W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Draft minutes: 10 May 2011 call

From: Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 02:55:04 +0900
Message-Id: <87EED8CB-6498-4F2F-A31D-A5E015469C45@opera.com>
To: public-webevents@w3.org
I apologize for not attending today's call, was a public holiday here and didn't have connectivity available to send out regrets.

If there are any actions that I should take, feel free to assign.

/Sangwhan

On 2011. May (5). 11, at 1:09 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> The draft minutes from the May 10 voice conference are available at the following and copied below:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html
> 
> WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webevents mail list before May 24 (the next voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved as is.
> 
> -Art Barstow
> 
>   [1]W3C
> 
>      [1] http://www.w3.org/
> 
>                               - DRAFT -
> 
>                    Web Events WG Voice Conference
> 
> 10 May 2011
> 
>   [2]Agenda
> 
>      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0092.html
> 
>   See also: [3]IRC log
> 
>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-irc
> 
> Attendees
> 
>   Present
>          Art_Barstow, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, Josh_Soref,
>          Olli_Pettay, Cathy_Chan
> 
>   Regrets
>   Chair
>          Art
> 
>   Scribe
>          Art
> 
> Contents
> 
>     * [4]Topics
>         1. [5]Tweak Agenda
>         2. [6]Short Announcements
>         3. [7]Object Identity
>         4. [8]preventDefault Research;
>         5. [9]Issue-3 - Click event target after DOM mutation during
>            touchstart
>         6. [10]Issue-6 - Touch targets in frames
>         7. [11]Issue-8 - initTouchEvent function
>         8. [12]High-level Intentional Event Spec
>         9. [13]AoB
>     * [14]Summary of Action Items
>     _________________________________________________________
> 
>   <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB
> 
>   <scribe>  Scribe: Art
> 
>   Date: 10 May 2011
> 
>   <smaug>  Oops, I had muted my speaker, not microphone
> 
> Tweak Agenda
> 
>   AB: I posted the draft agenda on May 6 (
>   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
>   0092.html ). Any change requests?
> 
>     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0092.html
> 
>   [ None ]
> 
> Short Announcements
> 
>   AB: FPWD published May 5; congratulations to the Editors and WG (
>   [16]http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20110505/ ). Any other
>   short annoucements?
>   ... FYI, Josh is no longer employed by Nokia
> 
>     [16] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20110505/
> 
> Object Identity
> 
>   AB: on April 26, Matt Brubeck sent an e-mail re Object Identity (
>   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
>   0068.html ). The only person that responded was Olli.
>   ... what do others think; what do we do about Object Identity; is
>   there some spec'ing that needs to be done?
> 
>     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0068.html
> 
>   MB: I don't have a strong opinion
>   ... but web devs have talked about it
>   ... I think we should at least get an opinion
>   ... We may not have to specify anything here
>   ... but OTOH, if there is consensus to spec something then we should
> 
>   OP: I wonder why WebKit might be changing their behavior
>   ... would like to understand that
>   ... QuirksMode indicated WebKit will change
> 
>   MB: WebKit is a bit diff than my examples
> 
>   OP: we need to discuss this with someone who is implementing this in
>   WebKit
>   ... need to know if they are reusing their Touch objects
> 
>   MB: agree we need more feedback from implementors
>   ... until then, I think the spec should remain silent
> 
>   OP: perhaps someone from Nokia can find out
> 
>   <scribe>  ACTION: barstow follow up with Laszlo re Object Identity
>   implementation in WebKit [recorded in
>   [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
> 
>   <trackbot>  Created ACTION-46 - Follow up with Laszlo re Object
>   Identity implementation in WebKit [on Arthur Barstow - due
>   2011-05-17].
> 
>   ISSUE: Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object Identity
> 
>   <trackbot>  Created ISSUE-16 - Should the spec be silent or
>   prescriptive re Object Identity ; please complete additional details
>   at [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16/edit .
> 
>     [19] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16/edit
> 
> preventDefault Research;
> 
>   AB: on April 26 Matt sent an e-mail regarding some research he did
>   on preventDefault (
>   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
>   0069.html ). Andrew Grieve and Matt had some additional responses.
>   ... is there some additional spec'ing that needs to be done?
> 
>     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0069.html
> 
>   MB: Andrew suggested a simple fix
>   ... I don' think there were any objections to that
>   ... Another open issue if spec should say something about scrolling
>   ... It would be useful for implementors
>   ... I'll make a proposal about preventing scrolling
>   ... Probably in terms of May or Should rather than Must requirements
> 
>   <scribe>  ACTION: brubeck submit a proposal for re scrolling and the
>   preventDefault research thread [recorded in
