W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > October to December 2011

Draft Minutes: 1 November 2011 f2f meeting

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:14:57 -0700
Message-ID: <4EB1B2D1.4080700@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the November 1 f2f meeting 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 November 9; otherwise 
these minutes will be considered Approved.



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

                                - DRAFT -

                              Web Events WG

01 Nov 2011


       [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/F2F

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/11/01-webevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Doug_Schepers, Philippe_LeHegaret, Josh_Soref,
           Cathy_Chan, Niklas_Widell, DongYoung_Lee, Sangwhan_Moon,
           Jari_Alvinen, Russell_Berkoff


           Art, Josh_Soref


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Charter
          2. [6]Pub Status
          3. [7]Proposed Charter Changes
          4. [8]Other Charter Proposals
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

    <ArtB>  Scribe: Art

    <ArtB>  Date: 1 November 2011

    <Josh_Soref>  Scribe: Josh_Soref

    RRSAgent: draft minutes



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


      [11] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html#out-of-scope

Pub Status

    ArtB: the only spec we've been working on is the "Touch Events Spec"

    <AB>  AB: publication status

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/PubStatus

    AB: the group decided to fork the spec into Version 1 (codifying
    what's deployed in WebKit + Mozilla + Opera) and Version 2 (for
    features that are not yet implemented)
    ... Touch Events v 1 LC ends Nov 17
    ... we don't expect many comments
    ... and we'd then publish in December
    ... matt b of mozilla has written some tests

    [ Introductions ]

Proposed Charter Changes

    PH: we have comments on the charter!

    AB: The gist of the proposal are two specs that we want to have sole
    ownership of: Mouse Lock, and Game Controllers
    ... and another which we want to have joint ownership of
    ... Mouse Lock is a proposal from the Chrome team to enable Games
    using HTML5 APIs
    ... They contributed their initial draft and it's in the hg repo
    ... But there hasn't been official discussion and we don't plan to
    do so until the charter is updated
    ... There's work by Mozilla on a Joystick API, and Google has done
    work as well
    ... they've agreed to coedit a Gamepad API
    ... we just need AC approval before we start working on it formally

    DS: There are 4 conceptual levels of events
    ... physical, gestural, representational, intentional
    ... When I touch the screen, what is the event that is triggered by
    that action
    ... that's representational
    ... and then there's "what did the user intend to do"
    ... that's intentional (the Use Case)
    ... the gestural is somewhat between physical and representational
    ... gestural is one or more physical actions that together become a
    representational event
    ... for instance a double tap
    ... the mapping between physical and representational is different
    for every device

    AB: The User Action Events (often called "Intentional Events")
    ... has been in scope for a while
    ... but we haven't made much progress on it
    ... James Craig of Apple has a draft spec
    ... and we were working to codify that relationship
    ... PF doesn't want to take ownership of that Spec

    <ArtB>  AB: DRAFT Charter for Intentional Events WG -

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/intentional-events-charter#deliverables

    AB: Instead, there's a proposal for a new WG solely for that Spec
    ... And Web Events would be a Joint deliverable with that WG
    ... And IP commitments on that Spec are only for that individual
    Spec (from people in either Group)
    ... We'll meet with the PF people in Ponderossa to talk about

    DS: The Intentional Events WG will probably change its name
    ... There's also something called Web Intents
    ... which is totally unrelated

Other Charter Proposals

    DS: there have been people who asked about adding MIDI to the
    charter of this group
    ... JA had asked about whether it matters whether something is
    connected or not
    ... there's also the DAPI (DAP) WG
    ... MIDI and Game Controllers unlike classic Mice are bidirectional
    ... e.g. Game Controllers vibrate

    AB: As of yesterday, only Google has expressed formal interest of
    ... last night ETRI expressed an interest in MIDI

    <ArtB>  .

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0091.html

    JS: Haptic will run into DAP

    DS: MIDI has the potential to run into Audio

    AB: I asked Chris Wilson of Google to mention his MIDI proposal on
    the public list

    SW: The problem with the ETRI proposal is that a lot of the items
    mentioned can be grouped by category
    ... trackball, I haven't seen a device where user agents can capture
    raw inputs from the controller
    ... either way, I don't think expanding the number of devices in the
    user agent will help in the long run
    ... it just increases complexity, implementation cost, and reading /
    code use for developers
    ... trackball has 2 or 4 axes but normally looks like a mouse
    ... wimote is really two controllers
    ... - a camera that captures IR light
    ... - an accelerometer which conflicts with the Geo WG

    <ArtB>  ACTION: barstow respond to ETRI's Expanding Target Input
    Devices proposal [recorded in

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-86 - Respond to ETRI's Expanding Target
    Input Devices proposal [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-08].

    SW: in theory, that should be two specs
    ... and neither should be in our WG
    ... Gesture in their proposal is really camera recognition

    AB: The charter as currently structured would exclude that form of

    SW: I don't think computer vision should be covered in this charter

    DS: My main concern is
    ... we want our group to be tightly scoped
    ... so we can accomplish our deliverables in a timely fashion
    ... and we want to be friendly to organizations to enable them to
    join and provide their experience
    ... and I don't want to add things where we don't have editors
    ... I want a tightly run group so we can achieve our deliverables

    AB: I'm opposed to adding a deliverable without two vendors
    committed to implementing

    <ArtB>  AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow respond to ETRI's Expanding Target Input
    Devices proposal [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 21:15:20 UTC

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