- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:44:24 -0400
- To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the August 30 voice conference are available at the following and copied below: http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webevents mail list before September 6 (the next voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved as is. -AB [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - Web Events WG Voice Conference 30 Aug 2011 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0036.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-irc Attendees Present Laszlo_Gombos Regrets Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [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]Preparing Touch Events v1 spec for Last Call WD 6. [10]JoyStick API 7. [11]Any Other Business (AOB) * [12]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB <scribe> Scribe: Art Date: 30 August 2011 <smaug> just a second <lgombos> ArtB: have problems with the bridge, does not let me in Tweak Agenda AB: I submitted a draft agenda on August 30 [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/ 0036.html. Are there any change requests? [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0036.html. DS: I got an email about adding JoyStick API to this WG … maybe we can address that today AB: how about AoB? DS: that's fine Announcements AB: any short announcements for today? Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit AB: Issue-19 "Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit" is blocking LC [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19. Laszlo has Action-55 open for this issue [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/55. ... we last discussed this on July 19 [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/07/19-webevents-minutes.html#item06 [14] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19. [15] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/55. [16] http://www.w3.org/2011/07/19-webevents-minutes.html#item06 <mbrubeck> I commented on [17]https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60612 last month but there was no response yet. [17] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60612 LG: I haven't made much progress … action is still open … There is a webkit bug … I could create a patch to see what reaction we get … Sorry about the lack of progress MB: I propose we continue the discussion for v2 … and for v1 remove those params for v1 … thus we can continue with LC for v1 DS: I think that makes sense <mbrubeck> For v1 we can remove initTouchEvent (and createTouch + createTouchList which are not useful without initTouchEvent), and wait until v2 to answer these questions and spec those. OP: can you please clarify what is it you want to remove? … I think some scripts use createTouch MB: they can be useful for feature detection … they are implemented but they would be included in the spec AB: any other comments on Matt's proposal? … I am somewhat indifferent … we could do this, publish the LC and then ask the Webkit community for feedback LG: so if they object to removing them, then what do we do? AB: that would be feedback we would have to review and consider LG: OK OP: if they are removed, that could create some issues WRT testing … it would prevent automatic testing <mbrubeck> If we want to use LC as a way to solicit more feedback from WebKit devs, it might be more useful to leave initTouchEvent in and try to come to consensus on the parameters. MB: if we think WK developers are willing to engage us during LC, we could leave it in … looking for a way to move the spec forward LG: I think this should be a high priority AB: there are advantages to asking WK community before LC … if we want to ask for feedback now, what are the specific questions we want to ask? MB: I think the bug I commented on includes the questions ... Andy Estes created the bug … my comments explains which params are different and asks why they are different AB: the last comment on this bug was about 6 weeks ago … were there any discussions on the mail list? LG: no, I don't think so AB: so, if we don't get any feedback within a week, should we go with Matt's proposal to remove them? LG: make sense OP: yes MB: I agree … and this is for v1 … and for v2 we can continue discussions DS: I defer to the group DT: I think it make sense for now CC: I agree AB: OK; then that's the plan for this issue Issue-16: Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object Identity AB: Issue-16 is also blocking LC [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16 and Doug has open Action-60 for this [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/60. ... we discussed this on August 9 [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/09-webevents-minutes.html#item04 and I don't recall Doug proposing text for the spec that will address this issue. [18] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16 [19] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/60. [20] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/09-webevents-minutes.html#item04 DS: I don't have a strong opinion on this MB: I originally raised this issue … and I don't think it needs to block LC … it is an issue that is not addressed by any other W3C spec (that I know of) DS: agree on the priority DT: seems like an impl detail DS: not sure I agree DT: will apps really check for equality DS: perhaps we can resolve this now … I think each object should have its own identity … Matt, what do you think? MB: I think <missed it> should be immutable DS: if we think something needs to go in the spec, I trust Matt's language MB: I can propose text DS: I think you should just add the text (no need for a proposal) … and you could add a note for reviewers to provide feedback on this AB: should I change Matt to the owner of Action-60 MB: yes, that is fine AB: Matt, please ping me when you've done the edit and I'll close the issue MB: OK AB: any objections to handling Issue-16 this way? [ None ] Preparing Touch Events v1 spec for Last Call WD AB: the v1 spec is nearly ready for LC [21]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html. I think Doug's Action-56 [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/56 is still open although the spec has been split now. [21] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html. [22] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/56 DS: I like this approach … I just don't think it is worth blocking LC … but I'm willing to listen to feedback AB: comments on Doug's proposal to not block LC for this action? … I think doing this is good but I don't think it has to block LC DS: we could agree to adopt this for v2 AB: there's a proposal to not mandate the assertion markup for v1 but to do it for v2 … and to add it during CR for v1 <Dzung_Tran> +1 AB: any objection to that proposal? RESOLUTION: v1 will add assertion markup during CR and v2 will add it before LC JoyStick API AB: [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/ 0035.html [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0035.html DT: it could be part of this WG DS: yes, depending on the interpretation … it would probably require rechartering … so the W3C Team would have to look at this closely … we also have the Intentional Events spec we haven't started … there is some mention in the DOM 3 Events spec but not much DT: is that Mozilla work? DS: no, it's in the spec ... I would agree to push JoyStick spec if we want it DT: I think that makes sense … can look at wii remote DS: D3E spec covers keyboard events AB: any other comments? OP: I wonder if there are any IP issues here? … need to understand if Mozilla and Google are interested AB: Google is a member of this WG DS: I think the 1st order of biz is to get v1 to LC … and then we can add JoyStick to this WG's charter AB: perhaps we should talk to PLH and other W3C team DS: yes, that makes sense <scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Doug on whether the WG should take on JoyStick API [recorded in [24]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Work with Doug on whether the WG should take on JoyStick API [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-06]. AB: would any object to this group adding it to our charter? <mbrubeck> no objection [ None ] AB: let's get some more feedback … but I don't foresee any issues DT: Scott Graham said he would create a strawman DS: given the strawman, it should be straightforward to move the spec fwd … and not get behind on our other stuff Any Other Business (AOB) AB: any topics? ... re the next meeting, given the status of Issue-19, I think a call next week makes sense … we could be in a position to record consensus to publish a LC for v1 AB: so next call is Sept 6 ... meeting adjourned <mbrubeck> lgombos: So, you are going to bring up issue-19 on the webkit mailing lists... is that correct? Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Doug on whether the WG should take on JoyStick API [recorded in [25]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html#action01] [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 16:44:58 UTC