Web Events Voice Conference

08 Dec 2010


See also: IRC log


Art_Barstow, Josh_Soref, Sangwhan_Moon, Cathy_Chan, Dzung_Tran, Olli_Pettay, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers


<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<cchan4> aabb is cathy

<timeless> Zakim: aabb is cathy

Review and Tweak the Agenda

AB: I sent a draft agenda to the list on December 2 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2010OctDec/0009.html ). Any change requests?
... I realize the time is not convenient for some time zones and we can discuss that during the Any Other Business (AOB) agenda item.


AB: we can take a few minutes for introductions. At a minimum, please say "hi" so we can start to recognize peoples' voices; would also be good to know if you are a newcomer/newbie to W3C (or not).

DS: I work for W3C
... I expect to be an Editor
... I helped create this WG

JS: I work for Nokia on Mozilla
... been in WebApps for a while

SM: I work for Opera
... mostly on TV
... but previously on mobile
... and DOM kinetics stuff
... He's work out of Korea

OP: I work for Mozilla
... I also participate in WebApps, HTML and speech

CC: I work for Nokia
... I'm new in W3C

DT: I go by "Tran"
... been in W3C for a couple of years
... HTML and DAP
... work in mobile space
... browser for Intel

MB: I work for Mozilla on mobile FF
... fennec is the name of the project

Work Mode

AB: want to spend just a couple of minutes re the WG's Work Mode which is documented in ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/WorkMode ).
... this WG's Work Mode is based on the way the WebApps WG does its technical work which is mostly via e-mail. This is very different from a lot of W3C WGs and other Standards Organizations.
... one of my "pet peeves" is meetings for the sake of meetings so we will only have meetings when there is a relatively clear need to do so.
... the one point I want to emphasize is that Editors have significant freedom when writing a spec so if a spec is important to you, you should follow the latest Editor's Draft.

DS: we use commit first and then review
... Editors write the spec
... then expect people to read it from CVS
... but we will only formally publish a spec after the group has had a chance to review it
... If you find a problem with an Editor's Draft (ED), you will always have time to raise issues
... I edit D3E spec
... but am not an expert when it comes to touch interface events
... as such, I am hoping to get inputs and content from other WG members
... I definitely want to hear about other approaches

AB: any questions?

JS: are we going to use CVS or Hg?

DS: we will probably use Mercurial
... I haven't used Mercurial
... but if that's what people want, then that's what I'll do

JS: I can help as can others from Mozilla

AB: we use an explicit Call for Consensus e-mail to gather input on consensus for some issue or question
... e.g "CfC to publish a document"

DS: to help move things quickly, I propose over the next month or so that I put together a draft or two
... one for touch interface
... and the other for higher-level stuff
... I propose I start on those docs as soon as possible
... Does that seem reasonable?

DT: what do you mean by "high level"

DS: things like "undo" or "zoom"
... but not touch-start
... or "pinch" which is a gesture

DT: where do UCs come into play?

SM: Tran asked the same question I was going to ask
... is the plan to merge these two specs?

DS: I think keeping them separate makes sense
... the higher intentional events need to work with different modalities
... but the split or not is a bit premature and I want to listen to other's input
... but think it will help during bootstrapping


AB: before we move to UCs, Reqs, Landscape, ... want to take a quick look at what the charter states as in scope ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/#scope ) and what is explicitly Out of Scope ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/#out-of-scope )
... Doug wrote the charter so I'd like him to briefly talk about scope

DS: the out of scope constraint is because of concerns about Intellectual Property
... The charter describes 4 layers
... physical, gestural, representational and intentional
... Physical: about a user doing something directly
... Gestural: physical action e.g. two fingers that move together; these events are not in scope
... gestures like pinch are common on various devices
... Representational: the highest level of abstraction in the event model; e.g. zooming in, panning
... Intentional: defines what the user "intended" to do
... e.g. "the user intended to zoom in/out"
... In scope: Physical + Representational
... for example, can zoom in thru different physical actions
... in some devices, physical events can be different than other devices
... We need to define these two separately
... I think it is OK if we talk about gestures

<timeless> proscriptive :)

DS: but we can't define then in a prescriptive or normative way
... the W3C Patent Policy defines the framework for normative text
... If we talk about gestures, we must do so in a non-normative way
... For example, gestures can be included in a non-normative Landscape document
... A normative definition of gestures is explicitly out of scope

AB: any comments on this?

DT: so the specs will deal with which levels?

DS: one for Physical and one spec for Representational

<smaug_> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/1.1/intent-based-events.html

<shepazu> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/Landscape

DS: look at the Intent Based Events spec
... it was done in 2003
... I anticipate us defining something like these events
... for example, undo, drag
... some of these could be modal depending on the context or mode

DT: is Apple on this call

AB: the WG participants are: http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=45559&public=1

DS: it's possible that as we proceed, we may be able to get other Members
... to join as they see where we are headed

Use Cases and requirements

AB: Cathy sent some use cases and Requirements to the list on November 18 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2010OctDec/0005.html )
... any comments on Cathy's input?
... please send comments as well as other UCs and Reqs inputs to the list. For the purposes of gathering this type of non-normative data, I don't think our charter constrains our scope.

