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

Draft Minutes: 22 March 2011 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:22:22 -0400
Message-ID: <4D88CCBE.2050804@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the March 22 voice conference are available at 
the following and copied below:

   http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webevents mail list before March 29 (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

22 Mar 2011

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0073.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Josh_Soref, Matt_Brubeck,
           Anders_Höckersten, Olli_Pettay, Doug_Schepers

    Regrets
           Emmanuel_Nkeze

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Issue-1 Resolve touch area re. radius and angle
          3. [7]Issue-7 Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes?
          4. [8]Raised Issues
          5. [9]AOB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 22 March 2011

<smaug_> [17:02] shepazu will be there shortly

Tweak Agenda

    AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday (
    [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/
    0073.html ). The basic idea is to have explicit agenda items for the
    two Open Issues and then with respect to the Raised issues, get
    status for those with associated actions and try to determine
    owners/actions for the other Raised Issues. (Open and Raised:
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/ )
    ... Any comments or change requests?

      [11] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0073.html
      [12] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/

    [ None ]

Issue-1 Resolve touch area re. radius and angle

    AB: Issue-1 is "Resolve touch area re. radius and angle" (
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/1 ) and we
    discussed this issue on Feb 22 (
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item02 ).
    ... Issue-1 has at least two associated actions: Action-16 for Doug
    to "Follow up with the canonical guys re copyrights" (
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/16 ) and
    Action-17 for Olli to "Investigate various angle-related work e.g.
    InkML, CSS, SVG, ..." (
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/17 )
    ... Olli addressed Action-17 earlier this week via (
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/
    0075.html ). I think we can can consider Action-17 closed. However,
    Olli does raise some questions in his email.
    ... Action-11 "Update touch events spec for next week" (
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/11 ) is somewhat
    generic so it's not clear if this applies specifically to this issue
    or if this action was created during our "tracker training session"
    on Feb 15.

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/1
      [14] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item02
      [15] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/16
      [16] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/17
      [17] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0075.html
      [18] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/11

    MB: Action-11 is related to Issue-1
    ... but am waiting for other inputs too
    ... I've made some other minor edits
    ... but the spec needs updates to address the issue

    AB: so we'll leave action-11 open until issue-1 is resolved/closed
    ... Olli, I think we can close action-17

    OP: yes
    ... want to ask DS about radiusX and radiusY
    ... is it for SVG?

    DS: yes, that's the basic rationale
    ... but not really for compatibility
    ... I just did some cut-and-paste there
    ... I wouldn't say there is a really good reason for having those
    ... and if someone has a better proposal, I'm willing to listen

    OP: if we want rX and rY we would need rotation angle to events
    ... that would be close to what Canonical is doing on Linux
    ... at least that is my understanding
    ... would prefer degree

    DS: we don't have to be compatible with SVG
    ... but it is fine if we are

    OP: does WebKit have this feature at all?

    DS: no

    OP: then do we need really need it

    DS: yes, I think so

    AB: well, any deviation from shipping deployements make it difficult
    to test

    DS: well, it does make it more difficult to satisfy the conformance
    criteria e.g. for CR
    ... but that argues for us aligning with the Canonical way of doing
    it

    AB: well that is true
    ... but they aren't really here at the table

    DS: I could consider them as an Invited Expert

    AB: would be good to get their IP commitment

    DS: ok, give me an action

<scribe> ACTION: Doug talk to Canonical about joining the WG;
    possibly as an Invited Expert [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Talk to Canonical about joining the
    WG; possibly as an Invited Expert [on Doug Schepers - due
    2011-03-29].

    JS: would like to know how developers are going to use rotation
    ... will they use that in the app
    ... need to understand the expectation

    MB: for some drawing tools, rotation of touch point is important

    AB: appears we have use cases for the functionality
    ... How do we move forward on this issue?
    ... Is there something the Editors need from the rest of us?

    DS: I need to catch up

    MB: I am busy with FF 4 and will have more time for this spec after
    our release is out

    AB: is there anything else for Issue-1 for today?

    [ No ]

Issue-7 Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes?

    AB: Issue-7 is "Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes?" (
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/7 ) and it has
    associate Action-19 on Matt "to Address Issue-7 (
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/19 )
    ... we discussed this on Feb 22 (
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item09 ).

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/7
      [21] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/19
      [22] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item09

    MB: I have not completed my action
    ... we did have consensus the target should be Elements
    ... please keep the action open and I will follow up real soon

    AB: propose this issue be resolved as Elements are the target for
    touch events

    DS: wondering aloud here ...
    ... example: jumbled word, a letter can be grabbed
    ... can isolate a piece of text
    ... e.g. want 'a' of 'sad' and change it
    ... can touch between the 's' and 'a'
    ... How would we deal with that case?
    ... Not element content

    MB: that's a hard problem
    ... with mouse and other events
    ... Even if use text nodes, still have granularity issues
    ... would need to put each letter in its own element in the case DS
    described

<timeless> [ you can do this with <span>s ]

    AB: so there is a way of handling that UC

    DS: yes, but it's not the best way

<timeless> TextNode size is effectively random

<timeless> and relates to how the parser generates them

    DS: There was some rationale for using Nodes

<timeless> partially based on network buffering

    MB: but I don't think using Nodes will help in that case

    OP: to be able to indicate which letter is clicked, need a range
    object and an offset

    DS: I'm playing devil's advocate

    AB: can we live making Elements the target?

