W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > January to March 2011

Draft Minutes: 29 March 2011 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:22:09 -0400
Message-ID: <4D920731.9010505@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the March 29 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 April 5 (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

29 Mar 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0084.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck,
           Olli_Pettay, Sangwhan_Moon, Dzung_Tran





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Issue-1 "Resolve touch area re. radius and angle"
          3. [7]Issue-7 "Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes?"
          4. [8]Issue-8 - initTouchEvent function
          5. [9]Issue-9 Interaction of touch events and mouse events
          6. [10]Issue-6 Touch Targets in Frames
          7. [11]Testing
          8. [12]Gestural Interface Specification Language
          9. [13]AoB
      * [14]Summary of Action Items

    <Barstow>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <Barstow>  Scribe: Art

    <Barstow>  Date: 29 March 2011

Tweak Agenda

    <Barstow>  AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday (
    0084.html ). Re Action-10 agenda topic, I'd like to turn it into a
    more generic Testing topic.

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0084.html

    <Barstow>  DS: would like to add

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0088.html

    <Barstow>  ... I haven't read it in entirety yet

    <Barstow>  ... one of my colleagues mentioned it [Chris Lilley]

    <Barstow>  ... The work is being done by an academic researcher

    <Barstow>  ... From what I can gather, seems similar to what I've
    been thinking

    <Barstow>  ... describes how to build up a gesture

    <Barstow>  ... It is a Gesture Description Language

    <Barstow>  ... Perhaps the author can work with us

    <Barstow>  AB: let's take it as AOB today or if we can't get to it,
    talk about it on the list or add it to next week's agenda

Issue-1 "Resolve touch area re. radius and angle"

    <Barstow>  AB: Issue 1 (
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/1 ) is now in the
    Pending Review state. Matt included a proposed resolution in the
    issue and checked-in a fix "Updated the spec to include a
    rotationAngle attribute as suggested by Olli in ACTION-17:

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/1
      [18] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/1ea45991d3e9

    <Barstow>  AB: is that about right Matt?

    <Barstow>  MB: yes

    <Barstow>  DS: would like a bit of an explanation

    <Barstow>  MB: I added a new property to Touch interface

    <Barstow>  ... called rotationAngle

    <Barstow>  ... it is angle in degrees from 90 to -90

    <Barstow>  ... describes ellipse

    <Barstow>  DS: sounds fine to me


      [19] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/tip/touchevents.html#attributes

    <Barstow>  OP: would be good to get feedback from the Canonical

    <Barstow>  ... I sent an email to the list but didn't a reply

    <Barstow>  DS: we should definitely ask for feedback from them

    <Barstow>  MB: one think I didn't do was to talk about things outside
    of the elliptical touch area

    <Barstow>  ... that is, I made the scope fairly limited

    <Barstow>  AB: do people want some time to review this?

    <Barstow>  CC: I have a question

    <Barstow>  ... the proposal is +90 to -90

    <Barstow>  ... that gives two different ways to represent the area

    <Barstow>  ... not sure if two representations of the area is a
    problem or not

    <Barstow>  MB: that's a good point

    <Barstow>  ... other specs talk about Major and Minor rather than
    RadiusX and RadiusY

    <Barstow>  ... I'd be happy to look at any change proposals

    <Barstow>  OP: SVG has areaX and areaY

    <Barstow>  ... using radiusX and radiusY to be consistent with SVG

    <Barstow>  DS: again, I don't think that SVG consistency here is that

    <Barstow>  OP: but consistency would be good

    <Barstow>  DS: don't think SVG compatibility here is that important

    <Barstow>  ... and SVG could change to be consistent with our spec

    <Barstow>  OP: really think we need feedback from Canonical

    <Barstow>  DS: re +/-90 degrees

    <Barstow>  ... how to detect rotation seems tricky

    <Barstow>  ... not clear what it is relevant to (point of ref)

    <Barstow>  [ Scribe missed comment by MB ... ]

    <Barstow>  DS: what if finger is offscreen and then orientation

    <Barstow>  ... does x, why change, does orientation change

    <Barstow>  MB: a lot of things change in that case

    <Barstow>  ... including rX and rY

    <Barstow>  DS: think we need to think about this

    <Barstow>  AB: my conclusion is we need some more time

    <Barstow>  ... do we want a fixed review period

    <Barstow>  ... and if no comments, Matt's proposal is accepted

    <Barstow>  DS: yes, think so; we don't need to be perfect with our
    early WDs

    <Barstow>  AB: I propose people send comments during the next week

    <Barstow>  ... and if no one raises any concerns with Matt's proposal
    we consider it accepted

Issue-7 "Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes?"

