16:00:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webevents
16:00:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-irc
16:00:15 <mbrubeck> Zakim, aabb is Matt_Brubeck
16:00:15 <Zakim> +Matt_Brubeck; got it
16:00:32 <timeless> timeless has joined #webevents
16:01:03 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
16:01:03 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
16:01:03 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0045.html
16:01:03 <ArtB> Date: 8 February 2011
16:01:03 <ArtB> Chair: Art
16:01:04 <ArtB> Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference
16:01:09 <smaug_> smaug_ has joined #webevents
16:01:18 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
16:01:22 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
16:01:49 <Sangwhan_Moon> Sangwhan_Moon has joined #webevents
16:02:00 <ArtB> Present: Art_Barstow, Josh_Soref, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, Laszlo_Gombos, Sangwhan_Moon
16:02:37 <ArtB> zakim, aaaa is Laszlo_Gombos
16:02:37 <Zakim> +Laszlo_Gombos; got it
16:03:26 <ArtB> Topic: Tweak the agenda
16:03:39 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:03:58 <ArtB> AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0045.html ). I intend to merge topics #4 and #6 since they both are about Use Cases. Any change requests?
16:04:00 <smaug_> Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
16:04:00 <Zakim> +Olli_Pettay; got it
16:04:21 <ArtB> Present+ Olli_Pettay
16:04:27 <ArtB> Topic: Issue management:
16:04:34 <ArtB> AB: Working Groups handle issues differently: embed the issues in the spec, use W3C's tracker, Bugzilla, etc. Let's briefly talk about how we want to handle issues.
16:05:27 <Zakim> +??P11
16:05:37 <Sangwhan_Moon> zakim, p11 is me
16:05:37 <Zakim> sorry, Sangwhan_Moon, I do not recognize a party named 'p11'
16:05:45 <Sangwhan_Moon> zakim, P11 is me
16:05:45 <Zakim> sorry, Sangwhan_Moon, I do not recognize a party named 'P11'
16:05:52 <Sangwhan_Moon> zakim, +??P11 is me
16:05:52 <Zakim> sorry, Sangwhan_Moon, I do not recognize a party named '+??P11'
16:05:59 <Sangwhan_Moon> zakim, who is on the call?
16:05:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Laszlo_Gombos, Matt_Brubeck, Shepazu, Josh_Soref, Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, ??P11
16:06:04 <Sangwhan_Moon> zakim, ??P11 is me
16:06:04 <Zakim> +Sangwhan_Moon; got it
16:06:18 <ArtB> AB: anyone have comments or feedback re issue tracking
16:06:38 <ArtB> DS: my preference is to use Tracker (W3C tool)
16:06:46 <ArtB> ... it has a nice integration with IRC
16:06:54 <ArtB> ... less cluttered with Bugzilla
16:07:04 <ArtB> AB: also has nice integration with e-mail
16:07:36 <ArtB> DS: from the WebEvents page, look for issues
16:07:44 <shepazu> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/
16:07:58 <ArtB> DS: there is only one action now
16:08:02 <ArtB> ... and no issues
16:08:17 <ArtB> ... Action-1 is still open
16:08:24 <ArtB> ... and I'll take care of it
16:08:34 <ArtB> ... Tracker is easy to use
16:08:44 <shepazu> issue-1?
16:08:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-1 does not exist
16:08:54 <shepazu> action-1?
16:08:54 <trackbot> ACTION-1 -- Arthur Barstow to work with Doug on a voice conference time of day that works for most people -- due 2010-12-15 -- CLOSED
16:08:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/1
16:09:01 <ArtB> ... has some macros that trackbot understands and acts on
16:10:00 <ArtB> DS: to add issues, may need to copy text from an email to tracker issue
16:10:12 <ArtB> ... so a bit of a pain
16:10:23 <ArtB> ... to both edit the spec and to do issue tracking
16:10:40 <ArtB> ... As such, if someone wants to volunteer to help with issue tracking that would be very welcome
16:10:51 <ArtB> ... Requires monitoring the list and then adding issues to Tracker
16:11:15 <ArtB> ... One email may have more than one issue
16:11:34 <ArtB> AB: is anyone willing to volunteer to lead the issue tracking
16:11:45 <ArtB> MB: I will tend the issue tracker
16:12:02 <ArtB> DS: this is good and a nice way to ease into the editing
16:12:44 <ArtB> ... Think the spec should include credit for people that take on big tasks like Issue tracking and Test suite work, etc.
