W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > January to March 2011

Draft Minutes: 8 February 2011 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:33:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4D517E7D.9080100@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the February 8 voice conference are available at 
the following and copied below:

http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webevents mail list before February 15 (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

08 Feb 2011

    [2]Agenda

       [2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0045.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art_Barstow, Josh_Soref, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers,
           Laszlo_Gombos, Sangwhan_Moon, Olli_Pettay

    Regrets
    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak the agenda
          2. [6]Issue management:
          3. [7]Comments by PPK
          4. [8]Comments by Andrew Grieve - Use Cases and Reqs
          5. [9]Use Case and Requirements
          6. [10]Testing
          7. [11]Plan for high-level intentional events spec:
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

    Date: 8 February 2011

Tweak the agenda

    AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday (
    [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/
    0045.html ). I intend to merge topics #4 and #6 since they both are
    about Use Cases. Any change requests?

      [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0045.html

Issue management:

    AB: Working Groups handle issues differently: embed the issues in
    the spec, use W3C's tracker, Bugzilla, etc. Let's briefly talk about
    how we want to handle issues.
    ... anyone have comments or feedback re issue tracking

    DS: my preference is to use Tracker (W3C tool)
    ... it has a nice integration with IRC
    ... less cluttered with Bugzilla

    AB: also has nice integration with e-mail

    DS: from the WebEvents page, look for issues

    <shepazu>  [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/

      [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/

    DS: there is only one action now
    ... and no issues
    ... Action-1 is still open
    ... and I'll take care of it
    ... Tracker is easy to use

    <shepazu>  issue-1?

    <trackbot>  ISSUE-1 does not exist

    <shepazu>  action-1?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-1 -- Arthur Barstow to work with Doug on a voice
    conference time of day that works for most people -- due 2010-12-15
    -- CLOSED

    <trackbot>  [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/1

      [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/1

    DS: has some macros that trackbot understands and acts on
    ... to add issues, may need to copy text from an email to tracker
    issue
    ... so a bit of a pain
    ... to both edit the spec and to do issue tracking
    ... As such, if someone wants to volunteer to help with issue
    tracking that would be very welcome
    ... Requires monitoring the list and then adding issues to Tracker
    ... One email may have more than one issue

    AB: is anyone willing to volunteer to lead the issue tracking

    MB: I will tend the issue tracker

    DS: this is good and a nice way to ease into the editing
    ... Think the spec should include credit for people that take on big
    tasks like Issue tracking and Test suite work, etc.

    AB: I think that's a great idea

    SM: I just added two issues

    DS: that's great
    ... we can have a 3-way call and go through some of the tasks

    <scribe>  ACTION: doug set up a conf call with Matt and Sangwhan re
    issue tracking and editing [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-6 - Set up a conf call with Matt and
    Sangwhan re issue tracking and editing [on Doug Schepers - due
    2011-02-15].

    RESOLUTION: the WG agrees to use Tracker for issue tracking (and
    action tracking)

    AB: thanks guys!

    DS: an advantage Bugzilla has is that anyone in the Public create
    Issues; whereas, only WG members can create issues via Tracker

    MB: so if Joe Public wants to create/raise an Issue, they must use
    the list?

    DS: yes

Comments by PPK

    <timeless>  [of note, bugzilla can be configured to have similar
    restrictions ]

    AB: PPK read Doug's first ED and submitted some comments (
    [18]http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2011/01/w3c_touch_event.
    html )

      [18]http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2011/01/w3c_touch_event.html

    DS: does anyone have comments

    SM: re his comments about radiusXandY
    ... physical units create probs for mobile browsers
    ... pixels make much more sense
    ... than something like centimeters

    DS: I agree
    ... would be good if we could convert but think screen pixels is
    reqd
    ... Someone else raised an issue about radiusxy
    ... It may disappear

    OP: re altKey, etc., what about Pens?

    DS: some Pens do have keys
    ... I talked to at least one engr at Wacom
    ... they have>=1 buttons on the pens
    ... and they can be configured

    <timeless>  [
    [19]http://www.wacom.com.au/intuos3/spec/intuos3artpen.html  ]

      [19]http://www.wacom.com.au/intuos3/spec/intuos3artpen.html

    <timeless>  [ Wacom ]

    s/Wacom/Wacom/

    SM: we should add Meta key

    MB: PPK links to Apple Safari doc

    DS: I created a blog ( [20]http://schepers.cc/getintouch  )
    ... after reading PPK's blog, I went thru point-by-point and cleaned
    up the spec to address most of his points
    ... Sangwhan, perhaps you could add the Meta key
    ... I think I addressed ontouch move
    ... I still have questions about time stamp
    ... Units for radiusXY will need some work
    ... Unit of force: defined it as 0 to 1 as relative due to device

      [20]http://schepers.cc/getintouch

    <Sangwhan_Moon>  ACTION: Add meta key for the TouchPoint interface
    [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot>  Sorry, couldn't find user - Add

    DS: touch cancel event - I'm not sure what this could be needs some
    work

    <mbrubeck>  hg log of shepazu's spec changes:
    [22]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/

      [22]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/

    <timeless>   [23]http://twitter.com/w3cwebevents  ]

      [23]http://twitter.com/w3cwebevents

    <Sangwhan_Moon>  [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/7

      [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/7

    DS: fyi, I created a twitter account for webevents

    <shepazu>  twitter feed @w3cwebevents

    DS: I intend to push spec changes to @w3cwebevents

    SM: is it branch aware?

