- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:39:10 -0400
- To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the September voice conference are available at
the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2011/09/06-webevents-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webevents mail list before September 13 (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
06 Sep 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0043.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/06-webevents-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Sangwhan_Moon, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers,
Scott_Graham, Laszlo_Gombos, Cathy_Chan
Regrets
Olli_Pettay
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]Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call WD of Touch
Events v1
5. [9]Any Other Business (AOB)
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 6 September 2011
<lgombos> Zakim: aadd is me
Tweak Agenda
AB: I posted a draft agenda on September 5
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/
0043.html. Any change requests? Depending on the outcome of the
discussion of Issue-19, we may skip the topic about publishing a LC
of Touch Events v1 spec.
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0043.html.
Announcements
AB: Any short announcements for today?
... Scott joins us for the first time
JG: video game industry in the past
… am now at Google on Chrome and webkit team
… want to support richer apps
… especially games
… I am particuarly interested in Joystick API I submitted
AB: in order for us to publish Joystick API, it must first be
explicit in our charter
… I don't think that is going to be problematic to get it added
DS: yes, I agree adding Joystick to our charter shouldn't be
problematic
… re-chartering also gives us more specific info about our scope now
that we have a LC
… and that may make it easier for other Members to join this WG
… we can also consider adding other specs besides Joystick
SG: so the concern is getting too broad to raise other legal
concerns?
DS: yes, that's the concern
… it's about IP/patent concerns
AB: we can add re-chartering to next week's topic list
JG: ok with me
Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit
AB: Issue-19 [12]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19
has open Action-55 for Laszlo
[13]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/55.
... during our August 30 discussion on this issue
[14]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html#item03, we
agreed that if the action was still open today, we would do as Matt
proposed, i.e. " 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."
... let's start with Laszlo. It appears he submitted the patch to
webkit bug 60612 as he mentioned last week
[15]https://bug-60612-attachments.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=10637
9
[12] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19
[13] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/55.
[14] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html#item03
[15] https://bug-60612-attachments.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=106379
LG: my action was to remove these paramaters
… to help get feedback from the WK community
… I completed my action
… but no feedback yet
… I did Cc people from Google and Apple
… The changes are fairly small
… We should get feedback within a few days and if not, I can do some
followups
MB: that's great; thanks Laszlo
… I see 3 possibilities
… If the changes are agreed, spec won't need to change
… If the changes are not agreeable, we should change the spec to
match webkit
… If this is controversial within the WK community, we can remove
the method for v1 and take it up again in v2
DS: we can go to LC and mark this feature as "At Risk"
… getting a LC published is real importanat re getting feedback
… with the feature "At Risk", we can go to CR and not need to go
back to LC
LG: so we can would leave the method but remove the params for LC?
DS: yes, we could do that; or mark those params and/or methods "At
Risk"
… need a warning about the feature may be dropped
AB: is it the case that the spec now matches Webkit with LG's patch?
MB: yes, it does
LG: my proposal is to go to LC with the spec as it is today (with
those params removed)
SM: I think we should push the spec as it is
… as I think this will force the issue
DS: we could just put it out there as it is
AB: I'm hearing we should go to LC with the spec as it is today
… i.e. no additional warnings or marks of "At Risk"
… Is that a fair characterization?
DS: that's fine with me
MB: I'm OK with that
… but I'm OK with marking it "As Risk" too
… With Laszlo's patch, the API is not quite identical
… I can minute the details
… The first several parms match but then WK has 2 additional params
the spec does not include
… and those 2 params are apple specific
… But with LG's patch, the first several params do match
AB: so I think we have consensus to consider this issue closed
... any objections to closing this issue and the related action?
[ None ]
Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call WD of Touch Events v1
AB: any comments about publishing a LCWD of Touch Events v1
[16]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html>
[16] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html%3E
SM: I recall Cathy noticed some probs with the example code
MB: I think I have a related action
SM: I can take a look
<mbrubeck> action-61?
<trackbot> ACTION-61 -- Matt Brubeck to test Sangwhan's list
examples against implementations -- due 2011-08-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/61
[17] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/61
AB: we want the examples to be error free, but they are
non-normative
<mbrubeck> I tested the first example and it does work on WebKit.
… thus fixing examples would not force another LC
<mbrubeck> I haven't tested the second one yet.
AB: I propose we publish a LCWD of the Touch Events v1 spec
… any objections or voices of support?
DS: support
LG: support
<Cathy> +1
<sangwhan> +1
<mbrubeck> +1
RESOLUTION: the WG agrees to publish a LCWD of the Touch Events v1
spec
AB: who is going to prep the doc?
DS: I can do that
AB: great
<sangwhan> mbrubeck: I would have loved to touch them myself, but my
phone doesn't quite support multiple touches very well in a hardware
level. A fancier piece of hardware is on it's way from the states
very soon that's supposed to handle multiple touch better - I'll get
to it as soon as that comes in.
AB: comment review period, 3 weeks it the minimum
DS: I propose 4 weeks
AB: any objections to 4 weeks?
<mbrubeck> no
[ None ]
<mbrubeck> sangwhan: Okay, I can finish testing then... I have both
Android and iOS multi-touch hardware.
AB: so let's target a Sept 13 publication
… that will give some extra time for editorial changes
… We need to know if there are any specific WGs we want to request
to review the spec?
… WebApps is one WG
<sangwhan> mbrubeck: I'll take a look at the logical flaws first -
just let me know if something doesn't work.
… Any other WGs?
DS: the WAI P&F WG
... we could also ask HTML WG
AB: OK, so HTML WG, WebApps WG and WAI P&F WG
Any Other Business (AOB)
AB: let's plan for a call next week, September 13. Potential topics
are status of the Intentional Events spec and testing.
... are there other topics for next week?
DS: yes, testing and Joystick API
MB: and we should have feedback from WK people re LG's patch
AB: other topics?
... anything else for today?
[ None ]
AB: meet on Sept 13
... meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 15:39:46 UTC