- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:47:29 -0400
- 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_González
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