W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > October to December 2013

Draft minutes: 15 October 2013 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:47:29 -0400
Message-ID: <525D71A1.90404@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the October 15 voice conference are available at 
<http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html> and copied below.

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webevents mail list before 22 October 2013. In the 
absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.

-AB


    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                      Web Events WG Voice Conference

15 Oct 2013

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013OctDec/0012.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Christophe_Jolif,
           Olli_Pettay, Sangwhan_Moon, Doug_Schepers,
           Sebastien_Pereira

    Regrets
           Scott_Gonzαlez

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak agenda
          2. [6]Publishing Working Group Note of TEv2 spec
          3. [7]Touch Events / Pointer Events mapping
          4. [8]AoB
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <smaug> uh, I need a minute or two

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <cjolif> +cjolif

Tweak agenda

    AB: I submitted a draft agenda on October 11
    [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013Oc
    tDec/0012.html. Since then, IBM notified us of some work they
    have done re PointerEvent and TouchEvent mapping so I propose
    we include that when we discuss mapping.
    ... any objections to that?

      [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013OctDec/0012.html.

    RB: no, this is great

    AB: any other change requests?
    ... Christophe, please give a short intro

    CJ: Sebastien is more knowledgable here but I can fill in for
    him since he can't make it today

    … our context is Dojo

    … need to map TE to PE

    … to help standardize the way we deal with mouse, touch,
    pointerevnts

    … PE isn't there today

    … so need to make a mapping to complete our impl

    … We noticed this group intends to work on this mapping

    … so we hope our work can help this group

    … The mapping is in a spreadsheet

    … We think our work will be helpful

Publishing Working Group Note of TEv2 spec

    AB: We previously agreed to publish Touch Events v2 spec as a
    "WG Note" which signifies work on that spec has stopped. Unless
    I hear otherwise, I'll assume that is still our `Plan of
    Record`.
    ... is that still the case?

    RB: fine with me

    … think we should publish something

    DS: I think a Note is reasonable

    AB: personally, I don't recall the compelling reasons to
    publish a v2 Note, that is, I'm not convinced there is a
    `problem` that is solved by publishing this Note. On the other
    hand, I don't see anything about it that is `harmful`.

    RB: so, what if we don't publish anything?

    … is what we have adequate?

    … we don't want it to get implemented

    AB: we never even published a FPWD of v2

    … Note is clear signal the work has stopped

    DS: if we think v2 reflects some impl, then I think a Note is
    probably better

    <sangwhan> Do we want to have certain implementations that
    portions of v2 as is? Shouldn't the v2 specifics be reverted if
    the work is officially stopped and the spec is considered
    scrapped?

    … it gives us a chance to add some context and rationale

    … publishing a Note is light weight

    … so I feel more comfortable with publishing a Note

    RB: Olli, does v2 match FF impl?

    OP: not sure; we need to talk to Matt

    <sangwhan> For the sake of interop I'm not sure having certain
    implementations provide subsets of features of v2 is a good
    idea

    … I don't care if Note or ED

    … Both say "don't implement it"

    RB: the only part of v2 we implement is the radius stuff

    … having those mentioned somewhere is important

    … but if FF enters touch{enter,leave} that would be important

    OP: but we don't

    RB: think it is in the MDN docs

    AB: without Matt, not comfortable reversing our PoR

    … so that is what we will do

    AB: so what changes are High Prio?

    RB: remove section 5.7 and 5.8

    … assuming no one has implemented those

    AB: Sangwhan?

    SM: no, we don't implement those

    RB: some additional props on the Touch object

    … want to leave the radius props

    AB: we also need to update some of the Web IDL that was buggy
    before Boris noted those errors
    ... any other changes?

    RB: instead of publishing everything as is, we could just
    publish those additional pieces

    … i.e. 3.1

    … would be a lot less work

    DS: seems reasonable to me

    OP: no one will look at the Note so I don't think it matters
    much

    … I recommend minimum amount of work

    SM: do we have some boilerplate for the top?

