15:02:42 RRSAgent has joined #webevents 15:02:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc 15:02:49 RRSAgent, make log public 15:02:59 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:02:59 Scribe: Art 15:02:59 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0084.html 15:02:59 Date: 29 March 2011 15:02:59 Chair: Art 15:03:00 Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference 15:03:02 Regrets: Anders_Höckersten 15:03:27 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck, Olli_Pettay, Sangwhan_Moon 15:03:47 Topic: Tweak Agenda 15:03:52 AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0084.html ). Re Action-10 agenda topic, I'd like to turn it into a more generic Testing topic. 15:04:34 DS: would like to add http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0088.html 15:04:44 ... I haven't read it in entirety yet 15:05:01 ... one of my colleagues mentioned it [Chris Lilley] 15:05:14 ... The work is being done by an academic researcher 15:05:31 ... From what I can gather, seems similar to what I've been thinking 15:05:52 ... describes how to build up a gesture 15:06:04 ... It is a Gesture Description Language 15:06:12 ... Perhaps the author can work with us 15:06:52 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 Topic: Issue-1 "Resolve touch area re. radius and angle" 15:07:15 AB: Issue 1 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/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: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/1ea45991d3e9". 15:07:47 AB: is that about right Matt? 15:07:49 MB: yes 15:07:56 DS: would like a bit of an explanation 15:08:07 MB: I added a new property to Touch interface 15:08:14 ... called rotationAngle 15:08:26 ... it is angle in degrees from 90 to -90 15:08:33 ... describes ellipse 15:08:35 Dzung_Tran has joined #webevents 15:08:40 Present+ Dzung_Tran 15:09:00 DS: sounds fine to me 15:09:08 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/tip/touchevents.html#attributes 15:09:11 OP: would be good to get feedback from the Canonical people 15:09:34 ... I sent an email to the list but didn't a reply 15:09:49 DS: we should definitely ask for feedback from them 15:10:12 MB: one think I didn't do was to talk about things outside of the elliptical touch area 15:10:34 ... that is, I made the scope fairly limited 15:11:08 AB: do people want some time to review this? 15:11:12 CC: I have a question 15:11:20 ... the proposal is +90 to -90 15:11:32 ... that gives two different ways to represent the area 15:11:56 ... not sure if two representations of the area is a problem or not 15:12:08 MB: that's a good point 15:12:26 ... other specs talk about Major and Minor rather than RadiusX and RadiusY 15:12:35 ... I'd be happy to look at any change proposals 15:12:45 OP: SVG has areaX and areaY 15:13:03 ... using radiusX and radiusY to be consistent with SVG 15:13:22 DS: again, I don't think that SVG consistency here is that important 15:13:30 OP: but consistency would be good 15:14:05 DS: don't think SVG compatibility here is that important 15:14:23 ... and SVG could change to be consistent with our spec 15:14:38 OP: really think we need feedback from Canonical 15:14:48 DS: re +/-90 degrees 15:15:06 ... how to detect rotation seems tricky 15:15:32 ... not clear what it is relevant to (point of ref) 15:16:16 [ Scribe missed comment by MB ... ] 15:16:30 DS: what if finger is offscreen and then orientation changes 15:16:40 ... does x, why change, does orientation change 15:16:48 MB: a lot of things change in that case 15:16:55 ... including rX and rY 15:17:29 DS: think we need to think about this 15:17:42 AB: my conclusion is we need some more time 15:18:15 ... do we want a fixed review period 15:18:24 ... and if no comments, Matt's proposal is accepted 15:18:36 DS: yes, think so; we don't need to be perfect with our early WDs 15:18:54 AB: I propose people send comments during the next week 15:19:17 ... and if no one raises any concerns with Matt's proposal we consider it accepted 15:19:45 Topic: Issue-7 "Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes?" 15:19:51 AB: Issue-7 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/7 ) Matt included a proposed resolution in the issue and checked in a fix that codifies a previous agreement. 15:20:35 AB: I think Matt codifed last week's agreement; is that true? 15:20:36 MB: yes 15:20:42 AB: proposed resolution: Matt's fix for Issue-7 is accepted and the issue is Closed 15:20:54 AB: any objections? 15:20:58 [ None ] 15:21:03 RESOLUTION: Matt's fix for Issue-7 is accepted and the issue is Closed 15:21:15 ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to closed 15:21:15 Created ACTION-26 - Move issue-7 to closed [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05]. 