See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 26 April 2011
<mbrubeck> sangwhan: Are you able to join the call?
AB: yesterday I sent a draft agenda to the list ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0064.html ). Any change requests?
AB: last week I sent an e-mail to
the list about the FPWD (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0055.html
). The e-mail describes the general purpose of a FPWD and
related requirements.
... First, I'd like to take any questions about the process and
then discuss the question about whether or not the Touch Events
spec includes, at least at a broad level, all of the high
priority features we intend to specify.
... if no questions about the process, are there any comments
about missing features?
... I had asked for missing features by April 26 and there were
no comments
... I think we consider the feature set for the Touch Events
spec to be complete
... at least at a broad level
... we have some UCs & Requirements documented ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/Testing
). At a later stage (when we discuss publishing a Candidate
Recommendation with the Director) we will need to identify the
requirements addressed by the spec.
<ArtB1> AB: if anyone has any comments on the UCs and Requirements, please send them to the list by May 3; otherwise let's considered then "approved" as of that date. IOW, they can change but we also think they capture our main UCs and requirements.
AB: if anyone has any comments on the UCs and Requirements, please send them to the list by May 3; otherwise let's considered then "approved" as of that date. IOW, they can change but we also think they capture our main UCs and requirements.
JS: the UCs and Reqs doc is not linked from the Testing doc
<scribe> ACTION: barstow create a link to the UCs and Reqs from the Testing doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Create a link to the UCs and Reqs from the Testing doc [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-05-03].
AB: lastly, what about an
Introduction section for the Touch Events Introduction section
(
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0051.html
)? Can someone commit to writing at least a short-ish paragraph
(4-5 sentences)?
... any volunteers for that?
JS: I can't commit now
SM: I can take that action
<scribe> ACTION: sangwhan Create an input for the Introduction section by April 29 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Create an input for the Introduction section by April 29 [on Sangwhan Moon - due 2011-05-03].
AB: because of the W3C's May Advisory Committee meeting, there is a publication moratorium and that means the very last day we can request publication is May 6 (if we want to publish the FPWD before the AC meeting).
JS: I am happy to review the Introduction
SM: OK, I'll send you a draft
AB: that's great; a FPWD can be
prepared early next week
... proposed Resolution: the group agrees to publish a FPWD of
the Touch Events spec
... any objections or voices of support?
<mbrubeck> +1
<timeless> +1
<smaug_> +1
<Cathy> +1
AB: I hear no objections and only support
<sangwhan> +1
RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a FPWD of the Touch Events spec
AB: anything else on FPWD?
AB: A few days ago Matt announced he created about 7 tests with over 20 assertions ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0063.html ). This is excellent Matt! And Matt is using the testharness.js that is being used by the HTML WG and the WebApps WG ( http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/file/ad7715ddbcda/test/testharness.js ).
<sangwhan> s/Mark/Matt/
AB: I am interested in comments on the testharness ( ) (written by Opera's James Graham).
MB: the testharness is fine for
what I'm doing
... some common patterns may result in some additional helper
functions
... but no real problems with the harness
AB: that's good to hear
... there is a mail list for discussions about the harness;
think it's public-test-infra@w3.org
MB: I have one test file
... it displays a rectangle to be touched
... initiates the touchstart event
... and tests some attributes
... Need to create some other tests for moving
... and multi-touches
... some "finger dancing"
... Multi-touch tests won't be supported for all hardware
... so we need to mention that some tests may not work
AB: has anyone else tried testharness.js?
<timeless> <MB> ... need to ensure the spec supports not supporting certain things
AB: It would be good for others to contribute test cases
MB: if someone wants to write
simple tests
... could start with touchenter and touchleave
... although without some implementation, would be hard to test
the test
... One question, for attrs like rX and rY, can be hard to test
if values are accurate
... Not sure how to handle that
... Could be left for implementations to test themselves
AB: good point; any feedback on that?
JS: I can ask around
... I think we ignored rotation
... Could check with tablet people
SM: the hardware people
<timeless> wacom
AB: Doug an I have a standding action to try to get additional players in the WG
<ArtB1> ... by having a FPWD, that should be easier
AB: a call or two ago we talked
briefly about the "A Method for Writing Testable Conformance
Requirements" document (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0031.html
).
... Doug had asked for the Testing topic today but he isn't
here
MB: I looked at the doc;
... somewhat ambivalent
... the Touch Events spec is relatively small
... as such, I don't feel strongly that we need to use it
... but if someone wants to implement it (in the spec itself),
I can work with it
AB: since the Editors are doing the work, I want to listen to their feedback
SM: I agree with Matt
... doesn't seem like we need it for the Touch Events
spec
... perhaps we can consider it for the Intentional Events
spec
AB: agree we can consider the Intentional Events spec separately
<scribe> ACTION: Doug submit an opinion on Writing Testable Conformance Reqs for the Touch Events spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Submit an opinion on Writing Testable Conformance Reqs for the Touch Events spec [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-05-03].
AB: anything else on Testing for today?
AB: issues in Raised and Open state are: Issue-3, Issue-5, Issue-6, and Issue-8.
<mbrubeck> There is also http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/11
MB: and Issue-11
AB: my recollection on Issue-11 is that comments should have been submitted before today's call
<timeless> action-27 is confusing :)
MB: if we use TouchPoint that would break some existing content
<timeless> we could use that as a way to be a different interface...
AB: any additional comments re Issue-11
<timeless> but for compatibility, renaming makes sense
AB: I propose we change the name of TouchPoint to Touch
<smaug_> +1
AB: any objections?
... or voices of support
... +1
... hearing no objections
<sangwhan> Sounds a bit ambiguous, but no better ideas so +1
RESOLUTION: the TouchPoint Interface will be renamed to "Touch" interface
AB: would you please Matt, commit that change this week?
MB: yes, I will make that change today
AB: thanks Matt!
... my inclination is to not do a deep dive on 3, 5, 6 or 8 on
this call
... we can use the FPWD to explicitly ask for feedback on the
issues.
... also including a pointer to the Open and Raised Issues in
the spec (e.g. SoTD section) may be good.
... and Issue-14 was created today
... by Olli
OP: not sure if those methods are
being used
... eg. by Apple or Google
SM: preventDefault is another topic
MB: I can an action to define preventDefault
SM: that is Action-5
... and I am the owner
AB: do we want to change the owner of Action-5?
SM: yes, please do
AB: so I will leave it to the
Editors to decide if they want to explicitly ask for feedback
re any of the Open and/or Raised issues
... anything else on this topic for today?
AB: no call on May 17
... I think the main task between now and May 3, is to get the
spec ready for FPWD
... that's a new process for Matt and Sangwhan
... but Doug is an expert
... propose our May call schedule is May 10 and May 24
... any comments or concerns?
... next call is May 10
... and the 2nd call in May is tentatively May 24
... anything else for today?
... please continue to work on Issues and Actions via the mail
list
... 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/Mark/Matt/g FAILED: s/Mark/Matt/ Succeeded: s/tet cases/test cases/ Succeeded: s/an/and/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art_Barstow Josh_Soref Olli_Pettay Matt_Brubeck Cathy_Chan Sangwhan_Moon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0064.html Found Date: 26 Apr 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html People with action items: barstow doug sangwhan[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]