W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > October to December 2011

Draft minutes: 22 November 2011 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:53:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4ECBE17C.5050804@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the November 22 voice conference are available at 
the following and copied below:


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



       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                     Web Events WG Voice Conference

22 Nov 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0035.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-webevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Doug_Schepers, Cathy_Chan, Suman_Sharma,
           Sangwhan_Moon, Olli_Pettay, Matt_Brubeck




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Apple's patent disclosures for Touch Events v1 spec
          4. [8]Touch Events v1 LCWD comment deadline ended November 17
          5. [9]Contingency Plan for Touch Events spec
          6. [10]Charter update
          7. [11]AoB
      * [12]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

    Date: 22 November 2011

Tweak Agenda

    AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday
    0127.html. Any change requests?

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0127.html.

    [ None ]


    AB: any short announcements for today?

    [ None ]

Apple's patent disclosures for Touch Events v1 spec

    AB: last week Apple disclosed 3 patents and 1 patent application
    applies to the Touch Events spec
    ... the only information I have regarding the licensing terms for
    these patents is that each is marked as " not under Royaltee-Free
    commitment" [sic].
    ... so that leaves some uncertainty
    ... as a consequence of these disclosures, a Patent Advisory Group
    on will be created to discuss what, if anything, the WG should do.
    ... the "constituents" of the PAG is documented in the Patent Policy
    position. Note that WG members are not members; it is composed of AC
    reps, attorneys, WG Chair and some W3C Staff. A W3C Staff member
    will Chair the PAG.
    ... typically, PAGs take several months to reach a "PAG Conclusion"
    clude. I suspect the average is around six months although I have
    been a member of a PAG that was open for over two years.
    ... the WG may continue to work on a spec while a PAG is open. In
    fact, the spec can proceed all of the way to Proposed Recommendation
    while a PAG is open.
    ... without Member input, PAGs will drag on and on ...
    ... I'd be happy to open the floor to discussions about the PAG
    mechanics and process but I don't want to talk about the specifics
    of these patents since that is the job of the PAG.
    ... some Members do not want their WG participants to have any
    discussions about any patents
    ... Lastly, although these disclosures create a lot of FUD
    ([18]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt), this
    is part of the "game" whether we like it or not, and I won't
    tolerate any Member bashing.
    ... and I don't mean to imply that anyone in this meeting would do
    so, but that's just a general process statement

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/45559/status.
      [15] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception
      [16] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-composition.
      [17] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-conclude.
      [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear

    DS: I agree with Art on this

    AB: remind everyone these minutes are Public
    ... any questions or concerns?

    DS: I'm happy to answer questions on this call

     and if anyone wants to discuss this offlist, please let me know

Touch Events v1 LCWD comment deadline ended November 17

    AB: the comment deadline for the October 27 LCWD
    <[19]http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20111027/>  ended
    November 17. The comment tracking doc is
    ... the only comment submitted during LC#2 was the minor bug that
    was accidentally added to the spec. That fix has been agreed and
    ... the PFWG has still not replied to the response we sent to them 6
    weeks ago
    0047.html re their comments for LC#1. I don't think a publication of
    a CR should block waiting for PFWG

      [19] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20111027/%3E
      [20] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TouchEvents-LCWD-27-Oct-2011
      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0047.html

    DS: agreed

    AB: As I mentioned earlier, we may proceed to Candidate
    Recommendation if we want to do so and not block on the PAG; or we
    can block on the PAG "Conclusion".
    ... here are the PAG "conclusions":

      [22] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-conclude

    DS: in general, I don't think conclusion #6 is in the spirit of
    W3C's RF specs

     as such, I don't think that's what we want to do

    MB: Mozilla will only implement and ship specs that have RF
    licensing terms for implementers

    <shepazu>  (I expained RAND a bit)

    <mbrubeck>  For more elaboration of Mozilla's position on RAND vs RF
    licensing, see

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/1350.html

    AB: so, we can either move toward CR or block for the PAG

     I could start a 1 or 2 week CfC to move to CR

     and use that time to discuss this internally with your company/org

    DS: I think moving to CR is the right thing to do

     and assume things will work out

     but we should also think about a contingency plan

    AB: any other comments about starting a CfC to pub a CR

    MB: I agree; no additional work is needed; the spec is ready

    SM: I also agree

    AB: is a 1-week CfC enough

    OP: perhaps 2 would be better

    DS: yes, I think that is reasonable

    AB: the only thing I wanted to mention is that December 12 is the
    last day to request publication for 2011
    ... how about a 10-day CfC?

