See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 22 February 2011
AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0066.html ). The main idea is to focus the call on specific issues. Any change requests?
DS: it seems reasonable
... what they are suggesting
... I read the Canonical linux spec
... However, there are aspects I don't quite understand
... The document they pointed me to is copyrighted
... Must be careful about chaning it re copyright
... I don't want to introduce mistakes nor violate copright
... I have had some conversations
... and need to follow-up with them
... We must make sure we don't violate any copyright issues
OP: is there something like this
in InkML spec?
... perhaps we can use their wording
DS: it's a good idea for us to
align with InkML in general
... they do talk about angle in the spec
DS: but don't talk about it in quite the same way as the Linux docs
DS: Think of their channels as our properties
<timeless> [ InkML channels ~ DOM properties
DS: InkML channels are not
identical to our properties ]
... but for our purposes, we can consider them the same
<mbrubeck> It looks like InkML's OR ("rotation (counter-clockwise rotation about pen axis)") is equivalent to ABS_MT_ORIENTATION from the kernel multi-touch docs, in the case where tip=ellipse.
<scribe> ACTION: doug follow up with the canonical guys re copyrights [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-16 - Follow up with the canonical guys re copyrights [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-03-01].
AB: we must be very careful re IP when looking at inputs from non WG members
DS: W3C IP commitments only cover
IP from Members that were members of the WG that created the
... For example, if W3C Member A is not a member of Web Events, any spec we create does not include a RF commitment from Member A
... has anyone else reviewed the Linux documentation i.e. kernel mulit-touch
MB: I think it is a straight fwd
change to what we have spec'ed now
... they address some other things we may not need to specify to the same degree
... I have related action-11 and I hope to check something into the ED today
... being careful re copyright
AB: does anyone else have feedback on the Linux multi-touch spec?
JS: one thing we should look at
are CSS specs that added angle stuff
... we may want to look at the various proposals
... I think animations, transitions or some other may have some stuff for us
JS: We should try to be consistent if/when it makes sense
DS: looking at the InkML diagram
... I'll see if I can reuse their diagram
... there are 2 different angles
... the angle perpendicular to the surface
... and the angle that is circle around the midpoint
... f.ex. if the device is vert and finger is vert
... but if finger comes from a side
... we may want to address that
JS: I thought we were only talking about the ellipse distortion; but it sounds like someone is raising the angle of incidence to the surface
MB: I think JS is raising a
... angle of pen to surface
DS: agree we should try to be
consistent with CSS
... and InkML and Geolocation Device Orientation
... perhaps we should get a summary of the various angle uses
... and include a recommendation
... can you do that Josh?
JS: I think we only care about the ellipse angle
DS: there are different things we
can talk about re angles
... the units
<mbrubeck> s/I'm not particularly interested in covering it.//
<mbrubeck> I didn't say that.
DS: In SVG one can have radians
... we should decide how we are going to handle this
... I can't take on the "angle summary"
... Can you do that for CSS Josh?
JS: perhaps OP or SM can do that work
AB: can someone do the analysis Doug is recommending?
DS: I won't be here for the next
... [so we have some time ... ]
OP: ok, I'll look into this
<timeless> [ http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/types.html#InterfaceSVGAngle ]
<scribe> ACTION: olli investiage various angle-related work e.g. InkML, CSS, SVG, ... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - Investiage various angle-related work e.g. InkML, CSS, SVG, ... [on Olli Pettay - due 2011-03-01].
<timeless> i think mostly the issue is that for a DOM api we're only going to be able to expose properties with a single unit. so it's a matter of picking / recommending the best unit.
AB: we have 5-6 "raised" issues.
Before we look at them, I have a few lead in comments ...
... as we discussed last week, when an issue is created, it is automatically tagged with a "Raised" state. From that state it can advance to: "Open" which means we agree this is an issue; to "Postponed" if we agree it is an issue but will not address it in the version of the spec in which we are currently working; to "Closed" if we will not address the issue (ever).
<mbrubeck> Degrees have at least one advantage over radians, which is that common values can be represented exactly in floating-point arithmetic.
AB: why do we care about issue
state? It is important, especially for those interested in our
work but not directly contributing, to keep the state of the
... for the purposes of today, it would be good to review the Raised Issues and to at least get a sense of what, if anything, we want to do with the issue. That is, we don't necessarily need to "address" the issue during this call but we may want to, for example, assign one or more actions for an issue.
<sangwhan> Probably not the best option, but following the SVGAngle interface and indicating the unit type is also a option (although not pretty in ECMAScript)
<shepazu> Geolocation API WG's Device Orientation spec: http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source-orientation.html
AB: this issue is in the raised state ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/2 )
MB: I think something like touch
cancel should be defined
... not sure though we can mandate it
... may not be detectable on some hardware
... as such, think we need to do some research here
... to understand how this could be done on some hw
SM: resistive screens think pen left the screen
DS: but we have other screens to consider
SM: but if spec is directed to
capative only then will be trick to do
... touch area needs to be predefined value
... from app dev view, only 1 pixel is detected
DS: I'm not suggesting we talk
about 1 or the other
... we should talk about both
... and can have conditional characteristics
... e.g. "if device supports ... then must do ..."
SM: I can do some investigation here
<scribe> ACTION: moon do some investigation for Issue-2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Do some investigation for Issue-2 [on Sangwhan Moon - due 2011-03-01].
AB: this issue is in the raised
state ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3
... any comments?
