15:02:25 RRSAgent has joined #webevents 15:02:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-irc 15:02:33 RRSAgent, make log Public 15:02:57 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:02:58 Scribe: Art 15:02:58 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0073.html 15:02:58 Date: 22 March 2011 15:02:58 Chair: Art 15:02:58 Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference 15:03:00 Regrets: Emmanuel_Nkeze 15:03:09 Present+ Cathy_Chan 15:03:31 Dzung_Tran has joined #webevents 15:03:40 Present+ Dzung_Tran 15:04:32 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Josh_Soref, Matt_Brubeck, Anders_Höckersten, Olli_Pettay 15:04:43 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:04:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:05:26 [17:02] shepazu will be there shortly 15:07:20 Present+ Doug_Schepers 15:07:26 Topic: Tweak Agenda 15:07:33 AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0073.html ). The basic idea is to have explicit agenda items for the two Open Issues and then with respect to the Raised issues, get status for those with associated actions and try to determine owners/actions for the other Raised Issues. (Open and Raised: http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/ ) 15:07:43 Zakim, code? 15:07:43 sorry, shepazu, I don't know what conference this is 15:08:05 AB: Any comments or change requests? 15:08:21 [ None ] 15:09:15 Topic: Issue-1 Resolve touch area re. radius and angle 15:09:22 AB: Issue-1 is "Resolve touch area re. radius and angle" ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/1 ) and we discussed this issue on Feb 22 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item02 ). 15:09:42 AB: Issue-1 has at least two associated actions: Action-16 for Doug to "Follow up with the canonical guys re copyrights" ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/16 ) and Action-17 for Olli to "Investigate various angle-related work e.g. InkML, CSS, SVG, ..." ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/17 ) 15:10:03 AB: Olli addressed Action-17 earlier this week via ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0075.html ). I think we can can consider Action-17 closed. However, Olli does raise some questions in his email. 15:10:30 AB: Action-11 "Update touch events spec for next week" ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/11 ) is somewhat generic so it's not clear if this applies specifically to this issue or if this action was created during our "tracker training session" on Feb 15. 15:11:15 MB: Action-11 is related to Issue-1 15:11:23 ... but am waiting for other inputs too 15:11:36 ... I've made some other minor edits 15:11:45 ... but the spec needs updates to address the issue 15:12:16 AB: so we'll leave action-11 open until issue-1 is resolved/closed 15:12:38 AB: Olli, I think we can close action-17 15:12:40 OP: yes 15:12:55 ... want to ask DS about radiusX and radiusY 15:13:00 ... is it for SVG? 15:13:07 DS: yes, that's the basic rationale 15:13:14 ... but not really for compatibility 15:13:22 ... I just did some cut-and-paste there 15:13:46 ... I wouldn't say there is a really good reason for having those 15:14:02 ... and if someone has a better proposal, I'm willing to listen 15:14:34 OP: if we want rX and rY we would need rotation angle to events 15:14:45 ... that would be close to what Canonical is doing on Linux 15:14:51 ... at least that is my understanding 15:15:09 ... would prefer degree 15:15:17 DS: we don't have to be compatible with SVG 15:15:30 ... but it is fine if we are 15:15:52 OP: does WebKit have this feature at all? 15:15:55 DS: no 15:16:04 OP: then do we need really need it 15:16:08 DS: yes, I think so 15:16:27 q+ to ask how we expect people to use this 15:16:49 AB: well, any deviation from shipping deployements make it difficult to test 15:17:13 DS: well, it does make it more difficult to satisfy the conformance criteria e.g. for CR 15:17:37 ... but that argues for us aligning with the Canonical way of doing it 15:17:46 AB: well that is true 15:17:54 ... but they aren't really here at the table 15:18:26 DS: I could consider them as an Invited Expert 15:18:42 AB: would be good to get their IP commitment 15:18:48 DS: ok, give me an action 15:19:21 ACTION: Doug talk to Canonical about joining the WG; possibly as an Invited Expert 15:19:22 Created ACTION-21 - Talk to Canonical about joining the WG; possibly as an Invited Expert [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-03-29]. 15:19:41 q- 15:19:59 JS: would like to know how developers are going to use rotation 15:20:10 ... will they use that in the app 15:20:17 ... need to understand the expectation 15:20:42 MB: for some drawing tools, rotation of touch point is important 15:21:29 AB: appears we have use cases for the functionality 15:21:43 ... How do we move forward on this issue? 