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

Draft minutes: 14 June 2011 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:31:40 -0400
Message-ID: <4DF78CEC.600@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the June 14 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 21 (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

14 Jun 2011



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-irc


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




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Issue-3 Click event target after DOM mutation during
          4. [8]Issue-16 Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re
             Object Identity
          5. [9]Issue-17 Page X and Y parameters to createTouch
          6. [10]Any Other Business (AOB)
      * [11]Summary of Action Items

<shepazu> ArtB: didn't smaug take that on?

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

    Date: 14 June 2011

<mbrubeck> dialing...

Tweak Agenda

    AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday (
    0124.html ). Any change requests?



    AB: any short announcements for today?

Issue-3 Click event target after DOM mutation during touchstart

    AB: Issue-3 is one of our older issues (
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3 ) and Doug has
    one open action for it (
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23 )

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

    OP: I was wondering if we can specify in a more exact way
    ... but it depends on the device
    ... perhaps it is enough to say impls should dispense mouse up

    MB: I agree with that

    AB: we discussed this issue on June 7 (
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item05 ). On
    June 13, Olli followed up with an e-mail that closed his related
    Action-51 and proposed a spec change (
    0123.html )

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item05

    [ group pauses to read Olli's proposal ]

    DS: this looks OK to me

    LG: looks ok
    ... but the device specific
    ... part isn't clear

    OP: the OS may give some additional info

    MB: scrolling can be done via diff gestures
    ... some cases may not want to wait

    LG: so, this is more about product decisions
    ... and not really about the OS per se

    DS: should we say something about why it is not a MUST?

    MB: I can take an action to integrate OP's proposal into the spec
    ... and to add some non-normative rationale

    OP: my proposal is a bit stronger then what is in the spec

    DS: agree that SHOULD is better here

<scribe> ACTION: matt integrate Olli's proposal for Issue-3
    (action-51) [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Integrate Olli's proposal for Issue-3
    (action-51) [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-06-21].

    AB: after Matt completes Action-52, do we consider this issue as

<smaug> ACTION-23 can be probably closed

    AB: I don't think we need any additional followup
    ... anything else on this issue?

    DS: so Matt will close the issue after addressing action-52?

    MB: yes

    AB: please include the changeset number

    MB: will do

Issue-16 Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object Identity

    AB: Issue-16 ( [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16
    ) actually raises 2 questions/issues. Laszlo submitted feedback for
    this issue before our June 7 call (
    0121.html ). We briefly talked about this issue on June 7 (
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item06 ) and
    everyone was actioned to read Laszlo's e-mail.
    ... perhaps it would be helpful to look at each question in the
    issue separately: 1) "Should the Touch Events standard specify
    whether certain operations return the same object?" and 2) "Should
    different touch events refer to the same objects?".
    ... re question #1, Matt - do you have a proposal for an answer?

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16
      [20] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item06

    MB: not sure but lean toward Yes
    ... it could be an interop issue
    ... and need to think about LG's input

    LG: most objects aren't the same
    ... if they are, we can note that

    DS: re question #2, I would expect each touch event would have a
    unique identifier

    MB: I think that is a reasonable expectation
    ... but PPK noted that in some Webkit impls, events were reused

    DS: that seems like a but to me

    MB: agree and that bug has been fixed in newer version of Webkit

<smaug> not events but touch objects were reused in webkit, I think

    DS: if we are going to do some mapping b/w low to high events

<mbrubeck> from
    html it sounds like it was the TouchEvent object that was reused.


<smaug> huh

    DS: then we may need identify to refer to specific touch events
    ... but it seems like we need unique id for every touch event (but
    not every touch point)

    MB: no other DOM type spec talks about this
    ... this came up because of earlier versions of Webkit
    ... and their inconsistency with newer impls and other DOM specs
    ... Given the new impls, perhaps we don't even need to mention this

    DS: even if we don't spec a binding from low to high level events, I
    think developers will need to do that
    ... I think there is value in defining unique touch events

<smaug> ah, looks like iPhone used to cache/reuse the touchpoint
    *list*, at least based on the quircksmode example

    DS: would be good to talk to others, like Sencha about this
    ... We want to specify things where the current unspecified behavior
    is leading to interop probs
    ... We coud spec something and then if feedback is negative, we can
    remove it

    LG: sounds OK to me

    OP: yes (the old WK behavior is a bug)

    AB: is anyone willing to create a proposal for text to address

    DS: I can make a proposal

<scribe> ACTION: doug create a proposal to address issue-16
    [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Create a proposal to address issue-16
    [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-06-21].

    AB: do you need anything else from us Doug?

