IRC log of webevents on 2011-03-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webevents
15:02:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:02:49 [Barstow]
RRSAgent, make log public
15:02:59 [Barstow]
ScribeNick: ArtB
15:02:59 [Barstow]
Scribe: Art
15:02:59 [Barstow]
15:02:59 [Barstow]
Date: 29 March 2011
15:02:59 [Barstow]
Chair: Art
15:03:00 [Barstow]
Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference
15:03:02 [Barstow]
Regrets: Anders_Höckersten
15:03:27 [Barstow]
Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck, Olli_Pettay, Sangwhan_Moon
15:03:47 [Barstow]
Topic: Tweak Agenda
15:03:52 [Barstow]
AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday ( ). Re Action-10 agenda topic, I'd like to turn it into a more generic Testing topic.
15:04:34 [Barstow]
DS: would like to add
15:04:44 [Barstow]
... I haven't read it in entirety yet
15:05:01 [Barstow]
... one of my colleagues mentioned it [Chris Lilley]
15:05:14 [Barstow]
... The work is being done by an academic researcher
15:05:31 [Barstow]
... From what I can gather, seems similar to what I've been thinking
15:05:52 [Barstow]
... describes how to build up a gesture
15:06:04 [Barstow]
... It is a Gesture Description Language
15:06:12 [Barstow]
... Perhaps the author can work with us
15:06:52 [Barstow]
AB: let's take it as AOB today or if we can't get to it, talk about it on the list or add it to next week's agenda
15:07:08 [Barstow]
Topic: Issue-1 "Resolve touch area re. radius and angle"
15:07:15 [Barstow]
AB: Issue 1 ( ) is now in the Pending Review state. Matt included a proposed resolution in the issue and checked-in a fix "Updated the spec to include a rotationAngle attribute as suggested by Olli in ACTION-17:".
15:07:47 [Barstow]
AB: is that about right Matt?
15:07:49 [Barstow]
MB: yes
15:07:56 [Barstow]
DS: would like a bit of an explanation
15:08:07 [Barstow]
MB: I added a new property to Touch interface
15:08:14 [Barstow]
... called rotationAngle
15:08:26 [Barstow]
... it is angle in degrees from 90 to -90
15:08:33 [Barstow]
... describes ellipse
15:08:35 [Dzung_Tran]
Dzung_Tran has joined #webevents
15:08:40 [Dzung_Tran]
Present+ Dzung_Tran
15:09:00 [Barstow]
DS: sounds fine to me
15:09:08 [Cathy]
15:09:11 [Barstow]
OP: would be good to get feedback from the Canonical people
15:09:34 [Barstow]
... I sent an email to the list but didn't a reply
15:09:49 [Barstow]
DS: we should definitely ask for feedback from them
15:10:12 [Barstow]
MB: one think I didn't do was to talk about things outside of the elliptical touch area
15:10:34 [Barstow]
... that is, I made the scope fairly limited
15:11:08 [Barstow]
AB: do people want some time to review this?
