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

Draft minutes: 20 September 2011 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:06:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4E78BA1E.9060704@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the September 20 voice conference are available 
at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webevents mail list before September 27 (the next 
voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved 
as is.



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

                                - DRAFT -

                 Web Events Working Group Teleconference

20 Sep 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0067.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/20-webevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, Dzung_Tran, Ted_Mielczarek,
           Doug_Schepers, Scott_Graham, Matt_Brubeck, Cathy_Chan

           Anders_Hφckersten, Sangwhan_Moon




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Comments on TE v1 LC
          4. [8]Issue-22: Does an element have to also register for
             touchstart event in order to receive touchend/touchmove
          5. [9]Issue-21: Description of touchcancel event is missing
             some details
          6. [10]Testing Touch Events
          7. [11]Joystick API
          8. [12]Mouse Lock
          9. [13]Any Other Business (AOB)
      * [14]Summary of Action Items

    <shepazu>  trackbot, start telcon

    <trackbot>  Date: 20 September 2011

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

    Date: 20 September 2011

    <scribe>  Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference

    <smaug>  ted_: are you [Mozilla] ?

    <ted_>  uh, probably?

    <ted_>  i dialed in from our asterix

    <smaug>  or did mbrubeck call in?

    <ted_>  Zakim: [Mozilla] is Ted_Mielczarek

    <ted_>  Zakim: nick ted_ is Ted_Mielczarek

    <ted_>  Zakim nick ted_ is Ted_Mielczarek

    <ted_>  mbrubeck: figures

Tweak Agenda

    AB: yesterday I submitted a draft agenda to the list<>. Any change


      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0067.html


    AB: any short announcements today?

Comments on TE v1 LC

    AB: the TE LC is
    ... have the Editors decided on a LC Comment tracking document?

      [16] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-Touch-Events-20110913/
      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0058.html

    MB: no

    AB: have the Editors decided on a LC Comment tracking document?
    ... has there been any feedback from the Webkit community on
    Issue-19 [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19 "Align
    initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit"?

      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0058.html
      [19] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19

    DS: Laszlo sent an email

    AB: does anyone know if there were any responses?

    … let's continue. I'll ask Laszlo

    AB: we received some LC comments from Anne van Kestern on
    ... are there some issues we should discuss?

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0053.html

    MB: yes, we should open an issue for AvK's comments

    … I also got some related feedback from Mozilla

    … there is a general precedence for dictionary use

    … rather than long lists

    DS: but we specified what exists today

    MB: well, almost

    … but we also have Issue-19

    DS: I think the constructor is a good way forward

    … I tried to do that for D3E but couldn't get support for it

    … However, I don't think it reflects reality today

    … The question is if we want the spec to wait for a larger number of
    impls to follow that

    … or do we specify what has already been deployed

    … I think the later

    MB: agree v1 should be what we want today

    … but we want to get alignment

    … Laszlo hasn't been able to get anyone to comment on his patch

    … So we don't know if Webkit is going to change their impl to match
    our spec

    MB: there is an issue about what to do for v2

    … WK has 2 additional params

    … they don't cause a prob for v1 since they trail

    … but it could get ugly when people want to extend it

    OP: we need to have a way to initialize the event

    … needed for testing

    … could rely on DOM4

    <mbrubeck>  [21]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/20
    makes this a problem again for Touch Events v2

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/20

    … but that could create a reference dependency that would be an

    … with v1 going to REC

    DS: good point

    … I would prefer a "quick victory" and move fwd

    … What if we drop the params?

    MB: we can either specify what is exactly in WK

    … and change spec to match WK

    DS: and then in v2 we go with the new constructor/initialize

    MB: option #2 is to not specify initialization in v1

    DS: I don't like that

    OP: that would create a problem with testing

    AB: we need to capture AvK's comments; do we want an issue too?

    MB: yes

    <mbrubeck>  ISSUE: Add a DOM4-style constructor to create and
    initialize TouchEvent objects.

    <trackbot>  Created ISSUE-23 - Add a DOM4-style constructor to create
    and initialize TouchEvent objects. ; please complete additional
    details at [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/23/edit

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/23/edit

    OP: Apple's inittouchevent is different then what's in WK

    nt.idl vs

      [23] http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/TouchEvent.idl
      [24] http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/UserExperience/Reference/TouchEventClassReference/TouchEvent/TouchEvent.html

    AB: is there anything else from Anne's comments for today?