    DS: if I need anything, I'll ask on the list

<scribe> ACTION: barstow move issue-16 to Open [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Move issue-16 to Open [on Arthur
    Barstow - due 2011-06-21].

    AB: anything else on issue-16?

    [ No ]

Issue-17 Page X and Y parameters to createTouch

    AB: Issue-17 ( [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17
    ). We talked about this issue on June 7 (
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item04 ).
    The status is that Matt submitted changeset #94 for this issue (
    [26]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/53491ff3514b ). Olli agreed
    with this patch and Laszlo said he needed to review the changeset
    vis--vis Webkit.
    ... changeset #94 removes clientX/Y from initTouchEvent since they
    can be computed. Olli noted WebKit is inconsistent here
    (initTouchEvent vs. document.createTouch)
    ... so there are two related things here: 1) are there any
    objections to changeset #94 and 2) the spec's initTouchEvent method
    l#methods-1 ) which has no screenX/Y nor clientX/Y is not consistent
    with WebKit's implementation (
    nt.cpp#L55 ) and (
    m/TouchEvent.idl )

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17
      [25] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item04
      [26] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/53491ff3514b

<mbrubeck> initTouchEvent in WebKit takes a bunch of parameters that
    it simply ignores. For full compatibility, we'd need to add a bunch
    of dummy parameters to initTouchEvent...

    AB: let's start with changeset #94. Any objections to that i.e.
    remove clientX/Y?
    ... any objections to changeset #94?

    [ None ]

    AB: consider that changeset accepted

<mbrubeck> well, I guess it doesn't totally ignore them... need to
    do more research

    AB: ok, initTouchEvent signatures - what, if anything do we want to
    do here to align the APIs?

<smaug> TouchEvent.idl is bizarre. You can pass clientX/Y as
    parameters but can't you them

    DS: I don't think we need to totally align the interfaces

    m/UIEvent.idl (the parent interface) has pageX/pageY accessors)


    DS: we could make our API identical to Webkit
    ... A script lib can take care of the diffs
    ... e.g. give the "right" initializer

    MB: I haven't seem any code in the wild that uses these initializers
    ... I have seen some test cases for it

    DS: so that says if Webkit wants to align with our spec, it would be
    easy for them to do
    ... there are other differences, I think

    LG: I haven't looked into the details of this

<mbrubeck> ah, and it looks like layerX/layerY correspond to the
    pageX/pageY parameters -


    LG: I don't fully understand why we want to remove this
    ... but if this change is going in the right direction, perhaps
    Webkit woud follow
    ... The main rationale here is what?

    MB: in WK, initTouchEvents takes one set of params and our spec uses
    another set of params
    ... in some cases, we don't understand why WK uses the coordinates

<smaug> webkit's TouchEvent doesn't have .clientX/Y or .screenX/Y,
    only .pageX/Y .layerX/Y (which are in UIEvent)

    DS: has anyone done any testing to see about the use of 'clientX/Y'





    LG: there is some code shared among WK ports and there is some
    device-specific code
    ... not clear where these APIs fall
    ... I can look into this before the next call

    DS: I can understand that f.ex. the 1st or last touch points may
    have some semantics

    MB: the scenarios can get complex with multi-touch

    DS: perhaps there is some convenience for them

    MB: I don't want to include params if we don't have real need for

    DS: I think some WK testing would be useful
    ... cases: not used, 1st touch event, most recent [last]
    ... Laszlo, can you do some testing here?

    LG: yes, I can take an action for that

<scribe> ACTION: laszlo do some analysis of Webkit's implementations
    re Issue-17 [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Do some analysis of Webkit's
    implementations re Issue-17 [on Laszlo Gombos - due 2011-06-21].

    AB: can anyone help LG with this?

    DS: we need some tests
    ... I can test on other platforms if that is helpful?

    LG: what other platforms other than WK?

    MB: Opera Mobile 11 supports touch events

    DS: so step 1 is to create tests; step 2 is to test on WK; step 3 is
    to test on Opera

<mbrubeck> If current implementations don't actually have specific
    semantics for TouchEvent.pageX/Y, I don't want to add them because I
    feel they will be a trap for authors. Using them will be convenient,
    but will lead to surprise. Using the TouchList properties is a
    little less convenient, but forces authors to think about what
    happens when more than one TouchPoint is present, so they won't be

    AB: any last comments about issue-17?

Any Other Business (AOB)

<smaug> vacation? what is that?

<mbrubeck> :)

    AB: next meeting, I'm thinking 2 weeks from now

    DS: most issues are now closed
    ... where are we with this spec?
    ... are there other things missing?