15:11:12 [Barstow]
CC: I have a question
15:11:20 [Barstow]
... the proposal is +90 to -90
15:11:32 [Barstow]
... that gives two different ways to represent the area
15:11:56 [Barstow]
... not sure if two representations of the area is a problem or not
15:12:08 [Barstow]
MB: that's a good point
15:12:26 [Barstow]
... other specs talk about Major and Minor rather than RadiusX and RadiusY
15:12:35 [Barstow]
... I'd be happy to look at any change proposals
15:12:45 [Barstow]
OP: SVG has areaX and areaY
15:13:03 [Barstow]
... using radiusX and radiusY to be consistent with SVG
15:13:22 [Barstow]
DS: again, I don't think that SVG consistency here is that important
15:13:30 [Barstow]
OP: but consistency would be good
15:14:05 [Barstow]
DS: don't think SVG compatibility here is that important
15:14:23 [Barstow]
... and SVG could change to be consistent with our spec
15:14:38 [Barstow]
OP: really think we need feedback from Canonical
15:14:48 [Barstow]
DS: re +/-90 degrees
15:15:06 [Barstow]
... how to detect rotation seems tricky
15:15:32 [Barstow]
... not clear what it is relevant to (point of ref)
15:16:16 [Barstow]
[ Scribe missed comment by MB ... ]
15:16:30 [Barstow]
DS: what if finger is offscreen and then orientation changes
15:16:40 [Barstow]
... does x, why change, does orientation change
15:16:48 [Barstow]
MB: a lot of things change in that case
15:16:55 [Barstow]
... including rX and rY
15:17:29 [Barstow]
DS: think we need to think about this
15:17:42 [Barstow]
AB: my conclusion is we need some more time
15:18:15 [Barstow]
... do we want a fixed review period
15:18:24 [Barstow]
... and if no comments, Matt's proposal is accepted
15:18:36 [Barstow]
DS: yes, think so; we don't need to be perfect with our early WDs
15:18:54 [Barstow]
AB: I propose people send comments during the next week
15:19:17 [Barstow]
... and if no one raises any concerns with Matt's proposal we consider it accepted
15:19:45 [Barstow]
Topic: Issue-7 "Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes?"
15:19:51 [Barstow]
AB: Issue-7 ( ) Matt included a proposed resolution in the issue and checked in a fix that codifies a previous agreement.
15:20:35 [Barstow]
AB: I think Matt codifed last week's agreement; is that true?
15:20:36 [Barstow]
MB: yes
15:20:42 [Barstow]
AB: proposed resolution: Matt's fix for Issue-7 is accepted and the issue is Closed
15:20:54 [Barstow]
AB: any objections?
15:20:58 [Barstow]
[ None ]
15:21:03 [Barstow]
RESOLUTION: Matt's fix for Issue-7 is accepted and the issue is Closed
15:21:15 [Barstow]
ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to closed
15:21:15 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-26 - Move issue-7 to closed [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].
15:21:27 [Barstow]
Topic: Issue-8 - initTouchEvent function
15:21:35 [Barstow]
AB: Matt Brubeck raised Issue-8 ( ).
15:22:00 [Barstow]
MB: we haven't specified how content scripts can create touch events
15:22:16 [Barstow]
... WebKit already has an impl of this proposal
15:22:38 [Barstow]
... it would require some new functions in the Document interface
15:22:56 [Barstow]
AB: any comments or feedback?
15:23:30 [Barstow]
MB: WebKit uses an interface called "Touch" whereas our spec uses "TouchPoint"
15:23:38 [Barstow]
... is that name diff intentional
15:23:49 [Barstow]
... or is it something we should change
15:24:04 [Barstow]
DS: I deliberately did not look at the WebKit docs
15:24:12 [Barstow]
... when I created my proposal
15:24:24 [Barstow]
... I think TouchPoint is more descriptive
15:24:33 [Barstow]
... and more intuitive
15:25:12 [Barstow]
... Our TouchPoint is a bit different
15:25:24 [Barstow]
... but it does mean we don't have an instant implementation
15:26:00 [Barstow]
AB: in terms of being able to write tests as we spec, having consistency here would be useful
15:26:15 [Barstow]
DS: I would like to hear from others
15:26:39 [Barstow]
SM: I think we should use different names
15:27:01 [Barstow]
... it would be confusing for us to use the same name if the interfaces are different
15:27:20 [Barstow]
MB: but the other two interfaces we define are the same as WebKit's names
15:28:02 [Barstow]
AB: we could do a 1-week Call for Consensus on the name
15:28:58 [Barstow]
DS: not so much about name but about are we mimicing WebKit
15:29:49 [Barstow]
ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names in the Touch API spec vis-à-vis what WebKit is used
15:29:49 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-27 - Talk to Laszlo about the interface names in the Touch API spec vis-à-vis what WebKit is used [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].
15:30:07 [Barstow]
AB: is there agreement this is an issue
15:30:51 [Barstow]
MB: I think we should make Names a separate issue
15:31:06 [Barstow]
ACTION: barstow create an Issue for the Interface names
15:31:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-28 - Create an Issue for the Interface names [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].
