WebAPI/2013-11-19

« previous week | index | next week »

WebAPI Meeting Details

• Tuesday 2013-11-19 - 8:00 am Pacific

• Dial-in: Audio-only conference# 98413
  • People with Mozilla phones or softphones please dial x4000 Conf# 98413
  • US/Toll-free: +1 800 707 2533, (pin 4000) Conf# 98413
  • US/California/Mountain View: +1 650 903 0800, x4000 Conf# 98413
  • US/California/San Francisco: +1 415 762 5700, x4000 Conf# 98413
  • US/Oregon/Portland: +1 971 544 8000, x4000 Conf# 98413
  • CA/British Columbia/Vancouver: +1 778 785 1540, x4000 Conf# 98413
  • CA/Ontario/Toronto: +1 416 848 3114, x4000 Conf# 98413
  • UK/London: +44 (0)207 855 3000, x4000 Conf# 98413
  • FR/Paris: +33 1 84 88 37 37, x4000 Conf# 98413
  • Gmail Chat (requires Flash and the Google Talk plugin): paste +1 650 903 0800 into the Gmail Chat box that doesn't look like it accepts phone numbers
  • SkypeOut is free if you use the 800 number
• WebAPI Vidyo Room / London-Allo Allo / Toronto-Spadina
• Join irc.mozilla.org #webapi for back channel

Notes below archived from etherpad: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/webapi-meetingnotes

Notes

• Apologies for midnight meeting time in Taipei ... we'll figure something out (7 AM in California? Jokes)
• Telephony API and SysApps status
  • who's going to implement this outside of Mozilla? Intel? Samsung?
  • current status of API requires lots of work to implement/match
  • Marcos thinks there isn't large enough developer demand to justify the work we'd have to put in
  • Jonas cautions that since we aim to be a standards-based platform, we can't just drop the low priority things entirely
  • Vicamo and Hsinyi agree that in the future we want to update our telephony implementation to match the spec
  • certified-only API so what's the point of having an SIP backend, Jonas asks
    • coincidentally, ehsan and overholt were just discussing http://talkilla.mozillalabs.com/
    • Jonas thinks desktop backend isn't terribly interesting due to presence of WebRTC
  • "If I'm a developer" -- sicking
  • Vicamo suggests having a simple "call" API would be useful ... maybe Telephony would fit the bill?
  • integrate "call" via WebRTC and Telephony?
  • Jonas and Marcos think SIP or WebRTC backends aren't as useful
  • this will be a standard only if others implement it; action item 1: find out status of others implementations
  • agreement: implement good ideas from spec in our telephony stack (ex. promises), keep eye on other implementations
  • Hsinyi asks how much more work we should do with API design
    • Marcos notes that he's spent a lot of time on it already and there hasn't been a lot of progress since he stopped actively working on it
    • Jonas thinks we should encourage others to do work on it and watch progress
• Replace Messaging/Contacts APIs by DataStore API
  • We used to have a con-call meeting with W3C editors in the last week and they're hoping don't let apps directly call DataStore API. Instead, Messaging API itself can have its own getMessage()/deleteMessage()/sync()... etc functions to do synchronization.
  • A very initiative draft: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/9MiQ4VWKSO
  • Thoughts? W3C editors are in a hurry to know our feedbacks because Messaging/Contacts APIs have been blocked by DataStore API for a while.
  • Jonas would like to see us move message db into DataStore (potentially expose to apps?)
  • Jonas thinks we should tell WG our plan:
    • we'll change Messaging to use DataStore eventually
    • we're not planning on implementing the current Messaging API as it stands today
    • we'll keep working on moving message DB into DataStore and build experience with it in preparation for standardization
    • we'll stop adding sync functions into Messaging API
  • as for DataStore itself, we should push to standardize it (at SysApps) once we have more experience with it and feel it's ready

• https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/XHRBatch
  • feedback needed
• New meeting time?
  • Andrew will work on this
• API formerly known as Network Information API
  • Gene and Fernando both want to own
  • need to help them get going on standardization here
  • pretty high priority API for developers
  • state of the art on many platforms: expose "mobile network" (with bandwidth) vs. "wifi"
    • we should likely just expose type of connection and let people provide heuristics around payed connection since that's very difficult (impossible?) to know
    • just expose bandwidth on mobile connection (like _potential_ bandwidth?)
    • will likely get some pushback at W3C but could really help developers and users