>   [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
> 
>   <trackbot>  Created ACTION-47 - Submit a proposal for re scrolling
>   and the preventDefault research thread [on Matt Brubeck - due
>   2011-05-17].
> 
> Issue-3 - Click event target after DOM mutation during touchstart
> 
>   AB: Issue-3 ( [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3 )
>   was opened weeks ago. There was some recent follow-up by Sangwhan
>   and Andrew (
>   [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
>   0081.html ). Doug has related Action-23 (
>   [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23 ).
>   ... who can take the lead here and make a proposal?
> 
>     [22] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3
>     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0081.html
>     [24] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23
> 
>   <shepazu>  Action-23?
> 
>   <trackbot>  ACTION-23 -- Doug Schepers to follow-up on Issue-3 -- due
>   2011-03-29 -- OPEN
> 
>   <trackbot>  [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23
> 
>     [25] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23
> 
>   DS: I don't see a way around this issue
>   ... I have some behavior defined for Activiate in the DOM 3 Events
>   spec
>   ... We could borrow some of that
>   ... But if someone wants to help, that's fine
> 
>   MB: our initial Gecko implementation behaves the same way as Android
>   and iPhone
> 
>   AB: that's quite a bit of synergy
>   ... are there any volunteers to help here?
>   ... Doug, we'll wait for your input here
> 
>   DS: I can propose something by the end of today
>   ... We need to decide if this is a Should or a Must
> 
>   MB: we already addressed touchstart and default actions and click
>   ... this is about what to do if DOM changes
> 
>   DS: I need to take a look at this
> 
>   AB: ok, so the status of Issue-3 is we will wait for Doug to
>   complete action-23
>   ... If anyone wants to help, please do so
> 
>   MB: the reason Gecko behaves as it does is because we wait for touch
>   to end before simulate up/down events
>   ... all of those events occur in the DOM after the touch sequence
> 
> Issue-6 - Touch targets in frames
> 
>   AB: Issue-6 was raised by Andrew last February (
>   [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 ). Doug has
>   related Action-24 (
>   [27]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/24 ). The last
>   discussion was February 22 (
>   [28]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item08 ).
> 
>     [26] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6
>     [27] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/24
>     [28] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item08
> 
>   DS: I need to send an e-mail about this
> 
>   AB: is this a relatively straight fwd proposal?
> 
>   DS: would like to know what WebKit and Gecko do
>   ... need to consider security here
> 
>   MB: need to be careful here
>   ... don't want any data leaking
> 
>   DS: also could observe a pattern of how the user is moving on the
>   larger outside page
>   ... and where the iframe is
> 
>   MB: if you can trick the user in a specific way, can get some data
>   on the user
> 
>   AB: so Doug, you are OK with the way iOS and Android handle this?
> 
>   DS: basically, yes
> 
>   AB: so how do we close this?
> 
>   DS: just need an Editor to add the text
> 
>   MB: I can do that
> 
>   AB: that would be great Matt
> 
>   <scribe>  ACTION: brubeck propose text to address Issue-6 (routing to
>   the child iframe) [recorded in
>   [29]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
> 
>   <trackbot>  Created ACTION-48 - Propose text to address Issue-6
>   (routing to the child iframe) [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-05-17].
> 
> Issue-8 - initTouchEvent function
> 
>   AB: Issue-8 ( [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/8 )
>   was created in March. Olli has related Action-34 (
>   [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/34 ) and Doug has
>   related Action-36 (
>   [32]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/36 ). The last
>   time we discussed this was during the April 12 call (
>   [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
>   att-0039/WebEvents-min-12-Apr-2011.html#issue-8 ).
>   ... this method is already defined in the spec. What else needs to
>   be specified?
> 
>     [30] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/8
>     [31] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/34
>     [32] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/36
>     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/att-0039/WebEvents-min-12-Apr-2011.html#issue-8
> 
>   MB: I committed a proposal
>   ... there is one open sub-issue
>   ... it is noted in the spec
>   ... re the arguments of this method
>   ... it takes page x and 'y' and client x and 'y'
>   ... Think we can close Issue-8
>   ... and open a new issue
> 
>   AB: any objections to that?
> 
>   <scribe>  ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to the closed state [recorded
>   in [34]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action04]
> 
>   <trackbot>  Created ACTION-49 - Move issue-8 to the closed state [on
>   Arthur Barstow - due 2011-05-17].
> 
>   ISSUE: page x and 'y' paramters to create touch
> 
>   <trackbot>  Created ISSUE-17 - Page x and 'y' parameters to create
>   touch ; please complete additional details at