JS: re Cathy's input, it mentions "tactile" and I don't think that is in scope

DS: the charter is silent on that
... I think we can talk about it

<cchan4> That's correct.

<cchan4> It's not supposed to be there.

<cchan4> I'll remove it and repost.

AB: we should consider that part of Cathy's input as void
... it wasn't meant to be included

DS: so you want to exclude it?

AB: yes we want to exclude it because we are pursuing that in the CSS WG

DS: If the CSS WG is going to define a haptics module, we should make sure we talk to them

AB: I agree with that

<timeless> [ DS is asking for a liason ]

AB: anything else on UCs and Reqs for today?

DS: I want to encourage people to submit more UCs and reqs
... the more data we have and the earlier on, the better


AB: Doug created a Landscape wiki ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/Landscape ) that includes links to relevant resources.

DS: I would like to start on one doc right away
... want to talk about two things:
... 1) does anyone object to me starting on the first doc?
... 2) does anyone object to two docs?

<timeless> I do not object to two documents; and I support two documents being developed concurrently now

DS: first, does anyone object me starting to edit right away?

<sangwhan> I support parallel editing of the two

AB: I hear no objections

<smaug_> I agree, two documents sounds good

DS: also want to know if anyone wants to help?

<timeless> help how? :)

OP: you mean, does anyone have the time :-)

<timeless> eek

DS: looking for a co-editor

<timeless> i'll gladly review, and if you don't mind using a piratepad or googledocs for interim bits, i can do some live edits with you

RESOLUTION: the group supports Doug starting an Editor's Draft of the spec right away

<sangwhan> I would be willing to co-edit

DS: the 2nd question, are there any objections to starting with 2 specs (and possibly merging in the future)?

AB: No objections made

RESOLUTION: the group agrees Doug can start with two specs now

AB: who is willing to help with the editing

<sangwhan> I will need to internally check with our other contacts who are not present here at the moment

DS: this isn't a one-time shot; in the future editorial help can be added too

AB: it's good to see Doug is ready to go!

DS: want to get us started right away

AB: that's excellent

Any other Business

AB: how about a voice conf?

DS: I like them because they help with organizing the work
... I don't see an immediate need for one that we need to schedule now

AB: people should contribute to the wiki docs like the Landscape

DS: agree; want this to be a group effort
... if there are other docs, I'd like to get them

AB: yes, I have some resources I'll add to the Landscape doc

DS: we must have broad support to make this work

JS: want to talk about time slot

DS: this can be challenging

AB: this can be real difficult
... think we need a poll

<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Doug on a voice conference time of day that works for most people [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/08-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Work with Doug on a voice conference time of day that works for most people [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-12-15].

JS: is this a bad time for anyone?
... it is good for me

SM: it starts at 05:00 in Korea

OP: this is a good time for me too

DS: Sangwhan, would earlier to better for you?
... like 3 hours earlier?

<timeless> yes

SM: 2 hours would be better and 3 hours even better

AB: and 2-3 hours earlier for the FI guys?

JS: ok

OP: ok

AB: 2-3 hours would be preferred for me

DS: so if 3 hours earlier, then 11:00 Boston

<timeless> that makes it 8am cali

<timeless> or seattle

DS: FI would be 18:00
... Seattle would 08:00
... Korea would be 01:00

<timeless> so, i guess my s/// earlier was wrong, sorry

AB: ok, so next call would be 3 hours earlier

<cchan4> Not for me

DS: and the Day of Week?

<cchan4> Wednesday doesn't work for me for 11am Boston

AB: is this day a problem for anyone?
... understood Cathy

<cchan4> Any other day is fine

<timeless> fridays don't work for me in the winter

JS: the agenda should include all of the timezones

DS: what about Tuesday?

AB: anyone objections to Tuesday?
... No objections raised

RESOLUTION: voice conferences on Tuesdays 11:00 Boston is acceptable

DS: how about Jan 11 for next conf?

AB: any objections?
... None heard
... next call is Jan 11 @ 11:00 Boston time
... Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Doug on a voice conference time of day that works for most people [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/08-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/12/08 20:04:35 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/some/previously on/
Succeeded: s/browser/browser for Intel/
Succeeded: s/any//
Succeeded: s/HG/Hg/
Succeeded: s/bootstapping/bootstrapping/
Succeeded: s/requirements/Requirements/
Succeeded: s/4/5/
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Present: Art_Barstow Josh_Soref Sangwhan_Moon Cathy_Chan Dzung_Tran Olli_Pettay Matt_Brubeck Doug_Schepers
Regrets: Anders_Höckersten
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2010OctDec/0009.html
Got date from IRC log name: 08 Dec 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/08-webevents-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]