W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > July to September 2011

Draft minutes: 9 August 2011

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:19:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4E415E23.706@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the August 8 voice conference are available at 
the following and copied below:


Given the critical people were not on the call, the meeting ended 
without discussing the topics in the draft agenda.

If there is a call on August 16 and/or August 23, Doug will create the 
agenda and chair the meeting.



[1] http://www.w3.org/


Web Events WG Voice Conference

09 Aug 2011



See also: [3]IRC log

[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/09-webevents-irc


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




* [4]Topics
1. [5]Tweak Agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit
4. [8]Issue-16: Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re
Object Identity
5. [9]Examples of lists
6. [10]Preparing Touch Events v1 spec for Last Call WD
7. [11]Any Other Business (AOB)
* [12]Summary of Action Items

<smaug> is there some voip number or such to which I could call
using skype?

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 9 August 2011

Tweak Agenda

AB: draft agenda posted on August 8
0020.html. One change I want to make is to move the Examples List
topic after Issue-16.
... any change requests?


[ None ]


AB: any short announcements today?

Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit

AB: Issue-19 [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19
has open Action-55 for Laszlo
... Laszlo is still unavailable so we will skip this topic
... I think we should address this before LC

[14] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19
[15] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/55

MB: after our last call, I commented on the webkit bug

 re some alignment

 I haven't received any feedback on what I added to that webkit bug

AB: thanks for following up on that

<mbrubeck> [16]https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60612

[16] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60612

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

AB: Issue-16 [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16
has open Action-53 by Doug
[18]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/53. Sangwhan
submitted some comments on August 3
... June 14 is the last time we discussed this issue

[17] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16
[18] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/53.
[20] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html#item04

DS: no progress on that action

 plan to work on it this week

AB: this is somewhat related to the question about the list
definitions for Target Events

DS: would it be useful to try to do web searches on this issue?

MB: yes, I've been using Google Code searches

 it covers a lot of OSS code

 but only covers code in public repos and doesn't cover everything
on the Web

AB: do you need anything from the rest of use Doug re this issue?

DS: no; just need to do the analysis

MB: I disagree with Sangwhan's latest message

 I think the assert in example 2 of Issue-16 should fail

 I will respond on the list

 If they are all immutable the question of shared identity doesn't
matter so much

AB: yes, please do that

DT: have we looked at the Webkit impl?

DS: I think someone took an action



MB: laszlo has open action-46


<trackbot> ACTION-46 -- Laszlo Gombos to laszlo to follow-up re
Object Identity implementation in WebKit -- due 2011-05-17 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/46

[22] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/46



AB: so it appears then that Laszlo agrees with Matt re the 2nd

DS: I agree with Matt

 thus there is no need for me to respond

 if Matt responds to Sangwhan, I think that will clarify things

AB: you propose Doug that action-53 be close?

DS: yes, I think we've now addressed the issue

CC: do any changes need to be made to the spec to clarify this?

DS: yes; good point

 need a different action for it though

AB: what's the action

<scribe> ACTION: Doug propose spec text to address the resolution of
issue-16 [recorded in

DS: I'll do that after Sangwhan has responded to Matt

Examples of lists

AB: Sangwhan checked in some examples to complete Action-57
... Cathy's sent comments re Sangwhan's examples:
... Tran sent an example to the list

[25] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/default/touchevents.html

CC: I reviewed SM's examples

<trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Propose spec text to address the
resolution of issue-16 [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-08-16].

 it raised the question about what targetTouches actually refers to

 There appears to be a discrepancy in the spec and the example

MB: I agree with Cathy's interpretation of the spec

 and I need to test the examples in running code to verify

CC: I looked at Safari doc

 it is a bit ambiguous

 I'll look for a link



CC: it says targetTouches "A collection of Touch objects
representing all touches associated with this target.