15:22:08 ... Is there something the Editors need from the rest of us? 15:22:26 DS: I need to catch up 15:23:16 MB: I am busy with FF 4 and will have more time for this spec after our release is out 15:23:34 AB: is there anything else for Issue-1 for today? 15:23:38 [ No ] 15:23:48 Topic: Issue-7 Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes? 15:23:51 Cathy has joined #webevents 15:23:54 AB: Issue-7 is "Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes?" ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/7 ) and it has associate Action-19 on Matt "to Address Issue-7 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/19 ) 15:24:11 AB: we discussed this on Feb 22 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item09 ). 15:24:32 MB: I have not completed my action 15:24:42 ... we did have consensus the target should be Elements 15:24:55 ... please keep the action open and I will follow up real soon 15:25:54 AB: propose this issue be resolved as Elements are the target for touch events 15:26:11 DS: wondering aloud here ... 15:27:03 ... example: jumbled word, a letter can be grabbed 15:27:13 ... can isolate a piece of text 15:27:28 ... e.g. want 'a' of 'sad' and change it 15:27:47 ... can touch between the 's' and 'a' 15:27:54 ... How would we deal with that case? 15:28:06 ... Not element content 15:28:18 MB: that's a hard problem 15:28:24 ... with mouse and other events 15:28:34 ... Even if use text nodes, still have granularity issues 15:28:48 ... would need to put each letter in its own element in the case DS described 15:28:56 [ you can do this with s ] 15:29:01 AB: so there is a way of handling that UC 15:29:11 DS: yes, but it's not the best way 15:29:23 TextNode size is effectively random 15:29:32 and relates to how the parser generates them 15:29:35 ... There was some rationale for using Nodes 15:29:38 partially based on network buffering 15:29:58 MB: but I don't think using Nodes will help in that case 15:30:20 OP: to be able to indicate which letter is clicked, need a range object and an offset 15:30:47 DS: I'm playing devil's advocate 15:31:05 AB: can we live making Elements the target? 15:31:33 DS: what are the advantages of making of Elements? 15:31:39 OP: consistency with mouse events 15:32:09 ... perhaps the problem could be solved somewhere else (for touch events and mouse events) 15:32:23 MB: PPK claimed early WebKit had a bug in this area 15:33:01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0058.html 15:33:02 DS: I'm fine with moving forward 15:33:17 ... but want to make sure we agree on the reasons and document our rationale 15:34:05 AB: in the absence of new info, I'd like to get agreement on this 15:34:41 AB: I propose we address Issue-7 by agreeing Elements are the target for touch events (not Nodes) 15:34:48 AB: any objections? 15:34:55 [ None ] 15:35:38 RESOLUTION: the group agrees Issue-7 should be closed with Elements being the target of touch events 15:35:54 Topic: Raised Issues 15:36:02 AB: we have 5 issues in the Raised state: ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/raised ) and we had at least a brief discussion about all of them on Feb 15 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html ) 15:36:23 AB: I'll list them here ... 15:36:23 ... Issue-2 What should happen when a touch is dragged off the screen ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/2 ) 15:36:23 ... Issue-3 Click event target after DOM mutation during touchstart ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3 ) 15:36:23 ... Issue-4 Does preventDefault on touchmove cause a dragging motion to fire a click event? ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/4 ) 15:36:25 ... Issue-5 What events fire if an alert is performed within a touch sequence? ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/5 ) 15:36:28 ... Issue-6 Touch targets in frames ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 ) 15:36:33 AB: of those, the only one that has an open action is Issue-2 and that is Action-18 on Sangwan to "Investigate Issue-2" ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/18 ) 15:37:06 AB: it would be good to identify a "owners" for these issues or proposals on what (if anything) should be done. Especially would like to see some work/proposals for those Raised Issues that have no associated actions i.e. #3, #4, #5 and #6. 15:38:04 AB: we need people to commit to actively work on them 15:38:23 OP: I can take Issue-5 15:39:10 ACTION: olli follow-up on Issue-5 15:39:10 Created ACTION-22 - Follow-up on Issue-5 [on Olli Pettay - due 2011-03-29]. 