Draft minutes: 13 September 2011 call

The draft minutes from the September 13 voice conference are available 
at the following and copied below:

http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webevents mail list before September 20 (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

13 Sep 2011

[2]Agenda

[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0051.html

See also: [3]IRC log

[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-irc

Attendees

Present
Art_Barstow, Matt_Brubeck, Anders_Hockersten, Doug_Schepers,
Cathy_Chan, Dzung_Tran, Scott_Graham, Laszlo_Gombos,
Olli_Pettay

Regrets
Sangwhan_Moon

Chair
Art

Scribe
Art

Contents

* [4]Topics
1. [5]Tweak Agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit;
feedback from Webkit community?
4. [8]Targets of Touch Events; Cathy Chan on 7-Sep:
5. [9]Testing Touch Events v1
6. [10]Intentional Events spec: status and plans
7. [11]Joystick API
8. [12]Mouse Lock
9. [13]Any Other Business (AOB)
* [14]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 13 September 2011

Tweak Agenda

AB: yesterday I sent the draft agenda to the list
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/
0051.html. Any change requests?

[15] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0051.html.

[ None ]

Announcements

AB: any short announcements for today? The LC for TEv1 will be
published today
[16]http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-Touch-Events-20110913/.
Congratulations to everyone and thanks to the Editors!
... any other announcements for today?

[16] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-Touch-Events-20110913/.

Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit; feedback from
Webkit community?

AB: last week we agree to close Issue-19
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19 and we said we
would put it on today's agenda in case there was feedback to
discuss.
... Laszlo isn't here today

[17] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19

… is there any activity on that bug?

DG: there was an e-mail from Anne van Kesteren

MB: I'll respond to that

… it also affects the v2 spec

AB: we will consider AvK's e-mail as a formal LC comment

… The Editors will need to track LC comments

… and there are various ways to do that

<scribe> ACTION: barstow discuss LC comment processing with the
editors [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-63 - Discuss LC comment processing with
the editors [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-20].

AB: anything else on this topic?

Targets of Touch Events; Cathy Chan on 7-Sep:

AB: Cathy submitted some comments about the targets of touch events
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/
0046.html

[19] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0046.html

CC: the question was about touchcancel event

… it doesn't have as much info about targets

… so I was wondering if some additional text should be added

… perhaps more similar to touchend

MB: I agree those are good issues

… I suspect touchcancel should be similar to touchend

… We need to check what impls are doing

AB: so is there consensus the spec needs to change?

DS: yes, that seems reasonable to me

MB: I agree the spec needs to change

… before the spec is changed, we need to see what impls are doing

DS: I think that means we need an issue and action to check impls

<scribe> ACTION: cathy create an issue for the touchcancel question
raised on Sept 7 2011 [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-64 - Create an issue for the touchcancel
question raised on Sept 7 2011 [on Cathy Chan - due 2011-09-20].

CC: the other question

… is about target of touchend

… is that the same element as touchstart

… One of the examples may need to be updated

AB: any comments?

MB: I haven't looked at Q1 yet

DT: I think the intention is a touchstart is needed

… We should check existing impls

<anders_hockersten> dropping in and out, will comment here instead

AB: should we consider Cathy's comments as LC comments?

DS: yes

<anders_hockersten> seems like it could be hard to make an
implementation that can listen to just touchend, if it is supposed
to also emulate mouse events

<anders_hockersten> but I haven't thought it fully through

AB: feels like we should record this as an issue

… and that people should respond to Cathy's email

… after they have read the mail and done some testing

MB: I agree, to create an issue

<anders_hockersten> +1

<scribe> ACTION: cathy create an Issue for Q1 of the Sept 7 comments
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-65 - Create an Issue for Q1 of the Sept 7
comments [on Cathy Chan - due 2011-09-20].

Testing Touch Events v1

AB: Some test cases for the TE spec have been created by Matt
[22]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/file/923f5ba58a22/test
... do we know where the testing gaps? This would be "automatic" if
the spec's assertions were marked accordingly.