>   [35]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17/edit .
> 
>     [35] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17/edit
> 
>   MB: I started a thread on this issue
> 
>   <mbrubeck>
>   [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
>   0078.html
> 
>     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0078.html
> 
>   MB: we should take issue-17 to the list
> 
>   OP: Gecko and Webkit aren't aligned here
> 
>   <smaug>  Currently Gecko doesn't compute clientX/Y values
>   automatically from pageX/Y, like webkit does
> 
>   [ Scribe missed some details exchanged between Olli and Matt ...]
> 
>   <mbrubeck>  The spec (which is based on what Olli implemented in
>   Gecko) is written to allow backward compatibility with
>   WebKit/Safari, while also allowing consistency with mouse events.
> 
>   <mbrubeck>  If we keep the API in the spec, we should specify that if
>   pageX/Y are null, then they will be computed based on clientX/Y, and
>   vice-versa.
> 
>   AB: thanks Olli and Matt for embellishing the minutes!
> 
>   <mbrubeck>  Or we could simplify the spec and make it work like mouse
>   events (breaking compatibility with content that uses the current
>   WebKit API).
> 
>   MB: I will make a proposal on the list
> 
>   <scribe>  ACTION: brubeck make a proposal to address Issue-17
>   [recorded in
>   [37]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action05]
> 
>   <trackbot>  Created ACTION-50 - Make a proposal to address Issue-17
>   [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-05-17].
> 
> High-level Intentional Event Spec
> 
>   AB: I am interested in expectations, plans and such
> 
>   DS: I have some information
>   ... Apple made a proposal to Web Apps WG
>   ... for the Protocols and Formats WG
>   ... to add some a11y features to D3E
>   ... Decided a joint deliverable between Web Events and WAI WG would
>   be a good way to move fwd
> 
>   AB: is James' earlier proposal public?
> 
>   <shepazu>  James Craig is working on the "Independence for User
>   Interface" (IndieUI) proposal
> 
>   AB: James' proposal:
>   [38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/
>   UserInterfaceIndependence.html
>   ... is P&F WG working on this IndieUI spec?
> 
>     [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html
> 
>   DS: no, I don't think so yet; but expect it or something like it
>   will be
>   ... not sure about its priority, especially with ARIA
> 
>   AB: so is the IndieUI going to be the Intentional Events spec we are
>   chartered to do?
> 
>   DS: yes, that is my expectation
>   ... in cooperation with the P&F WG
>   ... I will notify Web Events WG when there is something to review
> 
>   AB: getting early access to a draft, would be very useful
> 
>   DS: I will convey that to him
> 
>   <shepazu>  Recommended these resources: [$1\47]
>   [39]http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html [$1\47]
>   [40]http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/spec-conventions.html [$1\47]
>   [41]http://dev.w3.org/2008/dev-ind-testing/extracting-test-assertion
>   s-pub.html
> 
>     [39] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html
>     [40] http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/spec-conventions.html
>     [41] http://dev.w3.org/2008/dev-ind-testing/extracting-test-assertions-pub.html
> 
>   AB: ok; thanks
> 
>   DS: If James follows these conventions, the spec should be similar
>   in format to what we are already doing
>   ... Need a way for author to map from low-level to high-level
>   intentional events
>   ... I can get the related paper from the IETF
> 
>   AB: I think you mean GISpL
>   [42]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-echtler-gispl-specification-00
> 
>     [42] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-echtler-gispl-specification-00
> 
>   DS: may need a separate event listener
>   ... needs some more thinking
>   ... event types and a range of values
>   ... register for some event with a set of params
>   ... and the listener would get some set of values for the registered
>   params
>   ... I think I should send an e-mail about this
>   ... there could be a more elegant solution
> 
> AoB
> 
>   AB: no call next on May 17
>   ... next call will be May 24
>   ... any other topics for today?
>   ... meeting adjourned
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>   [NEW] ACTION: barstow follow up with Laszlo re Object Identity
>   implementation in WebKit [recorded in
>   [43]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
>   [NEW] ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to the closed state [recorded in
>   [44]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action04]
>   [NEW] ACTION: brubeck make a proposal to address Issue-17 [recorded
>   in [45]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action05]
>   [NEW] ACTION: brubeck propose text to address Issue-6 (routing to
>   the child iframe) [recorded in
>   [46]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
>   [NEW] ACTION: brubeck submit a proposal for re scrolling and the
>   preventDefault research thread [recorded in
>   [47]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
> 
>   [End of minutes]
> 
> 

Best regards,

--
Sangwhan Moon
Opera Software ASA | Skype: innodb1
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 17:55:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 May 2011 17:55:43 GMT