    DS: what are the advantages of making of Elements?

    OP: consistency with mouse events
    ... perhaps the problem could be solved somewhere else (for touch
    events and mouse events)

    MB: PPK claimed early WebKit had a bug in this area

<mbrubeck>
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/
    0058.html

      [23] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0058.html

    DS: I'm fine with moving forward
    ... but want to make sure we agree on the reasons and document our
    rationale

    AB: in the absence of new info, I'd like to get agreement on this
    ... I propose we address Issue-7 by agreeing Elements are the target
    for touch events (not Nodes)
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: the group agrees Issue-7 should be closed with Elements
    being the target of touch events

Raised Issues

    AB: we have 5 issues in the Raised state: (
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/raised ) and we
    had at least a brief discussion about all of them on Feb 15 (
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html )
    ... I'll list them here ...
    ... Issue-2 What should happen when a touch is dragged off the
    screen ( [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/2 )
    ... Issue-3 Click event target after DOM mutation during touchstart
    ( [27]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3 )
    ... Issue-4 Does preventDefault on touchmove cause a dragging motion
    to fire a click event? (
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/4 )
    ... Issue-5 What events fire if an alert is performed within a touch
    sequence? ( [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/5 )
    ... Issue-6 Touch targets in frames (
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 )
    ... of those, the only one that has an open action is Issue-2 and
    that is Action-18 on Sangwan to "Investigate Issue-2" (
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/18 )
    ... it would be good to identify a "owners" for these issues or
    proposals on what (if anything) should be done. Especially would
    like to see some work/proposals for those Raised Issues that have no
    associated actions i.e. #3, #4, #5 and #6.
    ... we need people to commit to actively work on them

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/raised
      [25] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html
      [26] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/2
      [27] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3
      [28] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/4
      [29] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/5
      [30] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6
      [31] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/18

    OP: I can take Issue-5

<scribe> ACTION: olli follow-up on Issue-5 [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Follow-up on Issue-5 [on Olli Pettay
    - due 2011-03-29].

    DS: I would like some other people to get active

    AB: we need someone for Issues 3, 4, 6

    DS: I'll take Issue-3

<scribe> ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-3 [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Follow-up on Issue-3 [on Doug
    Schepers - due 2011-03-29].

    AB: so now 3 of the 5 Raised issues have owners

    DS: re Issue-6
    ... seems pretty straight forward
    ... I think HTML5 addresses this
    ... can't propagate outside the iframe (because of security)

    AB: here is the discussion from Feb 22:
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item08

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item08

    DS: there is no question, the event should not bubble up to the
    parent

    OP: I don't think this is about that case
    ... this is about touch start and end transaction
    ... if it starts in the iframe
    ... and then move finger to upper level frame
    ... Does the upper level get the touch end or the lower?

    DS: I would be surprised if anyone says the parent frame should get
    the event

    OP: there are other tricky cases
    ... f.ex start the touch and then the frame is removed

    DS: should touch events that start inside an iframe, once it is
    moved outside, should it propagate inside the parent?

    AB: and you say no?

    DS: for security purposes, should not get anything that was started
    in the iframe

    [ DS gives an example that is not minuted ... ]

    DS: there are a few options here as the touch moves outside the
    initial iframe ...
    ... when a boundary is hit, could start new touchstart
    ... there are also lots of edge cases e.g. an iframe is removed
    ... or the iframes have different domains
    ... There are lots of questions

<anders_hockersten> it appears our phone system is not cooperating
    with me. I'll try to follow the rest of the discussion via irc

<scribe> ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate
    some of the questions and sub-issues [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Follow-up on Issue-6 on the email;
    enumerate some of the questions and sub-issues [on Doug Schepers -
    due 2011-03-29].

    DS: seems like this should be addressed in HTML5 spec
    ... but we could define this in our spec

    AB: agree we may not want to build a dependency on HTML5

    DS: yes, but, HTML5 defines iframes, security model, etc.
    ... this could be coordination point for us with the HTML WG

    AB: good point;
    ... after we get more discussion, whether or not we need some
    coordination should be clear
    ... is there agreement this Issue-6 should be moved from Raised to
    Open?

    DS: certainly

    AB: does anyone think this is not an issue?

<scribe> ACTION: barstow move Issue-6 to Open state [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Move Issue-6 to Open state [on Arthur
    Barstow - due 2011-03-29].

    AB: if anyone want to help drive Issue-4 forward, please indicate
    that on the list

AOB

    AB: next call March 29 (call will be one hour later again in Europe)
    ... the point of reference will remain 11:00 Boston time because
    that is where the MIT voice conf bridge is located
    ... anything else for today?

    DS: what is the schedule for FF4?

    MB: FF4 was release about 2 hours ago
    ... and we did a mobile RC
    ... note that FF4 RC2 == FF4

    AB: Meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow move Issue-6 to Open state [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-3 [recorded in
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate some
    of the questions and sub-issues [recorded in
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Doug talk to Canonical about joining the WG; possibly
    as an Invited Expert [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: olli follow-up on Issue-5 [recorded in
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:23:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:23:15 GMT