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

Draft minutes: 27 September 2011 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:13:05 -0400
Message-ID: <4E81F611.7000801@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the September 27 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 October 4 (the next voice 
conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved as is.



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

                                - DRAFT -

                     Web Events WG Voice Conference

27 Sep 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0082.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/27-webevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Matt_Brubeck, Ted_Mielczarek,
           Olli_Pettay, Suman_Sharma, Doug_Schepers

           Dzung_Tran, Sangwhan_Moon




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Touch Events v1 LCWD TE
          4. [8]ISSUE-23: Add a DOM4-style constructor to create and
             initialize TouchEvent objects
          5. [9]Issue-21 and Issue 22
          6. [10]Testing Touch Events
          7. [11]Any Other Business (AOB)
      * [12]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

    Date: 27 September 2011

    <ted_>  zakim: nick ted_ is Ted_Mielczarek

    <ssharma2>  aaaa is ne

    <ssharma2>  Suman Sharma

Tweak Agenda

    AB: I submitted a draft agenda on September 26
    0082.html. Any change requests? I think it makes sense to combine
    Issue-21 and Issue-22 as one topic. We can talk about charter update
    during AoB.
    ... any change requests for the agenda?

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0082.html.



    AB: reminder our f2f meeting at the annual TPAC meeting week is
    November 1 and the registration deadline is October 14
    0079.html .
    ... if we do meet that day - and at the moment it is not clear if we
    will need to meet - it will only be in the morning (09:00-12:00 SFO
    time zone) and we will have a voice conference bridge for remote
    ... there is no requirement to come to the f2f meeting
    ... we have Suman joining us from Intel

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0079.html

    SS: I work for Intel

     my group is interested in home related standards

     I attend other standards meeting

     f.ex. Khronos

    DS: welcome; nice to have you on board

     it would be good to have a Khronos connection

    Suman: I will definitely help as needed

    AB: are you in same group as Tran?

    Suman: no, he is in PC group

    AB: welcome to the group!

     I have an action related to following up with Khronos so I'll
    contact you about that

    AB: any other announcements for today?

    DS: I published a new draft of the charter


      [15] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html

     that includes Mouse Lock and Gamepad

    AB: we will take that during AoB. Thanks!

Touch Events v1 LCWD TE

    AB: reminder that October 11 is the comment deadline for the TE v1
    LCWD [16]http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20110913/. We are
    doing a good job of addressing comments as they come in (i.e. not
    waiting until after the comment deadline).
    ... one administrivia issue is the LC Comment tracking document. I
    propose using a wiki
    0058.html . Any objections to that?

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

    DS: why not use tracker?

    AB: I find wiki easier

    DS: OK

    AB: I don't object to using Tracker

     but if we agree to use a wiki I'll take an action to create it and
    seed it

    AB: any objections to using a wiki?


    <scribe>  ACTION: barstow create a wiki to track comments for the TE
    v1 LCWD [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-76 - Create a wiki to track comments for
    the TE v1 LCWD [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-10-04].

    AB: Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit; any
    feedback from Webkit community?
    ... I note Laszlo isn't here today

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

     Does anyone know if there has been any related discussion by the
    Webkit community?


    AB: we will continue this next meeting ...

ISSUE-23: Add a DOM4-style constructor to create and initialize
TouchEvent objects

    AB: Issue-23 is a result of comments from Anne
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/23 .
    ... we talked about this last week and agreed then to keep
    initTouchEvent method in v1
    Since then, Matt and Anne had some followups

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/23
      [21] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/20-webevents-minutes.html#item03.
      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0077.html

    <shepazu>  agend+ IE10 Touch support

      [23] https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/09/20/touch-input-for-ie10-and-metro-style-apps.aspx

    AB: so where are we with this?

    MB: Anne thinks there is no good reason to include initTouchEvent in

     I tend to agree with him

     I know Doug and Olli want to keep it

     I think we others to reply to Anne

     I didn't need it for my tests

    DS: Matt, are your tests manual?

     or automatic

    MB: they are manual

    DS: previous feedback is that we want to move to automatic tests if

    <mbrubeck>  I think even if we do write automated tests, they will be
    very limited in what they can test.

    DS: is there an analog in existing impls?

    MB: no

    DS: does WK have initTouchEvent today?

    MB: yes, it does

     although WK's interface is different then the LCWD

     it includes some additional params

    DS: and you don't think they will change their behavior?

    MB: we are still waiting for feedback from the WK community

    DS: I understand the approach

     but I also am concerned their is a widely implemented replacement,
    I have reservations about removing it

     I don't want to stand in the way

    AB: would this mean TE v1 spec would have a dependency on DOM4?

    DS: not necessarily

     we could just define initializer/constructor that exists in DOM4

     because DOM4 isn't likely to be done for a couple of years

     and if DOM4 then changes, we can make a revision

     I think future specs will match the more general behavior

     It would mean we need to go back to LC, I think

     Do you agree Matt?

    MB: it would significantly lengthen the time to get v1 to REC

     We want to move fwd with a constructor we need for testing and
    will then deprecate it

    DS: I think it can be used for other purposes

    MB: it has been in WK since 2007 but I have seen no code in the wild
    that uses it

     If someone has some data shows it is being used, I'd like to see

     ATM, only Gecko follows the spec

    DS: does anyone else have an opinion?

    <smaug>  here we have a test using initTouchEvent :p

      [24] http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/events/test/test_bug648573.html?force=1#60

    MB: if we want to take v1 fwd to match existing impls

    [ Scribe missed some stuff so we pause while Matt enters his
    comments in IRC  ]

    <mbrubeck>  then we have two options: specify initTouchEvent as
    implemented in WebKit (with WebKit-only gesture parameters, etc.),
    or leave it out of v1.

