- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:22:09 -0400
- 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:
http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html
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]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Events WG Voice Conference
29 Mar 2011
[2]Agenda
[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
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck,
Olli_Pettay, Sangwhan_Moon, Dzung_Tran
Regrets
Anders_Höckersten
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [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 (
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/
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
[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:
[18]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/1ea45991d3e9".
[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
<Cathy>
[19]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/tip/touchevents.html#at
tributes
[19] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/tip/touchevents.html#attributes
<Barstow> OP: would be good to get feedback from the Canonical
people
<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
important
<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
changes
<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
true?
<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
[21]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<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
interface
<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
implementation
<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
WebKit
<Barstow> ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names
in the Touch API spec vis-ā-vis what WebKit is used [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
<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
[24]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
<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
[25]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action04]
<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 (
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/
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
Testing
<Barstow> AB: Laszlo responded to Action-10 (
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/
0076.html ) and he included a link to WebKit's touch tests (
[33]http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/events/tou
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
framework/harness.
<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
[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
[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
AoB
<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
time
<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
[39]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names in
the Touch API spec vis-ā-vis what WebKit is used [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
[DONE] ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 16:22:41 UTC