    <Barstow>  AB: Issue-7 (
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/7 ) Matt included
    a proposed resolution in the issue and checked in a fix that
    codifies a previous agreement.

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/7

    <Barstow>  AB: I think Matt codifed last week's agreement; is that

    <Barstow>  MB: yes

    <Barstow>  AB: proposed resolution: Matt's fix for Issue-7 is
    accepted and the issue is Closed

    <Barstow>  AB: any objections?

    <Barstow>  [ None ]

    <Barstow>  RESOLUTION: Matt's fix for Issue-7 is accepted and the
    issue is Closed

    <Barstow>  ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to closed [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-26 - Move issue-7 to closed [on Arthur
    Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

Issue-8 - initTouchEvent function

    <Barstow>  AB: Matt Brubeck raised Issue-8 (
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/8 ).

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/8

    <Barstow>  MB: we haven't specified how content scripts can create
    touch events

    <Barstow>  ... WebKit already has an impl of this proposal

    <Barstow>  ... it would require some new functions in the Document

    <Barstow>  AB: any comments or feedback?

    <Barstow>  MB: WebKit uses an interface called "Touch" whereas our
    spec uses "TouchPoint"

    <Barstow>  ... is that name diff intentional

    <Barstow>  ... or is it something we should change

    <Barstow>  DS: I deliberately did not look at the WebKit docs

    <Barstow>  ... when I created my proposal

    <Barstow>  ... I think TouchPoint is more descriptive

    <Barstow>  ... and more intuitive

    <Barstow>  ... Our TouchPoint is a bit different

    <Barstow>  ... but it does mean we don't have an instant

    <Barstow>  AB: in terms of being able to write tests as we spec,
    having consistency here would be useful

    <Barstow>  DS: I would like to hear from others

    <Barstow>  SM: I think we should use different names

    <Barstow>  ... it would be confusing for us to use the same name if
    the interfaces are different

    <Barstow>  MB: but the other two interfaces we define are the same as
    WebKit's names

    <Barstow>  AB: we could do a 1-week Call for Consensus on the name

    <Barstow>  DS: not so much about name but about are we mimicing

    <Barstow>  ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names
    in the Touch API spec vis-ā-vis what WebKit is used [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-27 - Talk to Laszlo about the interface
    names in the Touch API spec vis-ā-vis what WebKit is used [on Arthur
    Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

    <Barstow>  AB: is there agreement this is an issue

    <Barstow>  MB: I think we should make Names a separate issue

    <Barstow>  ACTION: barstow create an Issue for the Interface names
    [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-28 - Create an Issue for the Interface
    names [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

    <Barstow>  AB: so is issue-8, now in Raised state, be move to Open?

    <Barstow>  DS: yes

    <Barstow>  AB: any disagreement

    <Barstow>  [ None ]

    <Barstow>  ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-29 - Move issue-8 to Open state [on Arthur
    Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

Issue-9 Interaction of touch events and mouse events

    <Barstow>  AB: Matt also raised Issue-9 (
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/9 ) and there has
    been some discussion on the list (
    0080.html )

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/9
      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0080.html

    <Barstow>  MB: the question is, what the spec should do related to
    mouse events and touch events

    <Barstow>  ... we have a bunch of input re existing impls

    <Barstow>  ... the impls agree in the order

    <Barstow>  ... Need to decide if we specify order or leave it to the
    implementation to decide

    <Barstow>  SM: for our impl, interop is the main concern

    <Barstow>  DS: I need to think more about it

    <Barstow>  AB: from a process perspective, we can leave it in the
    Raised state

    <Barstow>  ... or if we agree it is an Issue, we can move it to the
    Open state

    <Barstow>  ... Sounds like we need to make a decision, as such, I
    propose we move it to Open

    <Barstow>  AB: any objections to moving to Open state?

    <Barstow>  DS: no

    <sangwhan>  +1

    <sangwhan>  (as in, no)

    <Barstow>  ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state [recorded
    in [28]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-30 - Move Issue-9 to the open state [on
    Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

Issue-6 Touch Targets in Frames

    <Barstow>  AB: Issue-6 (
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 ) has Action-24
    for Doug "Follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate some of the
    questions and sub-issues" (
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/24 ) . We have
    discussed this issue before, most recently 22 March (
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#item04 ).

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6
      [30] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/24
      [31] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#item04

    <Barstow>  AB: Doug, anything to discuss today?