    DS: there is some precedence e.g. Web Storage

    AB: good Q; we need a propoasl for the obsolecence text

    RB: think we should listen to Matt

    AB: I think that's a good idea

    <smaug> [11]http://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ is pretty clear
    about its status

      [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow followup with Matt re if TEv2 Note
    should be `full spec` or just the `extra pieces` that have been
    implemented [recorded in
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html#action0
    1]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - Followup with matt re if tev2
    note should be `full spec` or just the `extra pieces` that have
    been implemented [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-22].

Touch Events / Pointer Events mapping

    AB: we agreed a while ago to create a TE and PE mapping
    document. The following e-mail I sent last week summarizes this
    topic
    [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013Oc
    tDec/0011.html.
    ... we also now have a related input from IBM
    [14]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvdBn9Kvx22qdG
    RnRXNPb0ZBTUl3SEkwdUdtaW9pWWc&usp=sharing#gid=2
    ... before digging into any details, perhaps it would be
    helpful if we stepped back a bit to talk about the `Problem
    Statement` here, f.ex. what is the problem we want to address,
    who is the audience, what is the scope, etc.
    ... Rick, your thoughts?

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013OctDec/0011.html.
      [14] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvdBn9Kvx22qdGRnRXNPb0ZBTUl3SEkwdUdtaW9pWWc&usp=sharing#gid=2

    RB: we know there is some tricky interaction here

    … want to reduce pain for the Web developers

    … want browser authors to have some info about how to handle
    these interaction

    … how does css touch action property work

    … how is default handled

    … there are some other diffs between PE and TE that need to be
    documented

    … f.ex. with mouse interaction

    … it's unclear how browsers should handle the various cases

    … when the browser supports both TE and PE

    … The various polyfills need answers to these Qs

    … (Dojo, Polymer, etc.)

    … When sites bits of a page that support one or the other,
    things are complex

    SM: also want to know about PE and caret browsing

    … there are some places where caret browsing doesn't work

    RB: it's going to be even worse for browser that support both
    of these events

    AB: Sebastien, please give us a summary of your work

    SP: we started with some common user tasks

    … first was click

    … 2nd was swipe

    … from each action, we observed the behaviour from various
    browsers

    … some browsers support only TE, some only PE

    … We noted the sequence of Touch events and Pointer events

    … need to map the sequence of TEs to PEs

    … The second step was to identify patterns of TEs to PEs

    … Every browser has a different sequence of events

    … but we found a way to generate consistent Pointer events

    … Not sure if this is what you were looking for

    AB: what do people think?

    RB: I just saw this yesterday

    … this is great data of existing behavior

    … I've been working on a doc re behavior and noting differences

    … IBM's doc is more thorough

    SP: want to get consistent behavior across browsers

    … wondering if this could be standardized

    … to get consistent behavior

    RB: re Col F, do you think that is consistent with the PE spec?

    SP: I think what we have is consistent with the PE spec

    … we are also implementing some stuff that is not specified

    … f.ex. how click will behave

    … preventdefault is implemented differently depending on the
    gesture

    … still is ongoing work

    … but I think it is close to the PE spec

    RB: when you find things that disagree with PE spec, please let
    us know

    … agree no info re single and double click for PE is not
    documented

    … there are some IP reasons why behavior like that is not
    specified in W3C

    OP: need to define order of touch and pointer events

    RB: yes, and how one cancels the other

    OP: what about FF on mobile?

    SP: we didn't include it yet but it could be added

    RB: one conclusion, there is a lot of detail that needs to be
    documented

    … for browsers and polyfills

    … must get consistency

    … I think this doc is helpful

    … but this is just one piece

    … Must also define the interleaving of PEs and TEs

    SP: yes, the goal is for the dev to only have to care about
    Pointer Events

    RB: so, interleaving isn't an issue in that case

    SP: correct

    … although there will of course be cases like that

    … but that isn't a primary task for us

    RB: would like you to help with our mapping doc

    SP: yes, we can do that

    RB: please feel free to reach out to me re Chrome's behavior

    <rbyers_> Here's my doc on touch event details across browsers:

    <rbyers_>
    [15]https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/12k_LL_Ot9G
    jF8zGWP9eI_3IMbSizD72susba0frg44Y/edit

      [15] https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/12k_LL_Ot9GjF8zGWP9eI_3IMbSizD72susba0frg44Y/edit