MB: I can take an action to test the examples

AB: thanks Matt

<scribe> ACTION: brubeck test Sangwhan's list examples against
implementations [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Test Sangwhan's list examples against
implementations [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-08-16].

AB: Cathy also noted there is no way to determine how many touch
points are currently on a particular element

CC: yes; is that an issue?
... so app needs to keep track?

MB: yes

<mbrubeck> using touchenter and touchleave (once those are

OP: you can also use coordinates from the touch point element


[30] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/#dom-document-elementfrompoint

SM: we may want to add some heuristics

 about number of touches

 it can be a problem in the long run

MB: the main reason behind the current language is to align with

 if we want to change that, we need to be careful

SM: we can also think about adding new things in the next version of
the spec

AB: I think our working assumption is for v1 to match what has
already been implemented
... Tran submitted an example

TD: I tried my example on Safari and phone with Webkit

 it's up to the group if we want to do anything with my example

 want to add some additional features like rotation

SM: like to have other features included

 but would be good to make it a bit shorter

 and just focus on the minimal amount of code

TD: it's fine with me if the Editors want to change it

SM: OK; I'll make some mods and then run them by you

TD: ok; sounds good

 do we want to introduce a Rotation example?

MB: I have some comments that I will send to the list

SM: the v1 spec doesn't have rotation, correct?

MB: yes, that's correct

Preparing Touch Events v1 spec for Last Call WD

AB: one action blocking LC is Doug's Action-56 "Update the Touch
Event spec to use markup to facilitate

test case extraction"

[31] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/56

DS: my f2f meeting and other high priority stuff got in the way

 should be done this week

 would appreciate it if Matt would ping me about this ;-)!

<smaug> we can all kick shepazu :)

DS: this shouldn't stop us from creating tests, right

AB: yes; good point!

 there is always an Open Action for everyone to Create Tests!

DS: after I complete action-56, it would be good to assign blocks of
assertions to individuals

 does that seem reasonable?

DT: think it's a good idea

<smaug> +1

<sangwhan> +1

DS: v1 will be limited to features already implemented

 does it appear there will be at least 2 impls for each feature?

MB: I think the main interop issue is going to be the params for


 Other than that, I think all of the other v1 features are

DS: I ask, because that will block our progress toward

AB: perhaps during LC review period we can do some analysis about
what has been implemented

DS: we could conceivably skip CR if we have all features implemented
in the LC time frame

 assuming we have the tests in place

AB: want to spend some time on the spec's 2 "red block issues"

 first one has to do with aligning with InkML



AB: have we already said this is out of scope for v1?

DS: yes

SM: yes

AB: so this will be resolved when we make the spec split?

DS: yes

AB: ok, the 2nd red block issue is "What are units of radiusX/Y? CSS

SM: that is also moved to v2

DS: correct

CC: yes

MB: the spec actually seems to address it, right above the issue

DS: I had an answer at one point of time but wanted more feedback

AB: so radiusX will not be in v1?

DS: yes, that's correct

MB: yes
... speaking of v1

 I am all set to make the split

 was waiting for Doug

 but won't now

 I will create a v1 branch

 and the trunk will continue on for v2

 and we can apply changes to both branches as needed

SM: sounds good

AB: +1

DS: so we can split now and still apply a changeset to both?

MB: yes, we can do that

 some of the patches may need to be done manually

 I don't expect the two branches to ever reunite

 v1 will stop changing as the spec freezes

SM: for v1, we should do some testing before stripping out features

DS: that implies we have the tests

 but we aren't quite there yet

 until we get the tests

 it's a good idea and will be done during the implementation phase

Any Other Business (AOB)

AB: August 30 is the next time I can make a call

DS: if we get enough actions and work done before then, I can chair
a call

AB: that works for me

<sangwhan> WFM

AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: brubeck test Sangwhan's list examples against
implementations [recorded in
[NEW] ACTION: Doug propose spec text to address the resolution of
issue-16 [recorded in

[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 16:20:17 UTC

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