16:12:55 <ArtB> AB: I think that's a great idea
16:13:19 <ArtB> SM: I just added two issues 
16:13:23 <ArtB> DS: that's great
16:13:39 <ArtB> ... we can have a 3-way call and go thru some of the tasks
16:13:50 <Sangwhan_Moon> s/thru/through/
16:13:59 <ArtB> ACTION: doug set up a conf call with Matt and Sangwhan re issue tracking and editing
16:13:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Set up a conf call with Matt and Sangwhan re issue tracking and editing [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-02-15].
16:14:18 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the WG agrees to use Tracker for issue tracking (and action tracking)
16:14:23 <ArtB> AB: thanks guys!
16:15:33 <ArtB> DS: an advantage Bugzilla has is that anyone in the Public create Issues; whereas, only WG members can create issues via Tracker
16:15:52 <ArtB> MB: so if Joe Public wants to create/raise an Issue, they must use the list?
16:15:57 <ArtB> DS: yes
16:16:11 <ArtB> Topic: Comments by PPK
16:16:16 <timeless> [of note, bugzilla can be configured to have similar restrictions ]
16:16:18 <ArtB> AB: PPK read Doug's first ED and submitted some comments ( http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2011/01/w3c_touch_event.html )
16:17:22 <ArtB> DS: does anyone have comments
16:17:46 <ArtB> SM: re his comments about radiusXandY
16:17:59 <ArtB> ... physical units create probs for mobile browsers
16:18:16 <ArtB> ... pixels make much more sense
16:18:24 <ArtB> ... than something like centimeters
16:18:26 <ArtB> DS: I agree
16:18:44 <ArtB> ... would be good if we could convert but think screen pixels is reqd
16:19:01 <ArtB> ... Someone else raised an issue about radiusxy
16:19:18 <ArtB> ... It may disappear 
16:19:48 <ArtB> OP: re altKey, etc., what about Pens?
16:19:58 <ArtB> DS: some Pens do have keys
16:20:09 <ArtB> ... I talked to at least one engr at Qualcomm
16:20:19 <ArtB> ... they have >=1 buttons on the pens
16:20:24 <ArtB> ... and they can be configured
16:20:25 <timeless> [ http://www.wacom.com.au/intuos3/spec/intuos3artpen.html ]
16:20:37 <timeless> [ Wacom ]
16:20:41 <Sangwhan_Moon> s/Qualcomm/Wacom
16:20:43 <ArtB> s/Qualcomm/Wacom/
16:20:43 <Sangwhan_Moon> s/Qualcomm/Wacom/
16:22:06 <ArtB> SM: we should add Meta key
16:22:33 <ArtB> MB: PPK links to Apple Safari doc 
16:23:04 <ArtB> DS: I created a blog ( http://schepers.cc/getintouch )
16:24:04 <ArtB> DS: after reading PPK's blog, I went thru point-by-point and cleaned up the spec to address most of his points
16:24:49 <ArtB> ... Sangwhan, perhaps you could add the Meta key
16:25:11 <ArtB> ... I think I addressed ontouch move
16:25:17 <ArtB> ... I still have questions about time stamp
16:25:32 <ArtB> ... Units for radiusXY will need some work
16:25:47 <ArtB> ... Unit of force: defined it as 0 to 1 as relative due to device
16:26:03 <Sangwhan_Moon> ACTION: Add meta key for the TouchPoint interface
16:26:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Add
16:26:10 <ArtB> ... touch cancel event - I'm not sure what this could be needs some work
16:26:35 <mbrubeck> hg log of shepazu's spec changes: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/
16:27:20 <timeless> [ http://twitter.com/w3cwebevents ]
16:27:24 <Sangwhan_Moon> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/7
16:27:27 <ArtB> DS: fyi, I created a twitter account for webevents
16:27:34 <shepazu> twitter feed @w3cwebevents
16:28:06 <ArtB> DS: I intend to push spec changes to @w3cwebevents
16:28:45 <ArtB> SM: is it branch aware?