[22] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/file/923f5ba58a22/test

… wondering about the size of the problem space

MB: for v1, the test cases I wrote were for single touch use cases

… we will need additional tests for multi touch

… e.g. when added or order of removd

… we also need to cover other attrs

… We probably have about 20-25% coverage now

… Thus the test cases will need to be roughly 3 times larger than
what we have now

DS: traditionally, we separte simple things into small test files

MB: yes, I see some advantages of that for some features

DS: what about synthesizing events

MB: we could do that

<smaug> yikes

<smaug> meeting

… We may not agree on how to synthesize events

DS: ideally, some could be synthesized

… there are 4 diff event types

… If we had automated tests, we could generate a test for each type

… then a test for each attr

<mbrubeck> argh

<anders_hockersten> sound drops intermittently from voice bridge for
me

<smaug> I need to find some empty room

<anders_hockersten> really bad at times (like when I was trying to
say something) but generally the dropouts have been few and short

<smaug> my headset is somewhere in the hotel

MB: if we synth tests, we don't get much info about responses to
real inputs

DS: one goal is to test the spec itself

… need to make sure it is implementable

… The other goal is to test true interoperablility

… For the 1st goal, I think some synth test make sense

… to test e.g. attrs

… 4 events with 7 attrs

MB: and there are lists too

DS: yes; also may have single or multiple items in the list

… need to test each create method

<smaug> that is me

DS: think this will give us about 50 tests t

… and they should be relatively straight forward to create

MB: sounds good
... the other thing about synth tests is they can get complicated if
we remove init method

AB: need people to create test cases

… I don't think we should expect the Editors to do all of the work

… although they are certainly welcome to do so if they want to

AB: any ideas about determining who will test what

MB: first, we need to get more than 1 person writing tests

OP: I will probably write some test cases when reviewing a patch for
multitouch

<Dzung_Tran> DT: I will help

AB: who else can commit to writing test cases

… Thanks Tran

… Is there something in particular Tran?

DT: I could look into multitouch

… if that is needed

MB: yes, but Olli is interested in that area too

… thus Tran and Olli should coordinate

AB: ok, so Tran and Olli can help. Anyone else?
... Doug, any additional thoughts or advice here?

DS: we should look closely at what the testing group is doing

… so that we leverage their work as much as possible

AB: and by "testing group", you mean what Doug?

DS: there was a WG proposed a while ago

… I'll drop a link

AB: we agreed months ago to leverage the testharness.js framework
that is being used by WebApps WG, HTMLWG and others

<shepazu> [23]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/testing-ig-charter.html

[23] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/testing-ig-charter.html

AB: anything else on testing for today?

<scribe> ACTION: Tran create multitouch test cases for the Touch
Events spec [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - Create multitouch test cases for the
Touch Events spec [on Dzung Tran - due 2011-09-20].

Intentional Events spec: status and plans

AB: the last time we discussed the group's so-called "Intentional
Events" spec was June 7
[25]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item07
... the WAI's Protocols and Formats is interested in this topic.
... Apple's James Craig has done some work
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/
UserInterfaceIndependence.html but that draft is more than a year
old
... Doug, do you have an update on this? Wondering about the next
steps?

[25] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item07
[26] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html

DS: I am not aware of a newer spec

AB: do we need to talk off list about what to do next Doug?

DS: yes

<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Doug on next steps for the
Intentional Events spec [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Work with Doug on next steps for the
Intentional Events spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-20].

DS: I think there is some talk in the WAI about starting a new group
for this area

Joystick API

AB: the RfC to add Joystick API to our charter ended 9-Sep
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/
0041.html. Given there were no objections, I will move forward with
the formal re-chartering process.

[28] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0041.html.

<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Doug and PLH to add Joystick API
to WebEvents' charter [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-68 - Work with Doug and PLH to add
Joystick API to WebEvents' charter [on Arthur Barstow - due
2011-09-20].

