W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > January to March 2012

Draft minutes: 10 January 2012 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:42:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4F0C6A87.6070604@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the January 10 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 January 17. In the absence 
of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.



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


Web Events WG Voice Conference

10 Jan 2012



See also: [3]IRC log

[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-webevents-irc


Art_Barstow, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck, Olli_Pettay,





* [4]Topics
1. [5]Tweak Agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Status of PAG re Apple's patent disclosures for Touch
Events v1 spec
4. [8]Strawman Touch Event proposal
5. [9]Touch events test assertions
6. [10]Test directory structure
7. [11]AoB
* [12]Summary of Action Items

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 10 January 2012

Tweak Agenda

AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday
0001.html. Cathy sent regrets and asked that her topic be deferred.
We won't do a deep dive but I'll take some general comments.
... any other change requests?



AB: any short announcements for today?

Status of PAG re Apple's patent disclosures for Touch Events v1 spec

AB: Doug, what is the status of the PAG for Apple's patent

[14] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/45559/status#current-disclosures?

DS: we are discussing timing for the PAG

 I think we need to start a PAG

 think it will be started before the end of the month

 perhaps within a week or two

AB: any questions for Doug?



DS: it is possible for us to use a different touch model e.g. what
Microsoft implemented

AB: there is also a proposal that Sangwhan said he would submit

DS: are other people open to the idea of using a different model?

 want to know if people would change their implementation

MB: I think we would be open to implementing another model

 I think the question is whether there would be other mobile
vendors that would use it

OP: which windows model are you referring to Doug?

DS: WP 7

AB: yes, we would be interested in looking at other models

 having a RF standard for touch events is really important for the

 Perhaps the PAG will ask the WG for alternate proposals

DS: I don't think the PAG should make such a request because it
kinda means they have ruled the patents are applicable

 I think the WG should look for alternatives

AB: yes, good point

 is there an action for you or me or someone else?

DS: I think everyone should ask internally about this

AB: I agree

Strawman Touch Event proposal

AB: Sangwhan said he would submit an alternate Touch Event proposal
... we won't discuss this today since Sanghwan isn't here


Touch events test assertions

AB: On December 21, Cathy announced
0158.html her 1st draft at test assertions for the TEv1 spec
... I don't want to do a deep dive today without Cathy present but
we can take some general comments
... I haven't looked at Cathy's work in detail

[18] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions

<smaug> "503 Service Unavailable"

Test directory structure

AB: in December, I proposed we follow the test directory structure
used by WebAppsWG
0160.html. Our scenario is a little bit different because we are
using the webevents Hg root [20]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents for
both specs and tests, whereas WebApps only puts tests in its Hg root
[21]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps and its specs have their own Hg
... any comments on the proposed structure?

[20] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents
[21] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps

MB: looks OK to me


DS: looks fine to me

<scribe> ACTION: barstow implement the testing directory structure
proposed in December [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Implement the testing directory
structure proposed in December [on Arthur Barstow - due 2012-01-17].


AB: any other topics for today?
... what's that status on the IndieUI WG charter, Doug?

 it would be good to start work on the Intentional Events spec

DS: I'm not sure but will look into it

 and I'll send an update to the list

AB: excellent

DS: I agree with Art that it would be good to get something going on
that spec

AB: let's plan to have a call next week

 and I'll cancel if there aren't sufficient topics

DS: are we still going on with tests or waiting for the PAG?

AB: one topic for next week is Cathy's test assertion table

 and I presume that should give us a better sense of the set of
tests needed for the TEv1 spec

 So, I think we should continue with tests

DS: yeah (agree)

AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: barstow implement the testing directory structure
proposed in December [recorded in

[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 16:43:09 UTC

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