16:28:47 <ArtB> DS: not sure
16:29:16 <ArtB> ... we want to be able to tweet directly rather than going thru a 3-rd party service as I do now
16:29:22 <ArtB> AB: excellent
16:31:04 <ArtB> AB: anything else on PPK's comments?
16:31:05 <ArtB> Topic: Comments by Andrew Grieve - Use Cases and Reqs
16:31:13 <ArtB> AB: Google's Andrew Grieve submitted some comment regarding use cases ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0043.html )
16:31:15 <mbrubeck> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rss-log/default might work
16:33:22 <ArtB> AB: so far, no one has responded
16:33:28 <ArtB> DS: I will respond to Andrew
16:33:55 <ArtB> ... it's encouraging that we already have comments so early in the spec process
16:34:09 <ArtB> AB: yes, I agree
16:36:23 <ArtB> DS: I prefer to take other topics and come back to Andrew's email if we have time
16:36:40 <ArtB> Topic: Use Case and Requirements
16:36:46 <ArtB> AB: Use Case and Reqs wiki was created ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/UCsandReqs ) and it needs some work. I don't think we need to be overly prescriptive on how the UCs and Reqs are documented and there is significant variability in the way WGs have documented them.
16:38:38 <ArtB> DS: I would like to work on these but I don't have the time
16:39:00 <ArtB> ... pointing to some examples would be good
16:39:24 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow send to the list some examples of WGs' documenting UCs and Reqs
16:39:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Send to the list some examples of WGs' documenting UCs and Reqs [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-02-15].
16:39:33 <Sangwhan_Moon> It should be possible to start off from previous use case that Cathy wrote up
16:39:55 <ArtB> AB: is anyone interested in leading or contributing to that process of UCs and Reqs?
16:40:06 <ArtB> ... Cathy did some work
16:41:09 <Sangwhan_Moon> s/use case that/use cases that/
16:41:34 <timeless> i'd suggest tweeting asking for people to add to the wiki :)
16:41:36 <ArtB> AB: anything else on UCs and Requs for today?
16:41:48 <ArtB> SM: do we have any Web developers in the WG?
16:41:59 <ArtB> ... it would be good to get their input
16:42:11 <ArtB> DS: good point
16:42:20 <ArtB> ... and Timeless has a good point too
16:42:54 <ArtB> ... asking web devs and tweeting could help; that's kinda' what I did with PPK
16:43:22 <ArtB> ... So there is an Action for Everyone to tweet for UCs and Reqs
16:43:47 <ArtB> SM: I've found that browser deverlopers aren't particuarly good at writing UCs
16:44:06 <Sangwhan_Moon> s/deverlopers/developers/
16:44:22 <timeless> s/particuarly/particularly
16:44:24 <timeless> s/particuarly/particularly/
16:44:26 <ArtB> Topic: Testing
16:44:31 <Sangwhan_Moon> zakim, agenda?
16:44:31 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
16:44:35 <ArtB> AB: strictly speaking, a WG is not required to create test cases until a spec enters the Candidate Recommendation phase. In some cases, WGs try to work on test cases much earlier. Ideally, a comprehensive test suite would exist before a spec enters Last Call WG but in practice, I think they are rarely created that early. 
16:45:20 <timeless> s/Call WG/Call WD/
16:45:24 <ArtB> AB: there is also a significant amount of variability in test suites from WG to WG and in some cases e.g. WebApps WG, there is variability from spec to spec.
16:46:29 <ArtB> DS: if tests aren't developed early ...
16:47:01 <ArtB> ... when the spec gets to CR and test case are then started, some people will have already left the WG
16:47:25 <timeless> s/left the WG/left the WG or become inactive/
16:47:37 <ArtB> ... and when test cases are written, realize the spec has a hole but the CR means people will start implementing
16:47:47 <ArtB> ... that ends up tying the hands of the WG 
16:48:20 <ArtB> DS: would be good to stay in the ED state until we have some test cases
16:48:34 <ArtB> ... that is, don't publish a WD until test cases exist
16:49:10 <ArtB> ... this would be more stringent then what is required
16:49:27 <ArtB> ... but this restriction could help us advance the spec more quickly
16:49:32 <timeless> shepazu: so you're holding the WD ransom against implementers providing testcases?
