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

Draft Minutes: 6 March 2012 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:17:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4F5646A3.2010606@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the March 6 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 March 13. In the absence 
of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.



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

                                - DRAFT -

                     Web Events WG Voice Conference

06 Mar 2012


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JanMar/0023.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/03/06-webevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck,




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Touch Events and MSPointer Events
          4. [8]Update on Touch Events PAG
          5. [9]AoB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe>  Scribe: Art

    Date: 06 March 2012

Tweak Agenda

    AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday
    0023.html. After that, Scott Gonzαlez posted a link to some work he
    has done and I'd like to add that to the agenda.
    ... any objections to adding that topic?

      [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JanMar/0023.html.

    DS: that would be great

    AB: ok, so we'll do that and add it right after Annoucements
    ... any other change requests for the agenda?


    AB: any short announcements for today?

    MB: I will represent Mozilla in the PAG

    AB: that's excellent Matt

Touch Events and MSPointer Events

    AB: yesterday, Scott mentioned the work he has been doing comparing
    our Touch Events with MSPointer Events

      [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JanMar/0024.html.

    SG: I'm working on normalizing pointer events in jQuery

    … one of the things I noticed is the divergence in touch events

    … My doc compares the two approaches

    … includes the pros and cons

    … I haven't found anyone using MSPointer

    … I list the technical diffs

    … both support multiple points

    … I assume there are UCs for knowing if>1 touch occurs at the same

    … If anyone knows of some UCs for this, it would be good to know

    … Both systems allow getting a list of the touches

    … have to start from an event object in both cases

    … If only care about 1 touch at a time, MSPointer is a bit easier

    … With Touches, need to go to the list so a bit cumbersome

    DS: would you please distinguish these two as Webkit versus IE

    SG: yes, I can do that
    ... in webkit have the touch arrays

    … and from there can get the touch point data

    … In IE model, the data is directly on the Event

    … because the data is always for a specific pointer

    … In IE will get 2 events: 1 for the first finger and a second event
    for the 2nd touch

    SG: WK model has no concept of hovering

    … at least not built in

    MB: in the v2 spec, we added enter and leave events

    SG: the IE model does support hovering

    … IE normalizes all pointer events into a MSPointer event

    … so they do have a concept of hover

    … a bit cumbersome though with touch, especially with a stylus

    … Don't have full hover but that's probably a h/w limitation

    DS: yes, I agree that's probably a hardware limitation

    SG: MSPointer does have some future proofing

    … i.e. it is easy to add new pointer devices

    … currently supports pen, stylus, mouse and such but can add new

    … Need to document more about the interaction with mouse events

    … When devs are writing custom code for gestures, the data is async

    … f.ex. for a swipe, need to know direction, and perhaps some other

    … This now requires a lot of custom code

    … because may want to prevent the native handling

    … Need some UCs from developers and the issues they are running into

    AB: any comments, questions?

    DS: thanks for the summary and mentioning pain point

    … Do you have a sense of the +/- of both models?

    SG: I've built an abstraction around mouse, pointer, touch

    … I tend to think MSPointer is easier to work with

    … Don't have to walk thru any arrays

    … So I think it is a bit nicer but I haven't built anything advanced

    DS: would it be possible to get some members of jQuery community to
    give us some feedback

    … re both models i.e. the +/- of each

    SG: yes, I think I can get some of that info

    … i.e. try to find what people like and the pros and cons of each
    (IE vs. Webkit)

    … I don't think the WK model is intuitive

    … but people are now used to it

    … When they then switch to MSPointer, there is a learning curve

    … and that's unfortunate but the reality developers must face

    SG: going back to the drawback to both models, that affects mouse

    … causes problems f.ex. with text selection

    DS: I have seen some comments about IE model being more amenable to
    an app that works across devices

    … can start with one touch and then extend

    SG: if there was a generic pointer event could stop using mouse

    … one model would indeed be ideal

    DS: I started down that path with D3E and touch events

    … but we decided to do touch in a separate spec

    SG: if we had a standard similar to pointer, an abstraction over
    Webkit would make sense

    <mbrubeck>  Mozilla also had a separate-event-per-pointer model
    before implementing the WebKit/W3C model:

      [13] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Touch_events_%28Mozilla_experimental%29

    … and we could then add something like that to jQ

    MB: Mozilla implemented our own Touch API for Windows

    … like MSPointer event uses one event per touch

    … it doesn't have getPointerList method

    … which is a good addition

    … if the app needs to know the number of touch points

    … With IE can get that data

    DS: we had proposed something like that for the keyboard model [D3E]

    … if we were going to do something like that, would probably make
    sense to have methods to get all touches and another to get all keys

    AB: what do we do with this information and what specific follow-on
    action(s) are there?

    DS: I think Scott agreed to do followup on the +/- of both
    ... I just want to be clear that this IP issue means that some touch
    event libraries can also be affected

    AB: I've been wondering how widely known is this IP disclosure

    SG: I think most web developers think there is a touch standard

    … a lot of confusion about what's going on and the state of the TE

    SG: we will not abstract to MSPointer because it is not a standard

    … and we will not normalize to W3C Touch Events because of the PAG

    … However, if the PAG says that is OK, then that is good

    … and then we can abstract on top of the TE spec

    … but we won't do that until the PAG is clear here

    SG: jQuery won't release a normalization layer if the feature is not
    a standard

    … because to do so is bad for the Web

    … We want to focus on standards

    … and to help the W3C

    DS: thanks for that information Scott

    … it's good to know a standard is mandatory to be considered for a
    normalization layer

Update on Touch Events PAG

    AB: the Touch Events PAG
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2012/01/touch-pag-charter has now met twice
    and the minutes are Member-confidential
    ... I'll give a brief summary of the status but we will *not* talk
    any specifics about the IP Apple disclosed

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2012/01/touch-pag-charter
      [15] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-te-pag/


    AB: any other topics for today?
    ... re the next call, it will be scheduled when needed
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 17:17:46 UTC

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