15:21:27 Topic: Issue-8 - initTouchEvent function 15:21:35 AB: Matt Brubeck raised Issue-8 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/8 ). 15:22:00 MB: we haven't specified how content scripts can create touch events 15:22:16 ... WebKit already has an impl of this proposal 15:22:38 ... it would require some new functions in the Document interface 15:22:56 AB: any comments or feedback? 15:23:30 MB: WebKit uses an interface called "Touch" whereas our spec uses "TouchPoint" 15:23:38 ... is that name diff intentional 15:23:49 ... or is it something we should change 15:24:04 DS: I deliberately did not look at the WebKit docs 15:24:12 ... when I created my proposal 15:24:24 ... I think TouchPoint is more descriptive 15:24:33 ... and more intuitive 15:25:12 ... Our TouchPoint is a bit different 15:25:24 ... but it does mean we don't have an instant implementation 15:26:00 AB: in terms of being able to write tests as we spec, having consistency here would be useful 15:26:15 DS: I would like to hear from others 15:26:39 SM: I think we should use different names 15:27:01 ... it would be confusing for us to use the same name if the interfaces are different 15:27:20 MB: but the other two interfaces we define are the same as WebKit's names 15:28:02 AB: we could do a 1-week Call for Consensus on the name 15:28:58 DS: not so much about name but about are we mimicing WebKit 15:29:49 ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names in the Touch API spec vis-à-vis what WebKit is used 15:29:49 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 AB: is there agreement this is an issue 15:30:51 MB: I think we should make Names a separate issue 15:31:06 ACTION: barstow create an Issue for the Interface names 15:31:06 Created ACTION-28 - Create an Issue for the Interface names [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05]. 15:31:48 AB: so is issue-8, now in Raised state, be move to Open? 15:31:53 DS: yes 15:32:02 AB: any disagreement 15:32:04 [ None ] 15:32:12 ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state 15:32:12 Created ACTION-29 - Move issue-8 to Open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05]. 15:32:24 Topic: Issue-9 Interaction of touch events and mouse events 15:32:33 AB: Matt also raised Issue-9 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/9 ) and there has been some discussion on the list ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0080.html ) 15:33:32 MB: the question is, what the spec should do related to mouse events and touch events 15:33:43 ... we have a bunch of input re existing impls 15:33:51 ... the impls vary in the order 15:34:02 s/vary/agree/ 15:34:09 ... Need to decide if we specify order or leave it to the implementation to decide 15:35:01 SM: for our impl, interop is the main concern 15:35:39 DS: I need to think more about it 15:36:45 AB: from a process perspective, we can leave it in the Raised state 15:36:57 ... or if we agree it is an Issue, we can move it to the Open state 15:37:19 ... Sounds like we need to make a decision, as such, I propose we move it to Open 15:37:30 AB: any objections to moving to Open state? 15:37:32 DS: no 15:37:37 +1 15:37:42 (as in, no) 15:37:44 ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state 15:37:44 Created ACTION-30 - Move Issue-9 to the open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05]. 15:38:41 Topic: Issue-6 Touch Targets in Frames 15:38:49 AB: Issue-6 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 ) has Action-24 for Doug "Follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate some of the questions and sub-issues" ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/24 ) . We have discussed this issue before, most recently 22 March ( http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#item04 ). 15:38:53 -Shepazu 15:39:03 +Shepazu 15:39:11 AB: Doug, anything to discuss today? 15:39:40 DS: I started my email; expect to send it within the next few days 15:39:52 Topic: Testing 15:39:59 AB: Laszlo responded to Action-10 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0076.html ) and he included a link to WebKit's touch tests ( http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/events/touch ). AFAIU, those tests require an WebKit impl to run. 15:40:38 AB: at some point we need to talk about a testing framework/harness. 15:40:50 AB: several groups such as HTML WG, DAP WG, Web Performance WG have agreed to use testharness.js ( http://w3c-test.org/resources/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 AB: is anyone willing to commit to analyzing this harness in the context of Touch API testing? 