15:31:48 [Barstow]
AB: so is issue-8, now in Raised state, be move to Open?
15:31:53 [Barstow]
DS: yes
15:32:02 [Barstow]
AB: any disagreement
15:32:04 [Barstow]
[ None ]
15:32:12 [Barstow]
ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state
15:32:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-29 - Move issue-8 to Open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].
15:32:24 [Barstow]
Topic: Issue-9 Interaction of touch events and mouse events
15:32:33 [Barstow]
AB: Matt also raised Issue-9 ( ) and there has been some discussion on the list ( )
15:33:32 [Barstow]
MB: the question is, what the spec should do related to mouse events and touch events
15:33:43 [Barstow]
... we have a bunch of input re existing impls
15:33:51 [Barstow]
... the impls vary in the order
15:34:02 [mbrubeck]
15:34:09 [Barstow]
... Need to decide if we specify order or leave it to the implementation to decide
15:35:01 [Barstow]
SM: for our impl, interop is the main concern
15:35:39 [Barstow]
DS: I need to think more about it
15:36:45 [Barstow]
AB: from a process perspective, we can leave it in the Raised state
15:36:57 [Barstow]
... or if we agree it is an Issue, we can move it to the Open state
15:37:19 [Barstow]
... Sounds like we need to make a decision, as such, I propose we move it to Open
15:37:30 [Barstow]
AB: any objections to moving to Open state?
15:37:32 [Barstow]
DS: no
15:37:37 [sangwhan]
15:37:42 [sangwhan]
(as in, no)
15:37:44 [Barstow]
ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state
15:37:44 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-30 - Move Issue-9 to the open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].
15:38:41 [Barstow]
Topic: Issue-6 Touch Targets in Frames
15:38:49 [Barstow]
AB: Issue-6 ( ) has Action-24 for Doug "Follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate some of the questions and sub-issues" ( ) . We have discussed this issue before, most recently 22 March ( ).
15:38:53 [Zakim]
15:39:03 [Zakim]
15:39:11 [Barstow]
AB: Doug, anything to discuss today?
15:39:40 [Barstow]
DS: I started my email; expect to send it within the next few days
15:39:52 [Barstow]
Topic: Testing
15:39:59 [Barstow]
AB: Laszlo responded to Action-10 ( ) and he included a link to WebKit's touch tests ( ). AFAIU, those tests require an WebKit impl to run.
15:40:38 [Barstow]
AB: at some point we need to talk about a testing framework/harness.
15:40:50 [Barstow]
AB: several groups such as HTML WG, DAP WG, Web Performance WG have agreed to use testharness.js ( ). Because of this, it seems like we should also use it unless there a compelling reasons not to use it.
15:41:43 [Barstow]
AB: is anyone willing to commit to analyzing this harness in the context of Touch API testing?
15:42:24 [Barstow]
OP: so the harnes is only using WebAPIs
15:42:35 [Barstow]
... wonder if it is sufficient for touch testing
15:43:07 [Barstow]
... think we need to have something all browser vendors can use
15:43:22 [Barstow]
... We use something similar to what Webkit uses
15:43:43 [Barstow]
... Think we are going to need more than just testharness
15:43:55 [Zakim]
15:44:15 [Zakim]
15:45:10 [Barstow]
DS: are you going to look at WebKit's touch tests?
15:45:21 [Barstow]
OP: WebKit exposes an object to the web page
15:45:29 [Barstow]
... so they can use touch events
15:45:39 [Barstow]
... Gecko has something similar
15:45:55 [Barstow]
... And I expect Opera, IE must use something similar
15:46:24 [Barstow]
DS: this came up at a recent SVG f2f meeting
15:46:42 [Barstow]
... hooks specifically for testing can be useful
15:47:10 [Barstow]
... Perhaps testing hooks or modes standard will be useful
15:47:37 [Barstow]
OP: only want to expose that during testing (not generally available to all web pages)
15:47:47 [Barstow]
... think standardization here could be tricky
15:47:58 [Barstow]
... but may be able to standardize a common subset of what is needed
15:48:02 [smaug_]
sangwhan: what is watir?
