[Service Workers] meeting july/august?

[Chaals McCathie Nevile]

Hi folks,

at the last meeting people suggested another meeting in July/August.  
Should we be trying to schedule one?


The Editing folks are meeting in California 29 July. Something just before  
that would be very convenient for *me*. Others of course may have  
unaccountably different schedules. But it is generally good to give 8  
weeks notice so if people need to plan travel they can.


A meeting roughly a week after 29 July also works well for me.

Thoughts?

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
 cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

WP meetings at TPAC

[Léonie Watson]

Hello WP,

We have meeting space available throughout TPAC week [1]. The plan is to
focus on a different area of work each day, to help everyone schedule their
time a bit more easily.

We've posted meeting pages for each day:
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/Meetings.md

Monday 19th - Web Components
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/meetings/16-09-19WebComps
.md 

Tuesday 20th - Service Workers
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/meetings/16-09-20ServiceW
orkers.md 

Thursday 22nd - Editing and Selection
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/meetings/16-09-22EditingS
election.md 

Friday 23rd - HTML, Directory Upload, and WP plenary
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/meetings/16-09-23HTMLWP.m
d 

If you'll be at TPAC and expect to attend any of these meetings, please add
your name to the attendees list (or let us know so we can add your name).

We'll be shaping the agenda for each meeting as TPAC draws near, so posting
any possible agenda items would also be helpful.

Thanks, and as always if you have questions you know where to find us -
team-webplatf...@w3.org.

Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team.



-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem


Léonie.
[1] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/ 

About the packaging spec Re: CFC

[Chaals McCathie Nevile]

Hi Marcos,

On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:52:07 +0100,  wrote:


On 25 May 2016, at 3:54 AM, Léonie Watson  wrote:



At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the
Packaging on the Web specification [1] would benefit from further  
incubation before continuing along the Recommendation track.


This is a CFC to publish Packaging on the Web as a W3C note.


We generally "gut" Notes to avoid confusion and prevent implementation.  
It might be fine to gut it if there is no implementer interest  
(particularly give Service Workers and HTTP2).


But then, we should not use "incubation" as a euphemism for "no one is  
going to implement this and we don't want it" as it demeans the work of  
groups like the WIGC - that actually do incubation.


I agree that "We're trying to kill this work" should not be expressed as
"needs incubation". That's not the situation.


At least, I will strongly object to the use of that word if your
intention is to kill the spec.


It is not our intention to kill the spec, however we think that the
current approach should be sidelined - and if people are interested,
incubated - to make way for a shorter-term approach we believe will get
more traction as an interim solution.


So, what then is the real reason for WP terminating work on the spec?


You're right that we do not think the spec is going to go forward in a
hurry. It has several nice features, and we presume the TAG wasn't just
whistling in the wind, so incubating it seems a reasonable thing to do.

There is a lot of implementation of packaging mechanisms that are
basically "zip and a manifest". We expect that someone will propose
something based on that and that it can get traction - much like the
previous Recommendation along those lines, in which you were heavily
involved.

In the meantime, moving the current draft specification aside allows us to
start a new one, which clarifies the IPR situation - something we
understand is a concern for some members, even if only so they don't have
to get a legal clearance because we're basically rehashing old technology
with an established recommendation behind it, in a new syntax.


Can we see the minutes from the rationale given to the AC?


I doubt it. They are confidential and the work to get them approved for
release - asking everyone involved, given that they spoke in the
expectation of confidentiality - seems excessive for the relative value.
Since you personally have access, you're welcome to look and see if you
think it's worth the effort.


If the CFC passes, the transition of the specification to note status
will be done within the current WP WG charter.

If you have comments or concerns about this CFC, please send them to
public-webapps@w3.org no later than 2nd June 2016. Positive responses  
are preferred and encouraged, but silence will be considered as

agreement with the proposal.


Is the plan then to transition it to the WICG for incubation? If so, we  
can just take it and there is no need for process - but we only take it  
if there is actual implementer interest and not if it's not going  
anywhere.


That's a judgement call. *I* do not know of implementor interest.

cheers


Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team.
[1] http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/

--
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem









--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
   cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Re: [webvr] [gamepad] Missing VRPose for tracked controllers

[Justin Rogers]

Apologies if this comes across twice - the mailing list rejected my first
attempt :-)

Do we need to know if a given Gamepad is orientation only versus
position+orientation? I'm seeing a lot of devices that only know their
orientation and we could detect this by a 0,0,0 position, but having a flag
telling me if position will change could be useful. I just did a quick
review and I didn't see anything that would help me here.

Also, what about devices where the controllers report relative to the HMD
and the HMD is relative to world space? Do we want any new prose on VRPose
that covers these potentially more complicated scenarios?

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Kearwood "Kip" Gilbert <
kgilb...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Brandon Jones (Google) has made some experimental WebVR Chromium builds
> that include support for the HTC Vive VR motion controls.  We would like to
> propose this as a standard and update to the GamePad API.
>
> Brandon has started a thread on w3.org that gives some background:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2016AprJun/0052.html
>
> The WebVR API 1.0 has already extended the GamePad API by adding a
> “displayID” attribute:
>
> https://mozvr.com/webvr-spec/#interface-gamepad
>
> The proposal is to take this further and expose an optional “pose”
> attribute, which would return the same attributes within the VRPose:
>
> https://mozvr.com/webvr-spec/#interface-vrpose
>
> Cheers,
>  - Kearwood “Kip” Gilbert
>Platform Engineer, Mozilla VR Team
>
> On May 24, 2016, at 12:22 AM, Sven Neuhaus  wrote:
>
> Hello Florian,
>
> Thanks for pointing out the WebVR spec draft.
>
> The WebVR draft dated April 1st contains a Gamepad interface expansion
> (§2.11), however it only extends it by a DisplayId.
> It should also add a VRPose for tracked controllers.
>
> I think adding a VRPose could have benefits for non-VR applications as
> well (think about the Nintendo Wii controllers!), however. So my
> suggestion to add it to the Gamepad API still stands.
>
> Regards,
> -Sven Neuhaus
>
> Am 23.05.2016 um 15:52 schrieb Florian Bösch:
>
> The WebVR API models HMD pose and will model the gesture controllers.
> https://mozvr.com/webvr-spec/
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Sven Neuhaus  > wrote:
>
>
>I read the gamepad API description at
>https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Gamepad
>
>I think the gamepad API should support a VRpose for gamepad controllers
>like the ones included with the HTC Vive and the upcoming Oculus Touch
>controllers.
>
>I suggest that you add a getPose() method that returns a VRPose object
>for controllers that support tracking.
>
>The "orientation" property of the VRPose object could also be useful for
>some gamepads that include IMUs for orientation tracking.
>
>
> ___
> web-vr-discuss mailing list
> web-vr-disc...@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/web-vr-discuss
>
>
>
> ___
> web-vr-discuss mailing list
> web-vr-disc...@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/web-vr-discuss
>
>

Re: [webvr] [gamepad] Missing VRPose for tracked controllers

[Sven Neuhaus]

Am 24.05.16 um 20:50 schrieb Brandon Jones:
> Position/Orientation/Acceleration can always be reported as NULL, so
> that's what I would expect from controllers that don't support a
> particular pose value. That's a bit of a pain to use for feature
> detection purposes, though, so maybe a more explicit caps would be nice?

Yes. A "null" reading could also indicate an intermittent loss of
positional tracking, right?

-Sven