    MB: there is another issue

    … it's about document touch interface

    … I think his proposal makes sense

    … Are there any objections?

    <mbrubeck>  'Instead of introducing a new interface called
    DocumentTouch please use "partial interface Document" instead to
    extend the Document interface. You need to add a reference here too
    for Document. '

    AB: Matt, did you respond to that part of AvK's comment?

    MB: no

    AB: please do so and if no one objects to your proposal, then let's
    do it
    ... on September 15 we received some "table for each touch event
    type" from Greg Dennis
    ... so far no followup

      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0065.html

    DS: I think the table in question is non-normative

    … we could add it without any change to normative text

    AB: any other comments or opinons?

    … any disagreements with what Doug said

    … Can you Doug please respond to Dennis and say that's a reasonable
    thing and we'll do it?

    DS: yes

Issue-22: Does an element have to also register for touchstart event in
order to receive touchend/touchmove events

    AB: Issue-22 [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/22
    was created based on comments from Cathy. Anders responded to this
    issue with some implementation data
    ... any followups on what Anders presented?

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/22
      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0068.html.

    … I presume we want to follow the current deployments as much as

    CC: I haven't read Anders' email yet

    … it appears most impls send touchend and touchcancel if touchstart
    is not sent

    … I did some testing on Safari

    … I think we need some wording changes

    … The text should match what has been implemented

    AB: would you Cathy make a proposal for the text changes to address

    CC: yes, I can do that

    <scribe>  ACTION: cathy create a proposal to address Issue-22
    [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-71 - Create a proposal to address Issue-22
    [on Cathy Chan - due 2011-09-27].

Issue-21: Description of touchcancel event is missing some details

    <ted_>  hah

    AB: Issue-21 [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/21
    was created based on comments from Cathy.
    ... is this mainly about the spec being a bit under-specified?
    What's it going to take to address this issue? Is some additional
    testing needed?

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/21

    MB: I think we just have some underspecification here

    AB: would you Cathy make a proposal?

    CC: yes, I can do that but last time Matt suggested some testing is

    … not sure how to test it

    … I can propose the text change

    … but we need to make sure it matches impls

    <scribe>  ACTION: matt produce a test to help us address Issue-21
    [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-72 - Produce a test to help us address
    Issue-21 [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-09-27].

    <scribe>  ACTION: cathy propose text to address Issue-21 [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-73 - Propose text to address Issue-21 [on
    Cathy Chan - due 2011-09-27].

    AB: thanks Cathy and Matt!

Testing Touch Events

    AB: last week Tran agreed to ACTION-66: Create multitouch test cases
    for the Touch Events spec
    ... what's the status Tran?

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/66.

    DT: I haven't done anything yet

    … I'd like Olli to take the lead

    … and then I can follow his lead

    OP: yes, I can create some tests

    <scribe>  ACTION: Olli create some multitouch test cases [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-74 - Create some multitouch test cases [on
    Olli Pettay - due 2011-09-27].

    DT: as soon as Olli has something, I can start my tests

Joystick API

    AB: as I mentioned last week
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#item07, Doug
    and I will move forward with the process of formally adding this
    spec to our charter. I invited Mozilla's TedM to the call but didn't
    hear from him
    ... make a correction here, Ted is on the call

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#item07
      [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Sep/0011.html.

    Ted: I work for Mozilla

    … I've been writing some patches

    … been discussing with Webkit and Chrome teams

    … our spec is still experimental

    … Olli and Matt suggested I join the call

    … Re renaming the API

    … I really do mean "joystick"

    … I think game controller is too general

    DS: would this cover things like Wiimotes

    … or Kinect?

    Ted: want to stay with devices like joystick

    SG: Wiimotes gets toward gestures

    Ted: agree we should be careful about scope

    DS: there is some work @ W3C on accelerometers

    Ted: you mean Device Orientation stuff?