16:49:45 <ArtB> ... Naturally, we need volunteers to write the test cases
16:50:31 <ArtB> ... and intend to include a section in the spec that points to the test suite and give an attribution to whomever leads the test suite work
16:50:44 <ArtB> MB: PPK has a lot of experience with test suites
16:50:55 <ArtB> DS: I asked him but he can't make the commitment
16:51:15 <ArtB> ... Does anyone here have experience writing tests? Or no experience writing tests?
16:51:31 <ArtB> OP: how does adding TCs to the TS acutally work?
16:51:42 <ArtB> ... because they all need to be reviewed
16:51:50 <timeless> of note, some WGs have published test suites with poor quality tests
16:51:56 <ArtB> ... are TCs added to bugzilla
16:51:57 <timeless> which lead to problems
16:52:07 <timeless> i think that's SVG/HTML/CSS (?)
16:52:13 <ArtB> OP: it is too easy to write Invalid tests
16:52:32 <ArtB> DS: agree; but a hard problem to solve
16:52:48 <ArtB> SM: we could create a mirror e.g. bitbucket for prelim work
16:52:53 <timeless> the general suggestion is a reviewer.
16:53:09 <ArtB> DS: would prefer to use W3C services
16:53:11 <timeless> at the risk of volunteering for work, i could probably help out here
16:53:46 <ArtB> SM: must have a W3C account to fork 
16:53:55 <ArtB> DS: what about just to pull?
16:54:20 <timeless> cloning is possible w/ public repositories
16:54:38 <timeless> but the issue is informing the owner of the w3 repo that your changes are available
16:54:41 <ArtB> SM: need to differentiate merging and just making a clone
16:54:57 <timeless> in theory one could again use twitter :)
16:55:22 <ArtB> DS: think we should have a call about sysadmin type stuff
16:55:26 <timeless> (please include me for this call/topic)
16:56:06 <timeless> the general suggestion was http://bitbucket.org since it provides for pull requests
16:56:09 <ArtB> DS: if a large number of people aren't interested in infra type discussions we could use this call
16:56:17 <timeless> there aren't to my knowledge many hg hosts which do it
16:56:51 <ArtB> DS: how about we dedicate next week's call to infra/sysadmin?
16:56:56 <ArtB> AB: WFM
16:56:58 <ArtB> MB: OK
16:57:55 <Sangwhan_Moon> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/9
16:58:40 <ArtB> AB: coming back to Doug's proposasl, I'm a little uneasy with making test case availability be a block for FPWD
16:58:56 <ArtB> ... would make more sense as a block for LCWD
16:58:59 <timeless> art: i think that there might be enough web dev demand that we can remind the web that they won't be able to play with this stuff unless they help provide test cases
16:59:33 <mbrubeck> As vendors like Mozilla implement the spec, we will be writing test cases for our own use...
16:59:35 <timeless> personally, i think we do need to block some *WD on having thoroughly reviewed the test cases
16:59:44 <timeless> s/cases/suite/
16:59:50 <ArtB> DS: I think people need to speak up, even if you don't care
17:00:22 <ArtB> AB: if anyone has comments about Doug's test case proposal, please speak up now
17:00:58 <ArtB> MB: I don't think I know enough about W3C process to make an informed opinion
17:01:12 <ArtB> ... we are already getting comments
17:01:37 <timeless> q+
17:01:51 <ArtB> DS: we aren't lacking any visibility
17:02:11 <ArtB> ... it's too easy to slip into a mode where we are not creating TCs
17:02:32 <ArtB> ... will help us narrow down the scope of the spec
17:02:44 <mbrubeck> Is there a standard test harness / library / tool for W3C specs, or should we just create any old web page that runs scripts and displays the results?