    <mbrubeck>  If we are willing to wait longer on making v1 a
    Recommendation, then we have more options.

    DS: it would mean we would need to back to LC (if the function is

     we kinda' knew that

     as we talked about it before

     The 2nd LC would only be 3 weeks

     I think we need a discussion on the list

     Some people may object to us not having a constructor at all

     We don't want to keep bouncing back and forth

    AB: I agree we need more discussion on the list

     do we need a new thread? or can we use the thread with Anne?

    DS: we need to be clear about our proposal

     so we get a sense if there will be any objections

     We need to be clear on why we want to remove it

     and the implications of doing so

    AB: would be good if someone could start a thread about this

     Are there any volunteers?

    MB: I can respond on the ongoing thread

     I know Olli may have some feedback

     As well as others

    OP: we need something for testing

    MB: another question is how imp is it to finalize v1 as a REC as
    soon as we can?

     if we are willing to take longer, we aren't as constrained by
    existing impls

    DS: I'd like to go REC as soon as we can

    MB: why is that Doug?

    DS: the patent commitments don't start until a spec reaches REC

     and that gives implementers more "confidence" re the patent risks

     but we also understand some implementers don't care about patent

     Some members want specs to proceed as chartered

     It would show we can make progress on something

     which is good for setting expectations

    MB: ok; got it

    AB: as a wrap up for today, Matt agreed to respond on the list

     is there anything else for this today?

     I think this is the most critical issue that has been so far

     So we need to think it through and get feedback

    DS: removing eliminates two issues

     the Issue Laszlo has with his WK patch

     and might stop us from having to do the deprecation of

     Certainly for v2 we need a more solid constructor function

     And doing the removal would get us to REC faster

Issue-21 and Issue 22

    AB: Issue 21 is "Description of touchcancel event is missing some
    details" and it originates from one of Cathy's LC comments
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/21 . Matt and
    Cathy have related Action-72 and Action-73
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/72 ;
    ... Issue 22 is "Does an element have to also register for
    touchstart event in order to receive touchend/touchmove events"
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/22 and Cathy has
    related Action-72
    ... yesterday Cathy submitted proposed text to address both of these
    ... the proposal is to change text in 4 sections.

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/21
      [26] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/72
      [27] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/73
      [28] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/22
      [29] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/72
      [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0083.html.

    MB: I haven't looked at the proposal yet

    CC: there are two issues

     touchcancel description is missing some details

     to address this, I suggest a change to some existing text

     and also add a new paragraph in section 5.7 (touchcancel event)

     I also propose changing touchend and touchmove text to clarify

     (those are the 2nd and 3rd changes in my email)

    AB: any comments?

     please review Cathy's proposed changes and send comments to the

    MB: at a first glance, they look good to me. Thanks Cathy!

    DS: yes, thanks Cathy

    AB: do we want to set a deadline for comments and if there are no
    comments, we consider them acceptable?

    DS: yes, that's fine by me

    AB: I propose then that if no one raises any issues by 12:00 Boston
    time on Friday Sept 30, we consider the changes acceptable

     any objections to that?

    [ None ]

    AB: Cathy agreed to make the changes if that's OK.

     Is that agreeable?

    DS: fine with me

    MB: ok with me

Testing Touch Events

    AB: Olli reported on the list he hasn't done action-74 so we'll skip
    this topic today

Any Other Business (AOB)

    AB: re adding Gamepad API and Mouse Lock API to our charter, Doug
    has a Draft charter that includes these two APIs
    ... thanks Doug!

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html.

     Did you make any changes to section 1.?

    DS: yes, to add Lock and Gamepad, I needed to create some

     so the Touch Interfaces is now its own section (1.1)

     I added the new specs to the Deliverables section

    AB: any comments?
    ... this looks great

    <scottmg>  I had a quick read, looks good to me

     the Intentional Events is missing from the Deliverables

    DS: until we get something from P&F WG, not sure we have anything to

     I'll need to talk to them

    AB: this is an interesting question

     don't think we need to block re Intentional Events

    DS: I'll add it to deliverables

    Suman: re games, what about depth camera?

    DS: that is out of scope

     we need to be careful about adding specs in areas where there are
    patent concerns

     since that can prevent some Members from joining this WG

     And I would like to get more Members involved

    Suman: ok; thanks for that information

     A lot of the important players are small and not W3C Members

    DS: other than IP concerns, I think we should also try to keep a
    relatively narrow focus

    Ted: yes, I agree with keeping the scope relatively narrow

    DS: we also don't want to add deliverables without editors and a
    draft spec

     we can also recharter at some other time e.g. 6 months from now

     Let's talk about depth offline

    AB: I'll respond and ask people to send comments

     what is next?

    DS: I need to get some internal W3C review

     I can try to expedite the review

    AB: I would like the AC review of the charter to start before the AC
    meeting on Nov 1

    DS: I'll work toward getting an AC review as soon as I can

    AB: anything else on the charter?

    DS: Microsoft has implemented some touch intentional events


      [32] https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/09/20/touch-input-for-ie10-and-metro-style-apps.aspx


      [33] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/hh272903.aspx#_DOMTouch

    DS: it's unfortunate they didn't participate in our Touch Events

     I think there will be some interop issues

     It's simple but perhaps too simple

     They did prefix their events

     Perhaps later we can converge

    AB: I think that gives us an action to followup with Microsoft
    ... next call is October 4, if there is sufficient topics.
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow create a wiki to track comments for the TE v1
    LCWD [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 16:13:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:54 UTC