    OP: I think we need to clarify the various lists
    ... what are they for example

    LG: in one of my e-mails I mentioned some of this

    MB: last week I checked in some changes that do some of these

<mbrubeck> [36]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/457c2df41b66

      [36] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/457c2df41b66

    AB: is this an issue or an action?

    DS: prefer to create an Issue
    ... so we can create associated actions
    ... track the discussions, etc.

<lgombos> smaug: info on changedTouches -


    AB: agree, it gives a good paper trail

    MB: but we still need some examples

    ISSUE: the spec needs more examples related to the various lists

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-18 - The spec needs more examples related
    to the various lists ; please complete additional details at
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/18/edit .

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/18/edit

    DS: are we close to Last Call?

<mbrubeck> We need more tests. I'll be able to add more as the
    Mozilla Mobile team starts work on multi-touch.

    AB: yes, it looks like we are gettig close
    ... to LC, that is

    DS: are we using the text markup to facilitate test case extractions

    MB: we discussed this on a call when Doug wasn't here
    ... Sangwhan and I agreed it would be good to use that markup

    DS: OK, I'll take an action to do so

<mbrubeck> Past discussion here:

      [39] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html


      [40] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html#item03

<scribe> ACTION: Doug update the Touch Event spec to use markup to
    facilitate test case extraction [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update the Touch Event spec to use
    markup to facilitate test case extraction [on Doug Schepers - due

    AB: will action-56 block LC?

    DS: it shouldn't block it
    ... if that process creates issues, that's good
    ... does it appear the touch shape area is adequately spec'ed?

    MB: we have already received comments on that and it appears solid
    ... we are lacking TouchLeave and TouchEnter feedback
    ... they are new parts

    DS: well, LC is a great way to get feedback

    AB: yes, LC is important because it says "the group thinks it is
    ... I think a LC in July or August is possible

    DS: would like to get it ready in the next two weeks

    MB: how important is a good set of test cases re going into LC

    DS: I would like to have a good set of test cases before LC

    MB: a colleague of mine has some relevant test cases
    ... I will see if they can be ported to our test framework
    ... that could get some tests for us within a few weeks

    DS: the test suite is required in Candidate phase
    ... but it's always better to have test cases earlier

    MB: the spec is already being written around existing impl

    DS: some rigor about what needs to be tested
    ... and a plan to flesh it out
    ... should be considered the minimum before going to LC
    ... My action-56 should give us a very good idea of the scope of the
    test suite
    ... and I will try to do this within the next two weeks
    ... and I *LOVE* creating test cases!

    AB: excellent! You Da' Man Doug!
    ... in summary, we have a few issues to address and a couple of high
    priority actions to complete
    ... and a more complete test suite
    ... and then we will be ready for LC
    ... But that all seems do-able in July (or August)
    ... it would be good if we had an idea about the Intentional Events

    DS: agree but this can help others with their decision to

    [ Some discussions about how to test the various features on
    multi-touch ... ]

    DS: if we have some stuff in the spec that isn't widely implemented,
    we could put those features in a v2 spec
    ... and then we can advance v1 quicker

    MB: yes, I can see some value in that

    DS: the 3 things: TouchEnter, TouchLeave and Touch Area
    ... may be better to move into v2 spec
    ... and v1 is the "this works today" spec

<mbrubeck> (where "Touch Area" refers to

<mbrubeck> also, "force"

    DS: how to do people think about this v1 and v2 idea?

    MB: I like it

    SM: makes sense (kinda' like widgets v1 and v2)

    AB: I don't have a strong opinion either way

    OP: make sense to me to have a v2 now
    ... then it is like XHR1 and XHR2

    LG: yes, I think it makes sense but don't have a strong opinion

    CC: yes, agree with LG

    AB: propose resolution: Touch Enter, Leave, Area and Force are moved
    to a v2 spec immediately

    MB: from a logistics view,
    ... we should add a v2 branch in the Mercurial repo

    DS: can you do that Matt?

    MB: yes

    DS: are merges easy?

    MB: usually but may need some manual intervention

    AB: any objections to the proposed resolution above?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: Touch Enter, Leave, Area and Force will be moved to a v2

    AB: so, next meeting
    ... next week?
    ... any objections to a meeting on June 21?
    ... next meeting is June 21
    ... please address Open Actions as soon as you can!
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow move issue-16 to Open [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: doug create a proposal to address issue-16 [recorded
    in [43]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Doug update the Touch Event spec to use markup to
    facilitate test case extraction [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: laszlo do some analysis of Webkit's implementations re
    Issue-17 [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: matt integrate Olli's proposal for Issue-3 (action-51)
    [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 16:32:22 UTC

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