See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 22 March 2011
<smaug_> [17:02] shepazu will be there shortly
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/
)
... Any comments or change requests?
[ None ]
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
).
... 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
)
... 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.
... 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.
MB: Action-11 is related to
Issue-1
... but am waiting for other inputs too
... I've made some other minor edits
... but the spec needs updates to address the issue
AB: so we'll leave action-11 open
until issue-1 is resolved/closed
... Olli, I think we can close action-17
OP: yes
... want to ask DS about radiusX and radiusY
... is it for SVG?
DS: yes, that's the basic
rationale
... but not really for compatibility
... I just did some cut-and-paste there
... I wouldn't say there is a really good reason for having
those
... and if someone has a better proposal, I'm willing to
listen
OP: if we want rX and rY we would
need rotation angle to events
... that would be close to what Canonical is doing on
Linux
... at least that is my understanding
... would prefer degree
DS: we don't have to be
compatible with SVG
... but it is fine if we are
OP: does WebKit have this feature at all?
DS: no
OP: then do we need really need it
DS: yes, I think so
AB: well, any deviation from shipping deployements make it difficult to test
DS: well, it does make it more
difficult to satisfy the conformance criteria e.g. for CR
... but that argues for us aligning with the Canonical way of
doing it
AB: well that is true
... but they aren't really here at the table
DS: I could consider them as an Invited Expert
AB: would be good to get their IP commitment
DS: ok, give me an action
<scribe> ACTION: Doug talk to Canonical about joining the WG; possibly as an Invited Expert [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Talk to Canonical about joining the WG; possibly as an Invited Expert [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-03-29].
JS: would like to know how
developers are going to use rotation
... will they use that in the app
... need to understand the expectation
MB: for some drawing tools, rotation of touch point is important
AB: appears we have use cases for
the functionality
... How do we move forward on this issue?
... Is there something the Editors need from the rest of
us?
DS: I need to catch up
MB: I am busy with FF 4 and will have more time for this spec after our release is out
AB: is there anything else for Issue-1 for today?
[ No ]
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
)
... we discussed this on Feb 22 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item09
).
MB: I have not completed my
action
... we did have consensus the target should be Elements
... please keep the action open and I will follow up real
soon
AB: propose this issue be resolved as Elements are the target for touch events
DS: wondering aloud here
...
... example: jumbled word, a letter can be grabbed
... can isolate a piece of text
... e.g. want 'a' of 'sad' and change it
... can touch between the 's' and 'a'
... How would we deal with that case?
... Not element content
MB: that's a hard problem
... with mouse and other events
... Even if use text nodes, still have granularity issues
... would need to put each letter in its own element in the
case DS described
<timeless> [ you can do this with <span>s ]
AB: so there is a way of handling that UC
DS: yes, but it's not the best way
<timeless> TextNode size is effectively random
<timeless> and relates to how the parser generates them
DS: There was some rationale for using Nodes
<timeless> partially based on network buffering
MB: but I don't think using Nodes will help in that case
OP: to be able to indicate which letter is clicked, need a range object and an offset
DS: I'm playing devil's advocate
AB: can we live making Elements the target?
DS: what are the advantages of making of Elements?
OP: consistency with mouse
events
... perhaps the problem could be solved somewhere else (for
touch events and mouse events)
MB: PPK claimed early WebKit had a bug in this area
<mbrubeck> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0058.html
DS: I'm fine with moving
forward
... but want to make sure we agree on the reasons and document
our rationale
AB: in the absence of new info,
I'd like to get agreement on this
... I propose we address Issue-7 by agreeing Elements are the
target for touch events (not Nodes)
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: the group agrees Issue-7 should be closed with Elements being the target of touch events
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
)
... I'll list them here ...
... Issue-2 What should happen when a touch is dragged off the
screen ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/2
)
... Issue-3 Click event target after DOM mutation during
touchstart ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3
)
... Issue-4 Does preventDefault on touchmove cause a dragging
motion to fire a click event? ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/4
)
... Issue-5 What events fire if an alert is performed within a
touch sequence? ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/5
)
... Issue-6 Touch targets in frames ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6
)
... 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
)
... 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.
... we need people to commit to actively work on them
OP: I can take Issue-5
<scribe> ACTION: olli follow-up on Issue-5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Follow-up on Issue-5 [on Olli Pettay - due 2011-03-29].
DS: I would like some other people to get active
AB: we need someone for Issues 3, 4, 6
DS: I'll take Issue-3
<scribe> ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Follow-up on Issue-3 [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-03-29].
AB: so now 3 of the 5 Raised issues have owners
DS: re Issue-6
... seems pretty straight forward
... I think HTML5 addresses this
... can't propagate outside the iframe (because of
security)
AB: here is the discussion from Feb 22: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item08
DS: there is no question, the event should not bubble up to the parent
OP: I don't think this is about
that case
... this is about touch start and end transaction
... if it starts in the iframe
... and then move finger to upper level frame
... Does the upper level get the touch end or the lower?
DS: I would be surprised if anyone says the parent frame should get the event
OP: there are other tricky
cases
... f.ex start the touch and then the frame is removed
DS: should touch events that start inside an iframe, once it is moved outside, should it propagate inside the parent?
AB: and you say no?
DS: for security purposes, should not get anything that was started in the iframe
[ DS gives an example that is not minuted ... ]
DS: there are a few options here
as the touch moves outside the initial iframe ...
... when a boundary is hit, could start new touchstart
... there are also lots of edge cases e.g. an iframe is
removed
... or the iframes have different domains
... There are lots of questions
<anders_hockersten> it appears our phone system is not cooperating with me. I'll try to follow the rest of the discussion via irc
<scribe> ACTION: doug follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate some of the questions and sub-issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> 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].
DS: seems like this should be
addressed in HTML5 spec
... but we could define this in our spec
AB: agree we may not want to build a dependency on HTML5
DS: yes, but, HTML5 defines
iframes, security model, etc.
... this could be coordination point for us with the HTML
WG
AB: good point;
... after we get more discussion, whether or not we need some
coordination should be clear
... is there agreement this Issue-6 should be moved from Raised
to Open?
DS: certainly
AB: does anyone think this is not an issue?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow move Issue-6 to Open state [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Move Issue-6 to Open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-03-29].
AB: if anyone want to help drive Issue-4 forward, please indicate that on the list
AB: next call March 29 (call will
be one hour later again in Europe)
... the point of reference will remain 11:00 Boston time
because that is where the MIT voice conf bridge is
located
... anything else for today?
DS: what is the schedule for FF4?
MB: FF4 was release about 2 hours
ago
... and we did a mobile RC
... note that FF4 RC2 == FF4
AB: 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/the lit/the list/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art_Barstow Cathy_Chan Josh_Soref Matt_Brubeck Anders_Höckersten Olli_Pettay Doug_Schepers Regrets: Emmanuel_Nkeze Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0073.html Found Date: 22 Mar 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html People with action items: barstow doug issue-6 move olli talk[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]