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

Draft Minutes: 24 May 2011 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:46:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4DDBD2CC.9060103@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the May 24 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 June 7 (the next voice 
conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved as is.

-Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                     Web Events WG Voice Conference

24 May 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0112.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck,
           Laszlo_Gombos, Josh_Soref




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Issue-6 (Open) Touch targets in frames
          4. [8]Issue-3 (Raised) Click event target after DOM mutation
             during touchstart
          5. [9]Issue-16 (Raised) Should the spec be silent or
             prescriptive re Object Identity
          6. [10]Issue-17 (Raised) Page X and Y parameters to
          7. [11]Proposal to specify behavior for terminals without
             touch hardware
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

    Date: 24 May 2011

Tweak Agenda

    AB: I submitted a Draft Agenda yesterday (
    0112.html ). Any change requests?

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0112.html


    AB: any short announcements?

Issue-6 (Open) Touch targets in frames

    AB: Issue-6 is the Open state (
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 ). I has two
    open actions ( [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/24
    ) for Doug and (
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/48 ) for Matt.

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6
      [16] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/24
      [17] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/48

    MB: I still need to address my action
    ... as discussed previously

    AB: can you give us a rough ETA Matt?

    MB: yes, I'll try to get proposals out by Friday

    AB: ok, that's good

    <smaug>  is there a conf call?

    <smaug>  I'm in HTML Speech f2f

    <smaug>  so can't attend, sorry

    DS: I haven't had time for my action
    ... will try to get to it this week

    <mbrubeck>  smaug: Looks like we don't have much new business since
    the last call, anyway.

    DS: I have some other obligations that will make it difficult for me
    to address my actions

    AB: if anyone can help Doug with Doug's actions, that would be

Issue-3 (Raised) Click event target after DOM mutation during

    AB: Issue-3 is Raised state (
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3 ). Doug has an
    open action ( [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23
    ) for this issue.

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3
      [19] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23

    DS: I still need to address this action

    MB: we discussed this during May 10 call


      [20] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#item05

    MB: people should read those minutes, especially if they want to
    help Doug with his actions

Issue-16 (Raised) Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object

    AB: Issue-16 is Raised (
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16 ). Laszlo has
    an open action (
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/46 ) for this

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16
      [22] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/46

    LG: no progress yet on this
    ... need some more context

    MB: subsequent touch events contain objects that refer to the same
    touch point
    ... or the touch points are in diff lists
    ... Impl wise, it would be possible to reuse same objects b/w events
    ... or to always use distinct objects
    ... This impl detail can leak out to content
    ... Thus for interop reasons, we may want to specify if objects
    should be reused or not

    LG: I was wondering about existing impls?
    ... e.g. the pros and cons here

    MB: PPK did some research for Webkit browsers
    ... there is a link to that blog in the Issue
    ... and he notes the behaviour may change in Webkit

    LG: ok, I can make it clear what Webkit is going to do in the future
    ... Some of the initial iPhone and Android impls have not been
    merged to the WK trunk
    ... so there could be some differences between the WK trunk and what
    has been implemented
    ... I assume existing impls will have a significant weight in our

    AB: I think historically, we have emphasized existing impls

Issue-17 (Raised) Page X and Y parameters to createTouch

    AB: Issue-17 is Raised (
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17 ). Matt has an
    open action ( [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/50
    ) for this issue.

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17
      [24] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/50

    MB: this is ongoing and should have a proposal by Friday

Proposal to specify behavior for terminals without touch hardware

    AB: this topic was started by Gregers Gram Rygg on 12-May-2011 (
    0098.html ). There were some follow-ups.

      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0098.html

    MB: a question is how can content do feature detection to determine
    if the UA is going to make use of touch events or not
    ... there is concern we don't want content discriminating based on
    h/w or other factors
    ... Think we can address some of this by UA capabilities
    ... e.g. if a user with eye detection h/w could translate eye
    movements to touch events
    ... But for UAs that don't implement any of this spec, is it useful
    for the content to detect this
    ... most people probably haven't thought about all of the UCs
    especially wrt accessibility

    JS: need something like action events (not swipe)
    ... I want to be able to register for zoom
    ... The higher-level spec about user intentions is important

    MB: we still have a feature detection issue for contents

    JS: we may want to make it hard to use touch events
    ... and get content devs to focus on High Level Intentional events

    DS: I do not want to make it hard for anyone to do anything
    ... We want it to be easy to do simple things
    ... Apple's James Craig has done some work related to Intentional
    ... I expect him to ping us when that doc is published (by WAI P&F
    ... I think people will implement that spec, at least eventually
    ... and I agree some people will want to use that spec

    MB: well, Touch Events will not go away
    ... f.ex., there will not necessarily be a "paint" event
    ... Some UCs will use Touch Events and other UCs will use
    Intentional Events
    ... and feature detection is needed for Touch Events

    DS: I don't think we will see the INDIE events implemented before
    ... but Touch Events as we have been spec'ing are already out there
    ... So devs will need to code for both types of events
    ... If native impls don't support either of these specs, some script
    impls may help
    ... e.g. add to jQuery
    ... There will be a period of time where Touch Events is supported
    but Intentional Events are not
    ... there will be a market reality that these specs will be
    implemented in phases

    AB: we don't have a draft of Intention Events so it causes a problem
    for use communicating what we intend to do

    DS: I can ping James and the P&F WG
    ... for starters, would like to have an idea of a starting point
    ... but because of scheduling issues, I don't think that will happen
    for a couple of weeks

    AB: is there an action for me here Doug?
    ... or do you want to continue to be the lead?

    DS: I'll start dialog now
    ... and then I'll report back

    AB: ok, that seems like a reasonable plan


    AB: let's plan to have the next call in 2 weeks
    ... June 7
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 15:46:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:53 UTC