    <Barstow>  DS: I started my email; expect to send it within the next
    few days


    <Barstow>  AB: Laszlo responded to Action-10 (
    0076.html ) and he included a link to WebKit's touch tests (
    ch ). AFAIU, those tests require an WebKit impl to run.

      [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0076.html
      [33] http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/events/touch

    <Barstow>  AB: at some point we need to talk about a testing

    <Barstow>  AB: several groups such as HTML WG, DAP WG, Web
    Performance WG have agreed to use testharness.js (
    [34]http://w3c-test.org/resources/testharness.js ). Because of this,
    it seems like we should also use it unless there a compelling
    reasons not to use it.

      [34] http://w3c-test.org/resources/testharness.js

    <Barstow>  AB: is anyone willing to commit to analyzing this harness
    in the context of Touch API testing?

    <Barstow>  OP: so the harnes is only using WebAPIs

    <Barstow>  ... wonder if it is sufficient for touch testing

    <Barstow>  ... think we need to have something all browser vendors
    can use

    <Barstow>  ... We use something similar to what Webkit uses

    <Barstow>  ... Think we are going to need more than just testharness

    <Barstow>  DS: are you going to look at WebKit's touch tests?

    <Barstow>  OP: WebKit exposes an object to the web page

    <Barstow>  ... so they can use touch events

    <Barstow>  ... Gecko has something similar

    <Barstow>  ... And I expect Opera, IE must use something similar

    <Barstow>  DS: this came up at a recent SVG f2f meeting

    <Barstow>  ... hooks specifically for testing can be useful

    <Barstow>  ... Perhaps testing hooks or modes standard will be useful

    <Barstow>  OP: only want to expose that during testing (not generally
    available to all web pages)

    <Barstow>  ... think standardization here could be tricky

    <Barstow>  ... but may be able to standardize a common subset of what
    is needed

    <smaug_>  sangwhan: what is watir?

    <sangwhan>  [35]http://watir.com/

      [35] http://watir.com/

    <Barstow>  SM: I think FX, IE support waitr

    <Barstow>  AB: ok, I think this give us all some extra reading

Gestural Interface Specification Language

    <Barstow>  AB: earlier today Doug sent a link to the Gestural
    Interface Specification Language

    <Barstow>  ...

      [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0088.html

    <Barstow>  ... proposal is:

      [37] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-echtler-gispl-specification-00

    <Barstow>  DS: everyone should read this

    <Barstow>  ... allows defining new gestures e.g. "double pinch"

    <Barstow>  ... and then when that gesture occurs, app can then take
    some action

    <Barstow>  ... This is an extensible system

    <Barstow>  ... that allows app devs to define their own gestures

    <Barstow>  AB: do you happen to know if there has been any related
    impl work?

    <Barstow>  DS: no, I don't know but we can contact him

    <Barstow>  AB: everyone should consider it as an Action to read this
    relatively short proposal

    <Barstow>  ... depending on our feedback, we can perhaps invite the
    author to discuss this on the list or maybe attend a call with us

    <sangwhan>  [38]http://tisch.sourceforge.net/

      [38] http://tisch.sourceforge.net/

    <Barstow>  AB: seems like this type of functionality would be out of
    scope for IETF


    <Barstow>  AB: anything else for today?

    <Barstow>  SM: I've done some work on Action-18

    <Barstow>  ... I did some experimentation

    <Barstow>  ... my email contains some details

    <Barstow>  AB: if the problem with email persists, please notify Doug
    and I

    <Barstow>  SM: please add it to next week's agenda

    <Barstow>  AB: next call is April 5.

    <Barstow>  AB: Matt's done a good job of following up offlist

    <Barstow>  ... I encourage everyone else to do the same

    <Barstow>  DS: if this time is problematic, we should find another

    <Barstow>  AB: if the call time is an issue, please notify Doug and I

    <Barstow>  AB: Meeting Adjourned

    <mbrubeck>  This time (0800 local time) is okay for me, though later
    would be fine.

    <smaug_>  mbrubeck: the meeting starts at 8am in MV?

    <mbrubeck>  smaug_: Yes, though I'm in Seattle.

    <smaug_>  mbrubeck: ah. but next week in MV?

    <mbrubeck>  yes!

    <Barstow>  ScribeNick: Barstow

    <mbrubeck>  see you there?

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow create an Issue for the Interface names
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names in
    the Touch API spec vis-ā-vis what WebKit is used [recorded in

    [DONE] ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 16:22:41 UTC

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