    [16]https://docs.google.com/document/d/12-HPlSIF7-ISY8TQHtuQ3Iq
    Di-isZVI0Yzv5zwl90VU/edit

      [16] https://docs.google.com/document/d/12-HPlSIF7-ISY8TQHtuQ3IqDi-isZVI0Yzv5zwl90VU/edit

    AB: ooops; sorry

    <rbyers_> Sorry, this is it:
    [17]https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/document/d/12k_LL_Ot
    9GjF8zGWP9eI_3IMbSizD72susba0frg44Y/edit

      [17] https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/document/d/12k_LL_Ot9GjF8zGWP9eI_3IMbSizD72susba0frg44Y/edit

    SP: we will check this

    RB: so, how do we move forward

    AB: I'd like to get this work done by mid November

    RB: I think a lot of the details that are important can't be
    documented until we get more experience

    … we could always shorten our scope

    … don't think we'll understand interleave and other subtel
    issues for a while

    … need to get PE out and deployed

    AB: if we used something like a wiki for the mapping, we could
    close the group and still let the mapping doc evolve

    DS: I see some conflicting requirements here

    … I think we need to keep moving toward closing this group

    … I don't see IBM's doc something that maps directly to a W3C
    spec

    … If the doc is more prescriptive i.e. "we expect browsers to
    do X in scenarios Y/Z"

    … We can also revisit defining the mapping in the PE Working
    Group but we must be very careful with that approach

    DS: if it's an informative doc, we can use a wiki or
    WebPlatform.org

    <sangwhan> What if it is both?

    … but if it is more prescriptive for browsers, it should be
    Note

    <sangwhan> (as in, reference for implementors but also helpful
    for web developers)

    … I suspect we can get an extension

    RB: I think we want a doc that is advice for browser
    implementers

    DS: but that is not what IBM has

    RB: yes, agree

    SP: agree too; we can also do some more work

    DS: do we think we can define the "desired behavior"?

    … if so, we should be able to define that fairly quickly

    RB: Column F is mostly prescriptive

    … the larger problem is interleaving and touch-actions

    … think we are going to need a new CSS property

    … need to allow opt in

    … not sure how to get that specified (e.g. which group)

    DS: yes, CSS WG is one option

    … although, other groups can do so if the work is done jointly

    DS: perhaps we can revisit the mapping document decision within
    the PEWG

    … if we need a specification, one possibility is DOM4

    … now part of the HTMLWG

    RB: the PEWG's charter doesn't explicitly state that
    interaction with Touch events is out of scope

    <scribe> ACTION: doug ask PEWG to revisit the decision to
    document the PE and TE mapping [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html#action0
    2]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Ask pewg to revisit the
    decision to document the pe and te mapping [on Doug Schepers -
    due 2013-10-22].

    <smaug> sangwhan: htmlwg perhaps?

    <sangwhan> smaug: :D

    DS: think it would be helpful if we had a very specific
    proposal for the PEWG

    … f.ex. be able to say "this is the sequence of events …."

    RB: still need more impl and deployment experience

    OP: we need at least 2 impls

    … that will take some time

    AB: what about moving the mapping to a CG

    RB: that's OK with me

    DS: yeah, that's worth pursuing

    … understand we can't do detailed work on the mapping without
    more impl experience

    … perhaps the CG is the right approach

    AB: let's work on a proposal for moving mapping to a CG or PEWG

    DS: ok; not clear which one is better

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Doug on where to define the
    PE/TE mapping (CG, PEWG, etc.) [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html#action0
    3]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Work with doug on where to
    define the pe/te mapping (cg, pewg, etc.) [on Arthur Barstow -
    due 2013-10-22].

    SM: webkit bug for PE hasn't been progressing

    … stuck since the Blink fork

    AB: thanks Sebastien and Christophe for joining our call

    DS: yes, thanks very much

AoB

    AB: anything else for today?
    ... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow followup with Matt re if TEv2 Note should
    be `full spec` or just the `extra pieces` that have been
    implemented [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html#action0
    1]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Doug on where to define the
    PE/TE mapping (CG, PEWG, etc.) [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html#action0
    3]
    [NEW] ACTION: doug ask PEWG to revisit the decision to document
    the PE and TE mapping [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html#action0
    2]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 16:55:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:55 UTC