    DS: yes

    <smaug>  t

    <smaug>  tted

    <smaug>  er

    <smaug>  ted_: you should discuss with dougt

    Ted: there is some related data

    … agree we should do some coordination

    DS: perhaps use "game pad" rather than joystick

    … the name will invoke concerns if we use "game controller"

    … Think we should define the devices we want to cover

    Ted: in Linux, joystick is used

    … game pad would cover what we care about, buttons and multiple
    accellerometers per device

    DS: I don't think Nintendo is a W3C member

    DT: are we going to look at TV remote?

    … or is that out of scope

    SG: what do you mean by TV remote?

    DT: there are some remote protocols

    … can be used with IPTV

    DS: I think they are different

    … game controllers typically don't manage TVs

    … D3E does treat remote controllers differently

    … not sure there is anything we need to do there

    … D3E treats them as keyboards

    Ted: in the interest of tight scope, think we should leave them out

    DS: agree with Ted

    SG: agree it's a different UC

    AB: there is a Web and TV IG @ the W3C

    … and they may have an opinon on what we should or should not do in
    this space

    DS: yes and they are meeting in a WS now in Hollywood

    AB: regarding the next steps for this API, my recommendation is that
    until this spec is formally added to the  charter that we use the
    list for all discussions. We

    … could also get Scott set up with a Mercurial/Hg location to put a

    … and of course we can the same for Ted

    SG: I'm willing to help

    Ted: I would prefer to co-edit
    ... I have a pretty good idea about what I want

    … to see in the spec

    SG: I'm having a prob landing a patch because there isn't a spec

    DS: so you need a spec?

    <smaug>  (that is surprising given some other code landing to webkit)

    SG: yes, I do; but we are on the right path

    AB: is there an action for Doug to get these guys Mercurial access?

    SG: yes, I think so

    AB: should it go in the webevents directory?

    DS: yes, I think that makes sense

    AB: I think Ted and Scott just need W3C accounts

    SG: I have an account

    Ted: I don't know if I have a W3C account

    DS: it's pretty simple; I'll get the link

    <shepazu>  [36]http://www.w3.org/Help/Account/Request/Public

      [36] http://www.w3.org/Help/Account/Request/Public


      [37] http://www.w3.org/Help/Account/Request/Member

    AB: let's plan to use the list for discussions

    … and Doug and I will push the formal charter changes

    DS: it would be really helpful to have a clear scope section

    … and some UCs and Reqs

    AB: Ted and Scott, what do you think?

    SG: yes, I can look into that

    AB: ideally, Scott and Ted, we would be able to justifiy this API
    without actually changing the scope text in our charter

    … and I think Doug is also asking for a scope section in the spec

    DS: yes, that's true

    … re the charter, I think the scoping will need to change somewhat

    … Probably just needs a short overview

    AB: OK

    <shepazu>  [38]http://www.w3.org/mid/4E78AEDA.3020001@w3.org

      [38] http://www.w3.org/mid/4E78AEDA.3020001@w3.org

    DS: I sent a related note to the list

    AB: anything else on Joystick for today?

Mouse Lock

    AB: we have a proposal by Vincent Scheib to add Mouse Lock to Web
    Events charter
    ... Vincent's proposal was sent to both WebApps and WebEvents on
    Sept 15. I don't think there have been any followups. If there are
    no objections raised to Vincent's proposal by Sept 22, I will work
    with Doug on the process of adding this to the charter.

      [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0064.html

    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow work with Doug on formally adding Mouse
    Lock to WebEvents' charter [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-75 - Work with Doug on formally adding
    Mouse Lock to WebEvents' charter [on Arthur Barstow - due

    AB: if anyone has any comments on Vincent's proposal, please respond
    on public-webevents
    ... I will followup with Vincent on how he would want to work on the

    DS: I would want the spec to include Scoping info and UCs and Reqs

    AB: he already has some UCs in the spec

Any Other Business (AOB)

    AB: any other topics for today?
    ... next call is Sept 27; meeting adjourned
    ... please continue technical discussion on the mail list

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Doug on formally adding Mouse Lock
    to WebEvents' charter [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: cathy create a proposal to address Issue-22 [recorded
    in [42]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/20-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: cathy propose text to address Issue-21 [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: matt produce a test to help us address Issue-21
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Olli create some multitouch test cases [recorded in
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 16:08:58 UTC

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