15:42:24 OP: so the harnes is only using WebAPIs 15:42:35 ... wonder if it is sufficient for touch testing 15:43:07 ... think we need to have something all browser vendors can use 15:43:22 ... We use something similar to what Webkit uses 15:43:43 ... Think we are going to need more than just testharness 15:43:55 -Shepazu 15:44:15 +Doug_Schepers 15:45:10 DS: are you going to look at WebKit's touch tests? 15:45:21 OP: WebKit exposes an object to the web page 15:45:29 ... so they can use touch events 15:45:39 ... Gecko has something similar 15:45:55 ... And I expect Opera, IE must use something similar 15:46:24 DS: this came up at a recent SVG f2f meeting 15:46:42 ... hooks specifically for testing can be useful 15:47:10 ... Perhaps testing hooks or modes standard will be useful 15:47:37 OP: only want to expose that during testing (not generally available to all web pages) 15:47:47 ... think standardization here could be tricky 15:47:58 ... but may be able to standardize a common subset of what is needed 15:48:02 sangwhan: what is watir? 15:48:26 http://watir.com/ 15:49:07 SM: I think FX, IE support waitr 15:49:42 AB: ok, I think this give us all some extra reading 15:50:33 Topic: Gestural Interface Specification Language 15:50:47 AB: earlier today Doug sent a link to the Gestural Interface Specification Language 15:50:58 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0088.html 15:51:13 ... proposal is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-echtler-gispl-specification-00 15:51:15 Dzung_Tran_ has joined #webevents 15:51:23 DS: everyone should read this 15:52:19 ... allows defining new gestures e.g. "double pinch" 15:53:11 ... and then when that gesture occurs, app can then take some action 15:53:51 ... This is an extensible system 15:54:01 ... that allows app devs to define their own gestures 15:54:31 AB: do you happen to know if there has been any related impl work? 15:54:38 DS: no, I don't know but we can contact him 15:55:24 AB: everyone should consider it as an Action to read this relatively short proposal 15:55:52 ... 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 http://tisch.sourceforge.net/ 15:56:34 AB: seems like this type of functionality would be out of scope for IETF 15:56:53 Topic: AoB 15:56:59 AB: anything else for today? 15:57:06 SM: I've done some work on Action-18 15:57:24 ... I did some experimentation 15:57:57 ... my email contains some details 15:58:27 shepazu has joined #webevents 15:58:37 AB: if the problem with email persists, please notify Doug and I 15:58:46 SM: please add it to next week's agenda 15:58:54 AB: next call is April 5. 15:59:40 AB: Matt's done a good job of following up offlist 15:59:52 ... I encourage everyone else to do the same 16:00:04 DS: if this time is problematic, we should find another time 16:00:24 AB: if the call time is an issue, please notify Doug and I 16:00:31 AB: Meeting Adjourned 16:00:34 This time (0800 local time) is okay for me, though later would be fine. 16:00:38 -Doug_Schepers 16:00:40 -Olli_Pettay 16:00:42 -sangwhan 16:00:45 -Art_Barstow 16:00:50 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:00:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html Barstow 16:00:52 mbrubeck: the meeting starts at 8am in MV? 16:00:54 -Matt_Brubeck 16:00:55 RWC_()11:00AM has ended 16:00:56 Attendees were +1.781.993.aaaa, Art_Barstow, +1.206.792.aabb, Matt_Brubeck, Shepazu, Olli_Pettay, sangwhan, Doug_Schepers 16:01:17 smaug_: Yes, though I'm in Seattle. 16:01:18 RRSAgent, make log Public 16:01:24 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:01:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html Barstow 16:01:33 mbrubeck: ah. but next week in MV? 16:02:04 yes! 16:02:06 ScribeNick: Barstow 16:02:16 see you there? 16:02:16 RRSAgent, make Minutes 16:02:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html Barstow 16:02:39 mbrubeck: yeah, I'll be there 16:08:53 sangwhan has left #webevents 16:11:29 ArtB has joined #webevents 16:31:39 smaug_ has joined #webevents 18:05:10 Zakim has left #webevents 18:20:18 smaug_ has joined #webevents 18:58:49 rrsagent, bye 18:58:49 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-actions.rdf : 18:58:49 ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to closed [1] 18:58:49 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-21-15 18:58:49 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 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-29-49 18:58:49 ACTION: barstow create an Issue for the Interface names [3] 18:58:49 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-31-06 18:58:49 ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state [4] 18:58:49 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-32-12 18:58:49 ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state [5] 18:58:49 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-37-44