MB: think this is part of a
larger issue re how default events translate to clicks and
other mouse events
... From an impl pov, click is based on touchend event so if insert new element
... <missed some stuff >
... Think we need to talk about when and how mouse events are fired for browser supporting touch events
AB: any actions for this?
... Does anyone want to help move it forward?
... Otherwise, we keep it Raised
DS: I'm interested in helping but can't take on extra tasks/actions now
AB: this issue is in the raised state ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/4 )
MB: this is part of the larger
issue I just mentioned
... think we need a framework on how to address this
DS: yes, agree with MB
JS: I think Andrew is right that
not blocking seems silly
... but it is too early to move this issue to another state
AB: ok; so let's leave it Raised for now
AB: this issue is in the raised state ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/5 )
OP: I updated the Issue some
JS: personally, don't want the UI
... A user triggering drag start won't want an alert to pop up
... gives a bad UI
MB: in spec, touchcancel there is some relevant text
JS: triggering events within an alert is bad
<mbrubeck> That's true
DS: how can this be done
JS: spec can say nested event loop results in an exception
SM: think that is a bit extreme
<mbrubeck> If we don't define alert() -> touchcancel, then there's no event loop
SM: spec could discourage this and that may be enough
MB: Andrew said every touch start
should have a touchend
... makes sense
DS: if have a cancel, need to send a touchend
JS: do you want 1 event or both cancel and end?
DS: a touch cancel would have a default action of touch end event
OP: agree that makes sense
... need to define when if before or after alert
... XHR is a bit trickier; if synchronous, no events while it is handled
... should browser queue events?
<timeless> -- again, throwing is the simplest solution
<timeless> .. and it yields the best user experience :) ... plus it discourages sync XHR
AB: any actions for Issue-5? Anyone want to help move it forward?
AB: this issue is in the raised
state ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6
... Andrew asks "How do touch events propagate when they begin on an iframe?"
MB: is this addressed by some
... e.g. DOM events spec?
DS: I don't think DOM events spec addresses this
OP: correct, no spec defines event target
DS: seems like HTML since that is where frames are defined
MB: think they should be
dispatched to elements within the frame
... don't think it would controversial if we define this
JS: think about narrow ad
... may have a security issue here
DS: it is related to
... which is an API/method to say all events are targeted at this element until I say releaseCapture
<timeless> [ https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/element.setCapture ]
DS: if have 100x100 iframe and
then move to another iframe, which events does the iframe
... are mouse moves for outer frame
... from sec perspective, when it exits iframe, there should be no more events
... unless there is a touch cancel or touch moves back
... but that could be a new touch event
JS: if device is fixed screen and
app knows it
... based on event, app could figure where it is on the page
... this can permit a disclosure (leak)
AB: should we move this to Open
(we will address) or leave it Raised?
... for now leave it Raised
AB: this issue is in the raised
state ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/7
... this is from Andrew "Targets for touch events, Elements or Nodes?"
SM: think it should be aligned with mouse events
MB: PPK talked about this on the
... he thinks it is a bug that has not been fixed
... I don't know if this is accurate
... think there is consensus on the list that Elements should be the target
... I can put text in the ED and then ask people if they have any objections
DS: I'm OK with this
MB: there could be some cases for
... but I doubt most web authors would use it
AB: I'm OK with Matt's proposal
<scribe> ACTION: brubeck to address Issue-7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Address Issue-7 [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-03-01].
<mbrubeck> interesting... http://www.w3.org/2003/01/dom2-javadoc/org/w3c/dom/events/EventTarget.html
<scribe> ACTION: barstow Issue-7 to open [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Issue-7 to open [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-03-01].
<mbrubeck> "The EventTarget interface is implemented by all Nodes in an implementation which supports the DOM Event Model."
AB: and if no objects to Matt's proposal, Issue-7 will be closed
<smaug_> mbrubeck: what is interesting in that? In Gecko all Nodes implement EventTarget
<mbrubeck> smaug_: Oh yeah, I guess that makes sense, for things like mutation events.
AB: with Doug going away for 3
weeks, I think we should this time to work on the known
... and not have any calls until Doug returns
... Is this OK?
<smaug_> timeless: yes, seems to be you
AB: next call will be March
... so everyone, please work on the Open and Raised issues and Open Actions
... perhaps 1-2 weeks after we resume calls, we will be in a position to talk about a First Public WD
... meeting adjourned
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/violoate/violate/ Succeeded: s/quite the same way [as we do]/quite the same way as the Linux docs/ Succeeded: s/properties/properties ]/ Succeeded: s/axis/axis)/ Succeeded: s/Recommenation/Recommendation/ Succeeded: s/inclue/include/ Succeeded: s/<missed something please fill in Josh >/I thought we were only talking about the ellipse distortion; but it sounds like someone is raising the angle of incidence to the surface/ FAILED: s/I'm not particularly interested in covering it.// Succeeded: s/I Andrew/I think Andrew/ Succeeded: s/def action/default action/ Succeeded: s/shoul/should/ Succeeded: s/addresse/addresses/ Succeeded: s/add/ad/ Succeeded: s/but/bug/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art_Barstow Josh_Soref Cathy_Chan Matt_Brubeck Olli_Pettay Laszlo_Gombos Doug_Schepers Sangwhan_Moon Dzung_Tran Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0066.html Found Date: 22 Feb 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html People with action items: barstow brubeck doug issue-7 moon olli[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]