     any objections to that

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: Art will start a 10-day CfC to publish a CR of Touch
    Events v1 spec

Contingency Plan for Touch Events spec

    DS: this is unfortunate;

     the folks in this WG have done good work

     I don't want to give up on a Touch Events spec

     and we got a good spec is short amount of time

     I only see 2 ways around this

     One is to circumvent any IP/claims we know about

     and that something the PAG can recommend to this WG

     I haven't looked at the patents

     so I don't have a sense of the severity

     It could be a small amount of work is needed but I don't know yet

     The 2nd option ...

     If it turns out what we defined is totally tainted, we may have to
    do something else

     There are some other touch interfaces

     We adopted the Webkit model

     Mozilla had a different model

     Microsoft also has a different model

    <mbrubeck>  Mozilla's original approach:

      [24] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Touch_events_%28Mozilla_experimental%29

     It could be one of these other approaches may make sense to pursue

     I would hate to start over but it could give us an opportunity to
    define a better interface

    <mbrubeck>  MS pointer events:

      [25] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/09/20/touch-input-for-ie10-and-metro-style-apps.aspx

     Our current spec gives a good network approach given the pervasive
    use of Webkit

     but there are other models to consider

     Do others think it is reasonable to consider a different starting

    AB: I think it's a little early but OTOH, it is perhaps inevitable

     Has anyone done any comparisons?

    DS: what about fennec?

    OP: we have a lower level API; pretty basic

     f.ex. no touch point lists

     much closer to mouse events

    DS: I think there is more similarity b/w the mouse and touch
    interface in Msft's model than our TE spec

     thus their model can make content creation easier

    SS: so, if we need to re-evaluate, shouldn't we wait for the PAG

     especially if the probability is high?

    DS: I think that is a reasonable stance

     but personally, I would like to keep moving forward

    Suman: I understand that too Doug

     I'm just trying to understand what people are thinking

    DS: want to separate the IP work the PAG will do and the technical
    work the WG will do

    AB: during this CfC, I think it's appropriate if responses are sent
    to the group's Member-confidential list
    ... I hope everyone uses the 10-day CfC to get some internal

    DS: one thing the PAG might do is to look at prior art

     and how the spec holds up to the prior work as opposed to the

     It is possible some other Member has IP in this area too and that
    could lead to a good resolution

    Suman: when will this CfC end?

    AB: I'll start it today, and the deadline will be 10 days from today

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow start a 10-day CfC to publish CR of Touch
    Events v1 spec [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-88 - Start a 10-day CfC to publish CR of
    Touch Events v1 spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-29].

Charter update

    AB: the latest Draft proposal for Touch Events WG is
    ... the latest Draft proposal for Indie UI WG (fka Intentional
    Events WG) is [28]http://www.w3.org/2011/11/indie-ui-charter
    ... off-list, one Member of the WG raised a concern about some other
    Member not being able to participate in the Gamepad and PointerLock
    specs if they are added to Web Events' charter. As such, those two
    APIs may be added to some other "friendly" WG or used as the basis
    of a new WG.

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html
      [28] http://www.w3.org/2011/11/indie-ui-charter

    DS: more concretely, they could be added to WebApps WG

     or put in a new WG like a "Game" WG

     then other specs could be added to that WG

     f.ex. MIDI

    AB: Doug, do you have any status or other info you can share?

    DS: I don't have any new info to share

     I can inquire and report back

     I think the charters are mostly ready

     If we don't add Gamepad and PointerLock, we don't need to

     because the Intentional Events spec is already in our charter

    SM: during our f2f meeting I mentioned another model

    DS: I think that is similar to what Msft has done

     would you please create a strawman about that?

    SM: yes, I can do that

    AB: anything else on this topic?


    AB: any other business for today?

    SM: I got access to the stream api from Khronos group

     I don't think we need to worry about it

     it is way too complicated

    Suman: they have several proposals

     agree we don't have to look at it

    AB: I will determine next Monday if we will have a call on Nov 29
    ... Meeting Adjourned!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow start a 10-day CfC to publish CR of Touch
    Events v1 spec [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:53:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:34 UTC