MB: I talked to Mozilla's TedM

<smaug> I've asked ted to join this group

<mbrubeck> Ted wrote draft API spec at
[30]https://wiki.mozilla.org/JoystickAPI

[30] https://wiki.mozilla.org/JoystickAPI

AB: I presume Matt means Ted Mielczarek

<mbrubeck> he is willing to join the group, and might be pursuaded
to help edit the spec

AB: ok, that's great to read Matt

<smaug> (this network can't handle hundreds of mozillians and their
laptops and tablets)

<mbrubeck> As an aside, he wants to change the name to "game
controller API" because apparently only old people still call them
joysticks. :)

… I'll take an action to followup with Mozilla's AC rep to get Ted
to join

DT: I have a question about rechartering

… will it be general enough so that other input devices can be added
without chartering

… F.ex., a wheel - it works differently than a joystick

<anders_hockersten> brb redialing

SG: I agree with Matt that something like Game Controller may be a
better name

DS: I agree we need to abstract about events

… but using "Game" could cause problems with getting some members to
join

<smaug> Ted mentioned that he will probably change the name of the
APi

SG: I envisioned wheels being included within the joystick API

… need to think about keeping scope limited

… so we can get spec done in a reasonable time

DS: D3E includes wheel

… We need to be careful about expanding the scope of the charter

… If anything, tighter scope will help us get more W3C Members to
join the WG

… Think we should just include Joystick API

… and if we need a new API, then we add that explicitly

… That said, we can still talk about other things that are out of
scope

… and other stuff may be better for a CG

AB: we need to be careful about any scope changes

… would prefer to just add 1 new deliverable

<anders_hockersten> I have to leave now. Have a nice
<timezone-appropriate-time-of-day>!

… We also need to separate Touch Events into v1 and v2

AB: not sure about us having technical discussions about Joystick
without it being in the charter

DS: if we keep the discussions high level, that should be ok

… and we all have to keep in mind we can't formally publish anything
until its in the charter

AB: so what do we do next re Joystick?

… do we try to merge ...

DS: we could ask TedM to join us

… it may make sense to split the call into TE and Joystick halves

<smaug> I think joystick is perhaps such thing which could be
handled mainly in mailing list

<smaug> since it may get lots of feedback from outside the group

<scribe> ACTION: barstow invite TedM to join us next week [recorded
in [31]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Invite TedM to join us next week [on
Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-20].

Mouse Lock

<shepazu> Mouse Lock Specification Draft
[32]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uV4uDVIe9-8XdVndW8nNGWBfqn9i
eeop-5TRfScOG_o/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CM-dw7QG&ndplr=1

[32] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uV4uDVIe9-8XdVndW8nNGWBfqn9ieeop-5TRfScOG_o/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CM-dw7QG&ndplr=1

<shepazu> Vincent Scheib, Google

DS: for mouse moves

… and lock into an element

… can control viewport

… This has been a conversation on public-webapps

… Vincent's doc has a lot of reqs and use cases

… It may be appropriate to work on it in this WG

SG: I agree it makes sense to add it to this WG

… there are similar requirements to Joystick

DS: are there any objections to adding it to our charter?

AB: I need to review it

… Can you ask TV Raman before we start a RfC to add it?

DS: yes

<smaug> There are probably still security issues in the mouselock

<smaug> so, it needs to be reviewed that in mind

<scribe> ACTION: Doug ask TV Raman about Google's interest in adding
Mouse Lock to WebEvents charter [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Ask TV Raman about Google's interest
in adding Mouse Lock to WebEvents charter [on Doug Schepers - due
2011-09-20].

AB: I'll start an RFC after we hear from Raman
... any concerns or voices of support for Mouse Lock?

DS: I'm not sure that "Mouse Lock" is the best name

… since it can work for other devices too

Any Other Business (AOB)

AB: any other topics for today?

<smaug> I'm not 100% sure the mouse lock API is exactly what we
want, but atm I don't have any other proposal

AB: we should a call next week

… any objections?

AB: next call on September 20
... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: barstow discuss LC comment processing with the editors
[recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow invite TedM to join us next week [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Doug and PLH to add Joystick API to
WebEvents' charter [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Doug on next steps for the
Intentional Events spec [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: cathy create an Issue for Q1 of the Sept 7 comments
[recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: cathy create an issue for the touchcancel question
raised on Sept 7 2011 [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Doug ask TV Raman about Google's interest in adding
Mouse Lock to WebEvents charter [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Tran create multitouch test cases for the Touch Events
spec [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action04]

[End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2011 16:30:28 UTC