- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:14:57 -0700
- 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:
http://www.w3.org/2011/11/01-webevents-minutes.html
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.
-AB
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Events WG
01 Nov 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/F2F
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/11/01-webevents-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Doug_Schepers, Philippe_LeHegaret, Josh_Soref,
Cathy_Chan, Niklas_Widell, DongYoung_Lee, Sangwhan_Moon,
Jari_Alvinen, Russell_Berkoff
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art, Josh_Soref
Contents
* [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
Charter
[10]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html
[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
[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
[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#deliverable
s
[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
Intentional
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
MIDI
... last night ETRI expressed an interest in MIDI
<ArtB> ….
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/
0091.html
[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
[15]http://www.w3.org/2011/11/01-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<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
Gesture
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
[16]http://www.w3.org/2011/11/01-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 21:15:20 UTC