- 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_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