15:48:26 [sangwhan]
15:49:07 [Barstow]
SM: I think FX, IE support waitr
15:49:42 [Barstow]
AB: ok, I think this give us all some extra reading
15:50:33 [Barstow]
Topic: Gestural Interface Specification Language
15:50:47 [Barstow]
AB: earlier today Doug sent a link to the Gestural Interface Specification Language
15:50:58 [Barstow]
15:51:13 [Barstow]
... proposal is:
15:51:15 [Dzung_Tran_]
Dzung_Tran_ has joined #webevents
15:51:23 [Barstow]
DS: everyone should read this
15:52:19 [Barstow]
... allows defining new gestures e.g. "double pinch"
15:53:11 [Barstow]
... and then when that gesture occurs, app can then take some action
15:53:51 [Barstow]
... This is an extensible system
15:54:01 [Barstow]
... that allows app devs to define their own gestures
15:54:31 [Barstow]
AB: do you happen to know if there has been any related impl work?
15:54:38 [Barstow]
DS: no, I don't know but we can contact him
15:55:24 [Barstow]
AB: everyone should consider it as an Action to read this relatively short proposal
15:55:52 [Barstow]
... depending on our feedback, we can perhaps invite the author to discuss this on the list or maybe attend a call with us
15:56:03 [sangwhan]
15:56:34 [Barstow]
AB: seems like this type of functionality would be out of scope for IETF
15:56:53 [Barstow]
Topic: AoB
15:56:59 [Barstow]
AB: anything else for today?
15:57:06 [Barstow]
SM: I've done some work on Action-18
15:57:24 [Barstow]
... I did some experimentation
15:57:57 [Barstow]
... my email contains some details
15:58:27 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #webevents
15:58:37 [Barstow]
AB: if the problem with email persists, please notify Doug and I
15:58:46 [Barstow]
SM: please add it to next week's agenda
15:58:54 [Barstow]
AB: next call is April 5.
15:59:40 [Barstow]
AB: Matt's done a good job of following up offlist
15:59:52 [Barstow]
... I encourage everyone else to do the same
16:00:04 [Barstow]
DS: if this time is problematic, we should find another time
16:00:24 [Barstow]
AB: if the call time is an issue, please notify Doug and I
16:00:31 [Barstow]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
16:00:34 [mbrubeck]
This time (0800 local time) is okay for me, though later would be fine.
16:00:38 [Zakim]
16:00:40 [Zakim]
16:00:42 [Zakim]
16:00:45 [Zakim]
16:00:50 [Barstow]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:00:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Barstow
16:00:52 [smaug_]
mbrubeck: the meeting starts at 8am in MV?
16:00:54 [Zakim]
16:00:55 [Zakim]
RWC_()11:00AM has ended
16:00:56 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.781.993.aaaa, Art_Barstow, +1.206.792.aabb, Matt_Brubeck, Shepazu, Olli_Pettay, sangwhan, Doug_Schepers
16:01:17 [mbrubeck]
smaug_: Yes, though I'm in Seattle.
16:01:18 [Barstow]
RRSAgent, make log Public
16:01:24 [Barstow]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:01:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Barstow
16:01:33 [smaug_]
mbrubeck: ah. but next week in MV?
16:02:04 [mbrubeck]
16:02:06 [Barstow]
ScribeNick: Barstow
16:02:16 [mbrubeck]
see you there?
16:02:16 [Barstow]
RRSAgent, make Minutes
16:02:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Barstow
16:02:39 [smaug_]
mbrubeck: yeah, I'll be there
16:08:53 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has left #webevents
16:11:29 [ArtB]
ArtB has joined #webevents
16:31:39 [smaug_]
smaug_ has joined #webevents
18:05:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webevents
18:20:18 [smaug_]
smaug_ has joined #webevents
18:58:49 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items saved in :
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to closed [1]
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names in the Touch API spec vis-à-vis what WebKit is used [2]
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow create an Issue for the Interface names [3]
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state [4]
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state [5]
18:58:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in