- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:46:20 -0400
- 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:
http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html
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]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Events WG Voice Conference
24 May 2011
[2]Agenda
[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
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck,
Laszlo_Gombos, Josh_Soref
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [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
createTouch
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 (
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
0112.html ). Any change requests?
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0112.html
Announcements
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
great!
Issue-3 (Raised) Click event target after DOM mutation during
touchstart
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
<mbrubeck>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#item05
[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
Identity
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
issue.
[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
decision
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 (
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
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
Events
... I expect him to ping us when that doc is published (by WAI P&F
WG)
... 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
mid-2012
... but Touch Events as we have been spec'ing are already out there
(implemented)
... 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
AOB
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