17:02:59 <timeless> mbrubeck: there are a couple of harnesses used by different WGs
17:03:19 <timeless> each WG can choose from them or use a new one
17:03:39 <ArtB> AB: I think some people won't review the spec until there is a FPWD
17:03:39 <timeless> iirc some of the recent WG / Specs have tended toward certain harnesses, but i can't recall which
17:03:47 <ArtB> DS: the spec is relatively small
17:03:56 <ArtB> ... and don't expect a huge number of TCs
17:05:16 <timeless> ack me
17:05:29 <ArtB> AB: I'd like a little time to think about this; see some clear advantages to the proposal
17:06:00 <ArtB> JS: I think implementors at Moz will write test cases as they implement
17:06:16 <ArtB> ... so, if they can easily contribute their TCs, it will help
17:07:14 <ArtB> ... I don't think most implementors will distinguish between ED and WD
17:07:23 <ArtB> ... they are going to follow the EDs anyway
17:07:56 <ArtB> ... Do implementors have a way to namespace-protect their early implementations?
17:08:04 <mbrubeck> The global namespace is rather polluted in this space already. :(
17:08:10 <ArtB> DS: there is a way in D3E
17:08:24 <ArtB> ... eg -moz-touchstart
17:09:06 <mbrubeck> Mozilla currently implements MozTouchDown, MozTouchMove, MozTouchUp - https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Touch_events
17:09:39 <ArtB> DS: I will add something to the spec about adding prefixes
17:09:57 <mbrubeck> If the spec continues to follow WebKit in a mostly backward-compatible way, then I'm not sure prefixes are useful
17:10:06 <ArtB> LG: this will be tricky with WebKit i.e. to state pre-spec and post-spec state
17:10:15 <ArtB> ... WK already has some TCS
17:10:23 <mbrubeck> We never prefixed things like <canvas> that followed existing implementations
17:10:25 <ArtB> ... WG may be able to use them
17:10:41 <ArtB> ... We need to think about how to automate the testing
17:11:03 <ArtB> ... The WK tests cases have some platform specific parts
17:11:13 <ArtB> DS: automation is not a requirement
17:11:41 <ArtB> ... I can work with you Laszlo re if we can re-use WK tests
17:12:02 <ArtB> ... Do, you know Art if we can use WK tests?
17:13:21 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow work with Doug and Laszlo re if we can re-use Webkit tests
17:13:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Work with Doug and Laszlo re if we can re-use Webkit tests [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-02-15].
17:13:44 <timeless> lgombos noted that the webkit tests tend to be platform specific
17:14:04 <ArtB> AB: does anyone object to Doug's proposal that test cases be required before we publish a FPWD?
17:14:22 <ArtB> [ None ]
17:14:32 <mbrubeck> no objection, but I'll read more about process and see if I have any further commentns
17:14:43 <timeless> s/commentns/comments/
17:15:14 <ArtB> AB: so, let's give everyone a week to think about Doug's proposal
17:15:42 <ArtB> Topic: Plan for high-level intentional events spec:
17:15:45 <timeless> I guess w3 process doesn't require test cases not be limited to a specific platform/device/impl?
17:15:48 <ArtB> AB: Doug, do you have an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) for an Editor's Draft of the high-level intensional spec?
17:16:10 <ArtB> DS: I think it is weeks away
17:16:17 <timeless> s/intensional/intentional/ 
17:16:22 <ArtB> ... I need to work with other people on that spec
17:17:04 <Sangwhan_Moon> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/4
17:17:28 <ArtB> DS: I hope to get it out before March 1
17:17:38 <mbrubeck> "Uncontacted tribe in Amazon rain forest announces W3C membership, plans to support HTML5"
17:18:33 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
17:19:13 <ArtB> AB: we will have a call next week; primary topics are infrastructure and sysadmin
17:19:22 <Zakim> -Sangwhan_Moon
17:19:23 <Zakim> -Laszlo_Gombos
17:19:23 <Zakim> -Olli_Pettay
17:19:23 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
17:19:24 <Zakim> -Shepazu
17:19:24 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
17:19:39 <Zakim> -Matt_Brubeck
17:19:41 <Zakim> RWC_()11:00AM has ended
17:19:43 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.781.534.aaaa, +1.206.792.aabb, Shepazu, Matt_Brubeck, Josh_Soref, Art_Barstow, Laszlo_Gombos, Olli_Pettay, Sangwhan_Moon
17:19:46 <ArtB> .... meeting adjourned
17:19:53 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
17:19:58 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:19:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-webevents-minutes.html ArtB
17:29:34 <Sangwhan_Moon> Sangwhan_Moon has left #webevents
19:09:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webevents