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

Draft minutes: 7 June 2011 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:07:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4DEE4CDC.6080108@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the June 7 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 14 (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

07 Jun 2011



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Matt_Brubeck, Cathy_Chan, Laszlo_Gombos,
           Doug_Schepers, Olli_Pettay, Sangwhan_Moon




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Issue-6 (Open) Touch targets in frames
          4. [8]Issue-17 (Raised) Page X and Y parameters to createTouch
          5. [9]Issue-3 (Raised) Click event target after DOM mutation
             during touchstart
          6. [10]Issue-16 (Raised) Should the spec be silent or
             prescriptive re Object Identity
          7. [11]Status of Intentional Events Spec
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 7 June 2011

    aabb is Art_Barstow

    aacc is Matt_Brubeck

<smaug> I'll re-call

Tweak Agenda

    AB: the agenda (
    0115.html ) was posted yesterday and it proposes continuing the
    topics from the last meeting on May 24 (
    0112.html ).
    ... I'd like to move Issue-17 after Issue-6.
    ... the last topic about "specifying behavior for devices with touch
    hardware" is really about the status of the Intensional Event spec.
    ... any other change requests?



    AB: any short announcements?
    ... here's something that people may want to read/scan:


Issue-6 (Open) Touch targets in frames

    AB: yesterday Matt submitted a proposal for Issue-6 (
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 ). Any comments
    on Matt's proposal (
    [18]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/29ec4253b862 )?
    ... thanks Matt! Note June 9 is the deadline for comments.

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6
      [18] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/29ec4253b862

    MB: I didn't think I needed to go too deep
    ... I didn't talk about levels of nesting
    ... "child browsing context" is from the HTML5 spec
    ... I don't know if that term is used elsewhere

    DS: HTML5 is the first place to define that

    MB: I should add a reference to HTML5
    ... is that OK re spec maturity?

    DS: an Informative is fine
    ... a Normative reference requires a certain level of stability
    ... We are running into this problem in other areas

    AB: my recommendation is to do-the-right-thing i.e. if the reference
    should be Normative then make it Normative
    ... and as Doug said, the Staff is trying to determine a way forward
    for other specs

    MB: the definition is within Normative spec

    DS: let's assume we can solve this so make it Normative reference
    ... and if we have a problem down the road, we will do something

    AB: if anyone has any comments on Matt's proposal, please send them
    to the list by June 9

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

    AB: yesterday Matt submitted a proposal for Issue-17 (
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17 ). Any comments
    on Matt's proposal (
    [20]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/53491ff3514b )?
    ... thanks Matt! June 9 is the deadline for comments.

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17
      [20] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/53491ff3514b

    MB: I am particuarly interested in feedback from Olli
    ... since it is based on his work
    ... In Gecko, we take all 3 parameters
    ... Can't leave out Page 'x and y'
    ... No real advantage to specifying clientS and clientY rather than
    computing them
    ... Think this will give more consistency

    OP: I am fine with this change

    LG: so Webkit does not include clientX and clientY
    ... I need to make sure Webkit didn't change

<mbrubeck> As far as I know, WebKit includes clientX/clientY in the
    Touch interface, but not in the parameters to document.createTouch.

    LG: I need to check Webkit vis--vis Matt's latest change



    OP: Webkit is apparently inconsistent here
    ... createTouch takes pageXandY and screenXandY
    ... We can do what Webkit does
    ... It's a bit ugly but compatible

    .cpp#L5032 vs


    MB: initTouchEvent in TouchEvents spec is not compatible with WebKit

    LG: there a couple of issues
    ... one is to review the changes Matt proposed
    ... and the other is the differences in the initTouchEvents

    AB: so, we should leave this open until we get more feedback from at
    least Laszlo
    ... when can you give us some feedback Laszlo?

    LG: I will try to get the feedback this week

    AB: anything else on Issue-17 for today?

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

    AB: Issue-3 ( [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3 )
    is in the raised state. Doug has related Action-23 (
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23 ). We last
    discussed this on May 24 (
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html#item04 )

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3
      [25] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23
      [26] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html#item04

    DS: I haven't been able to work on this; sorry about that
    ... I will try to get something out this week

    OP: the click should be dispatched since it happens after the touch
    ... I think we had agreement click should be dispatched

    DS: if there is general agreement among the impls, we should use

    AB: so what does that mean in terms of what needs to be specified?



    AB: i.e. what change(s) need to be made in the spec?

    DS: if Olli wants to make a proposal, I am fine with that

    OP: yes, I can make a proposal

<scribe> ACTION: olli make a proposal for Issue-3 based on current
    implementations [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Make a proposal for Issue-3 based on
    current implementations [on Olli Pettay - due 2011-06-14].

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

    AB: Issue-16 ( [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16
    ) is in the raised state. Laszlo has related Action-46 (
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/46 ). We last
    discussed this on May 24 (
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html#item05 )

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16
      [30] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/46
      [31] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html#item05

    ... I don't think objects should have persistence
    ... Recommend people read the link in my email
    ... PPK had a related blog
    ... Assuming events perisist probably is not a good idea


    andler.cpp. doesn't seem to work


    LG: I consider my action as done

<mbrubeck> smaug: Remove the final .

<mbrubeck> ".", that is

    LG: and we can discuss it

<smaug> ah

    AB: from a process perspective, yes I will close Action-46

    DS: I need to read this

    AB: any other comments on Issue-16?
    ... the homework is for people to read Laszlo's e-mail

Status of Intentional Events Spec

    AB: on May 24, we talked (
    about the thread Gregers Gram Rygg started on May 12 (
    0098.html ) re "Proposal to specify behavior for terminals without
    touch hardware".
    ... that discussion lead to a discussion about the Intentional
    Events spec where some preliminary work has been done by WAI's
    Protocols and Formats WG (
    UserInterfaceIndependence.html ), namely Apple's James Craig.
    ... James indicated (off-list) he hopes to have an Editor's Draft
    type doc to share in June.

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html#item07)

    DS: I don't have any additional status

    AB: ongoing action for Doug and I to keep up with James' work


    AB: regarding the next call
    ... it appears we still have open, discussions for Issues 3, 16 and
    ... I would prefer to have more calls in June and less in July and
    ... any objections to a call on June 13?
    ... next call is June 14
    ... please follow-up on Issues 3, 16 and 17 on the list
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: olli make a proposal for Issue-3 based on current
    implementations [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 16:08:26 UTC

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