    DS: not sure
    ... we want to be able to tweet directly rather than going thru a
    3-rd party service as I do now

    AB: excellent
    ... anything else on PPK's comments?

Comments by Andrew Grieve - Use Cases and Reqs

    AB: Google's Andrew Grieve submitted some comment regarding use
    cases (
    [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/
    0043.html )

      [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0043.html

    <mbrubeck>  [26]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rss-log/default  might
    work

      [26]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rss-log/default

    AB: so far, no one has responded

    DS: I will respond to Andrew
    ... it's encouraging that we already have comments so early in the
    spec process

    AB: yes, I agree

    DS: I prefer to take other topics and come back to Andrew's email if
    we have time

Use Case and Requirements

    AB: Use Case and Reqs wiki was created (
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/UCsandReqs  ) and it needs
    some work. I don't think we need to be overly prescriptive on how
    the UCs and Reqs are documented and there is significant variability
    in the way WGs have documented them.

      [27]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/UCsandReqs

    DS: I would like to work on these but I don't have the time
    ... pointing to some examples would be good

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow send to the list some examples of WGs'
    documenting UCs and Reqs [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-8 - Send to the list some examples of WGs'
    documenting UCs and Reqs [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-02-15].

    <Sangwhan_Moon>  It should be possible to start off from previous use
    cases that Cathy wrote up

    AB: is anyone interested in leading or contributing to that process
    of UCs and Reqs?
    ... Cathy did some work

    <timeless>  i'd suggest tweeting asking for people to add to the wiki
    :)

    AB: anything else on UCs and Requs for today?

    SM: do we have any Web developers in the WG?
    ... it would be good to get their input

    DS: good point
    ... and Timeless has a good point too
    ... asking web devs and tweeting could help; that's kinda' what I
    did with PPK
    ... So there is an Action for Everyone to tweet for UCs and Reqs

    SM: I've found that browser developers aren't particularly good at
    writing UCs

    <timeless>  s/particuarly/particularly/

Testing

    AB: strictly speaking, a WG is not required to create test cases
    until a spec enters the Candidate Recommendation phase. In some
    cases, WGs try to work on test cases much earlier. Ideally, a
    comprehensive test suite would exist before a spec enters Last Call
    WD but in practice, I think they are rarely created that early.
    ... there is also a significant amount of variability in test suites
    from WG to WG and in some cases e.g. WebApps WG, there is
    variability from spec to spec.

    DS: if tests aren't developed early ...
    ... when the spec gets to CR and test case are then started, some
    people will have already left the WG or become inactive
    ... and when test cases are written, realize the spec has a hole but
    the CR means people will start implementing
    ... that ends up tying the hands of the WG
    ... would be good to stay in the ED state until we have some test
    cases
    ... that is, don't publish a WD until test cases exist
    ... this would be more stringent then what is required
    ... but this restriction could help us advance the spec more quickly

    <timeless>  shepazu: so you're holding the WD ransom against
    implementers providing testcases?

    DS: Naturally, we need volunteers to write the test cases
    ... and intend to include a section in the spec that points to the
    test suite and give an attribution to whomever leads the test suite
    work

    MB: PPK has a lot of experience with test suites

    DS: I asked him but he can't make the commitment
    ... Does anyone here have experience writing tests? Or no experience
    writing tests?

    OP: how does adding TCs to the TS acutally work?
    ... because they all need to be reviewed

    <timeless>  of note, some WGs have published test suites with poor
    quality tests

    OP: are TCs added to bugzilla

    <timeless>  which lead to problems

    <timeless>  i think that's SVG/HTML/CSS (?)

    OP: it is too easy to write Invalid tests

    DS: agree; but a hard problem to solve

    SM: we could create a mirror e.g. bitbucket for prelim work

    <timeless>  the general suggestion is a reviewer.

    DS: would prefer to use W3C services

    <timeless>  at the risk of volunteering for work, i could probably
    help out here

    SM: must have a W3C account to fork

    DS: what about just to pull?