15:39:29 DS: I would like some other people to get active 15:39:59 AB: we need someone for Issues 3, 4, 6 15:40:31 DS: I'll take Issue-3 15:40:57 ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-3 15:40:58 Created ACTION-23 - Follow-up on Issue-3 [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-03-29]. 15:41:30 AB: so now 3 of the 5 Raised issues have owners 15:41:46 DS: re Issue-6 15:41:54 ... seems pretty straight forward 15:42:02 ... I think HTML5 addresses this 15:42:27 ... can't propagate outside the iframe (because of security) 15:43:03 anders_hockersten has left #webevents 15:43:08 AB: here is the discussion from Feb 22: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item08 15:43:20 anders_hockersten has joined #webevents 15:44:08 DS: there is no question, the event should not bubble up to the parent 15:44:17 OP: I don't think this is about that case 15:44:26 ... this is about touch start and end transaction 15:44:31 ... if it starts in the iframe 15:44:41 ... and then move finger to upper level frame 15:44:55 ... Does the upper level get the touch end or the lower? 15:45:17 DS: I would be surprised if anyone says the parent frame should get the event 15:45:27 OP: there are other tricky cases 15:45:43 ... f.ex start the touch and then the frame is removed 15:46:47 DS: should touch events that start inside an iframe, once it is moved outside, should it propagate inside the parent? 15:46:54 AB: and you say no? 15:47:12 DS: for security purposes, should not get anything that was started in the iframe 15:47:46 [ DS gives an example that is not minuted ... ] 15:48:41 DS: there are a few options here as the touch moves outside the initial iframe ... 15:49:10 ... when a boundary is hit, could start new touchstart 15:50:02 ... there are also lots of edge cases e.g. an iframe is removed 15:50:10 ... or the iframes have different domains 15:50:24 ... There are lots of questions 15:50:59 it appears our phone system is not cooperating with me. I'll try to follow the rest of the discussion via irc 15:51:04 ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate some of the questions and sub-issues 15:51:05 Created ACTION-24 - Follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate some of the questions and sub-issues [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-03-29]. 15:51:39 DS: seems like this should be addressed in HTML5 spec 15:51:53 ... but we could define this in our spec 15:52:13 AB: agree we may not want to build a dependency on HTML5 15:52:29 DS: yes, but, HTML5 defines iframes, security model, etc. 15:52:40 ... this could be coordination point for us with the HTML WG 15:52:45 AB: good point; 15:53:21 ... after we get more discussion, whether or not we need some coordination should be clear 15:53:48 AB: is there agreement this Issue-6 should be moved from Raised to Open? 15:53:53 DS: certainly 15:54:07 AB: does anyone think this is not an issue? 15:54:18 ACTION: barstow move Issue-6 to Open state 15:54:19 Created ACTION-25 - Move Issue-6 to Open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-03-29]. 15:54:57 AB: if anyone want to help drive Issue-4 forward, please indicate that on the lit 15:55:03 s/the lit/the list/ 15:55:20 Topic: AOB 15:55:30 AB: next call March 29 (call will be one hour later again in Europe) 15:56:19 ... the point of reference will remain 11:00 Boston time because that is where the MIT voice conf bridge is located 15:56:31 AB: anything else for today? 15:56:45 DS: what is the schedule for FF4? 15:56:59 MB: FF4 was release about 2 hours ago 15:57:10 ... and we did a mobile RC 15:57:53 ... note that FF4 RC2 == FF4 15:59:07 AB: Meeting adjourned 15:59:18 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:59:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 17:08:27 ArtB has joined #webevents 17:24:26 Zakim has left #webevents 17:33:39 rrsagent, bye 17:33:39 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-actions.rdf : 17:33:39 ACTION: Doug talk to Canonical about joining the WG; possibly as an Invited Expert [1] 17:33:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-irc#T15-19-21 17:33:39 ACTION: olli follow-up on Issue-5 [2] 17:33:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-irc#T15-39-10 17:33:39 ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-3 [3] 17:33:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-irc#T15-40-57 17:33:39 ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate some of the questions and sub-issues [4] 17:33:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-irc#T15-51-04 17:33:39 ACTION: barstow move Issue-6 to Open state [5] 17:33:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-irc#T15-54-18