could handle security&privacy in parallel > > kaz: explains the situation of the Automotive BG/WG > ... the BG generated a draft spec and the WG took over it and > focus on the REC track side > ... on the other hand, both the BG and WG form a TF and > collaboratively work on security&privacy incident > cases/requirements > > bin: tx! > ... our core group should focus on the REC trac work > ... and the TF (or the CG) handles the security&privacy portion > ... similar to the Automotive groups and HTML5/5.1 > > cpn: will we continue email discussions? > > bin: first review the Charter till Dec. 8 > ... clarify why we need to work in this WG setting > ... would create an entry to the wiki > ... so that people can raise issues and use case/requirements > ... we can start the work immediately > > cpn: yeah > ... so your suggestion is creating a wiki > ... and I can add descriptions > > bin: yes, I'll create a wiki > ... also would work with Francois, Kaz, etc. > ... and all the participants, please give your feedback > ... and we'd have more stable and improved Charter document by > Dec. 8 > > paul: we need implementations > ... not sure what that really means > ... in Chrome, IE, Safari, etc.? > ... if somebody implemented the feature within Blink > ... would that suffice? > > bin: implementation means user agents > ... and generally available > ... another possibility is non-shipping products > ... to check conformance we need test specs > ... implementations must be stable but not have to be a formal > product > > kaz: explains the implementation mechanism > ... need two implementations for each feature from the spec > ... if got two implementations but both are from a specific > source code trunk, sometimes we need to count them as one > implementation > > paul: ok > > igarashi: tv control api itself is independent from the > rendering engine > ... so more than one implementations which share the same > rendering engine could be counted as two (unless they are from > one specific code trunk) > > kaz: right > ... so web runtimes which don't have rendering part should be > also included > > igarashi: another question is if a prototype implementation ok? > > bin: could be a preview release or non-shipping product > > igarashi: tv control api strongly depends on hardware > ... so we need prototype implementations > > bin: yes > ... that should be considered > ... but the detail of the criteria is not defined by the W3C > Process > ... so we need to check with the W3C Team > > kaz: yes, that is the case with the Automotive group as well > > bin: for CR, we need to define the exit criteria > > kaz: right > ... and would confirm that everybody here is interested in > creating a WG :) > > bin: yes, that's my understanding > ... we'll discuss the draft charter on Dec. 8 > ... after this call, I'll create a wiki page to gather opinions > > cpn: just one comment > ... raised during the IG > ... the ML is very quiet > ... somebody should respond to the comments > > bin: good suggestion > ... e.g., the one from Sangwhan > ... let me respond to him > ... think all the comments should be handled by the next > version > ... tx for reminding me of that > > [ adjourned ] > > Summary of Action Items > > [End of minutes] > __________________________________________________________ > > > Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version > 1.140 ([14]CVS log) > $Date: 2015/11/10 15:19:16 $ > > [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ > > > -- Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 00:44:40 UTC