    <timeless>  cloning is possible w/ public repositories

    <timeless>  but the issue is informing the owner of the w3 repo that
    your changes are available

    SM: need to differentiate merging and just making a clone

    <timeless>  in theory one could again use twitter :)

    DS: think we should have a call about sysadmin type stuff

    <timeless>  (please include me for this call/topic)

    <timeless>  the general suggestion was [29]http://bitbucket.org  since
    it provides for pull requests

      [29]http://bitbucket.org/

    DS: if a large number of people aren't interested in infra type
    discussions we could use this call

    <timeless>  there aren't to my knowledge many hg hosts which do it

    DS: how about we dedicate next week's call to infra/sysadmin?

    AB: WFM

    MB: OK

    <Sangwhan_Moon>  [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/9

      [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/9

    AB: coming back to Doug's proposasl, I'm a little uneasy with making
    test case availability be a block for FPWD
    ... would make more sense as a block for LCWD

    <timeless>  art: i think that there might be enough web dev demand
    that we can remind the web that they won't be able to play with this
    stuff unless they help provide test cases

    <mbrubeck>  As vendors like Mozilla implement the spec, we will be
    writing test cases for our own use...

    <timeless>  personally, i think we do need to block some *WD on
    having thoroughly reviewed the test suite

    DS: I think people need to speak up, even if you don't care

    AB: if anyone has comments about Doug's test case proposal, please
    speak up now

    MB: I don't think I know enough about W3C process to make an
    informed opinion
    ... we are already getting comments

    DS: we aren't lacking any visibility
    ... it's too easy to slip into a mode where we are not creating TCs
    ... will help us narrow down the scope of the spec

    <mbrubeck>  Is there a standard test harness / library / tool for W3C
    specs, or should we just create any old web page that runs scripts
    and displays the results?

    <timeless>  mbrubeck: there are a couple of harnesses used by
    different WGs

    <timeless>  each WG can choose from them or use a new one

    AB: I think some people won't review the spec until there is a FPWD

    <timeless>  iirc some of the recent WG / Specs have tended toward
    certain harnesses, but i can't recall which

    DS: the spec is relatively small
    ... and don't expect a huge number of TCs

    AB: I'd like a little time to think about this; see some clear
    advantages to the proposal

    JS: I think implementors at Moz will write test cases as they
    implement
    ... so, if they can easily contribute their TCs, it will help
    ... I don't think most implementors will distinguish between ED and
    WD
    ... they are going to follow the EDs anyway
    ... Do implementors have a way to namespace-protect their early
    implementations?

    <mbrubeck>  The global namespace is rather polluted in this space
    already. :(

    DS: there is a way in D3E
    ... eg -moz-touchstart

    <mbrubeck>  Mozilla currently implements MozTouchDown, MozTouchMove,
    MozTouchUp - [31]https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Touch_events

      [31]https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Touch_events

    DS: I will add something to the spec about adding prefixes

    <mbrubeck>  If the spec continues to follow WebKit in a mostly
    backward-compatible way, then I'm not sure prefixes are useful

    LG: this will be tricky with WebKit i.e. to state pre-spec and
    post-spec state
    ... WK already has some TCS

    <mbrubeck>  We never prefixed things like<canvas>  that followed
    existing implementations

    LG: WG may be able to use them
    ... We need to think about how to automate the testing
    ... The WK tests cases have some platform specific parts

    DS: automation is not a requirement
    ... I can work with you Laszlo re if we can re-use WK tests
    ... Do, you know Art if we can use WK tests?

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow work with Doug and Laszlo re if we can
    re-use Webkit tests [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-10 - Work with Doug and Laszlo re if we
    can re-use Webkit tests [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-02-15].

    <timeless>  lgombos noted that the webkit tests tend to be platform
    specific

    AB: does anyone object to Doug's proposal that test cases be
    required before we publish a FPWD?

    [ None ]

    <mbrubeck>  no objection, but I'll read more about process and see if
    I have any further comments

    AB: so, let's give everyone a week to think about Doug's proposal

Plan for high-level intentional events spec:

    <timeless>  I guess w3 process doesn't require test cases not be
    limited to a specific platform/device/impl?

    AB: Doug, do you have an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) for an
    Editor's Draft of the high-level intentional spec?

    DS: I think it is weeks away
    ... I need to work with other people on that spec

    <Sangwhan_Moon>  [33]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/4

      [33]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/4

    DS: I hope to get it out before March 1

    <mbrubeck>  "Uncontacted tribe in Amazon rain forest announces W3C
    membership, plans to support HTML5"

AOB

    AB: we will have a call next week; primary topics are infrastructure
    and sysadmin
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Add meta key for the TouchPoint interface [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow send to the list some examples of WGs'
    documenting UCs and Reqs [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Doug and Laszlo re if we can re-use
    Webkit tests [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: doug set up a conf call with Matt and Sangwhan re
    issue tracking and editing [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 17:34:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 February 2011 17:34:29 GMT