- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:07:56 -0400
- 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:
http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html
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]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Events WG Voice Conference
07 Jun 2011
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0115.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Matt_Brubeck, Cathy_Chan, Laszlo_Gombos,
Doug_Schepers, Olli_Pettay, Sangwhan_Moon
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-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 (
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
0115.html ) was posted yesterday and it proposes continuing the
topics from the last meeting on May 24 (
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
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?
[14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0115.html
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0112.html
Announcements
AB: any short announcements?
... here's something that people may want to read/scan:
[16]http://io9.com/5808604/10-physical-gestures-that-have-been-paten
ted
[16]
http://io9.com/5808604/10-physical-gestures-that-have-been-patented
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
different
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-à-vis Matt's latest change
<lgombos>
[21]http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/WebCore/WebCore-658.28/do
m/TouchEvent.idl
[21]
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/WebCore/WebCore-658.28/dom/TouchEvent.idl
OP: Webkit is apparently inconsistent here
... createTouch takes pageXandY and screenXandY
... We can do what Webkit does
... It's a bit ugly but compatible
<smaug>
[22]http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/Document
.cpp#L5032 vs
[23]http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/TouchEve
nt.cpp#L55
[22]
http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/Document.cpp#L5032
[23]
http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/TouchEvent.cpp#L55
MB: initTouchEvent in TouchEvents spec is not compatible with WebKit
initTouchEvent
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
touchstart
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
events
... I think we had agreement click should be dispatched
DS: if there is general agreement among the impls, we should use
that
AB: so what does that mean in terms of what needs to be specified?
<sangwhan>
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
0082.html
[27]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0082.html
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
[28]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<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
Identity
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
LG:
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
0121.html
... 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
[32]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0121.html
<smaug>
[33]http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/58323/trunk/WebCore/page/EventH
andler.cpp. doesn't seem to work
[33]
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/58323/trunk/WebCore/page/EventHandler.cpp.
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 (
[34]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html#item07)
about the thread Gregers Gram Rygg started on May 12 (
[35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/
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 (
[36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/
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)
[35]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0098.html
[36]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html
DS: I don't have any additional status
AB: ongoing action for Doug and I to keep up with James' work
AOB
AB: regarding the next call
... it appears we still have open, discussions for Issues 3, 16 and
17
... I would prefer to have more calls in June and less in July and
August
... 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
[37]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 16:08:26 UTC