- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:13:05 -0400
- 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:
http://www.w3.org/2011/09/27-webevents-minutes.html
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.
-AB
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Events WG Voice Conference
27 Sep 2011
[2]Agenda
[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
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Matt_Brubeck, Ted_Mielczarek,
Olli_Pettay, Suman_Sharma, Doug_Schepers
Regrets
Dzung_Tran, Sangwhan_Moon
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [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
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/
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.
[None]
Announcements
AB: reminder our f2f meeting at the annual TPAC meeting week is
November 1 and the registration deadline is October 14
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/
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
attendees.
... 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
<shepazu>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html
[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
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/
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?
[None]
<scribe> ACTION: barstow create a wiki to track comments for the TE
v1 LCWD [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/27-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<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?
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19
... 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?
[Silence]
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
[21]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/20-webevents-minutes.html#item03.
Since then, Matt and Anne had some followups
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/
0077.html
[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-i
e10-and-metro-style-apps.aspx
[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
v1
… 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
possible
<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
it
… 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/tes
t/test_bug648573.html?force=1#60
[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
removed)
… 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
issues
… 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
initTouchEvent
… 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 ;
[27]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/73
... 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
[29]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/72
... yesterday Cathy submitted proposed text to address both of these
issues
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/
0083.html.
... 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
list
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
[31]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html.
... 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
subsections
… 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
add
… 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
<smaug>
[32]https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/09/20/touch-input-for-i
e10-and-metro-style-apps.aspx
[32] https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/09/20/touch-input-for-ie10-and-metro-style-apps.aspx
<shepazu>
[33]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/hh272903.aspx#_DOMTouch
[33] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/hh272903.aspx#_DOMTouch
DS: it's unfortunate they didn't participate in our Touch Events
spec
… 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
[34]http://www.w3.org/2011/09/27-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 16:13:39 UTC