Web Events WG Voice Conference -- 10 May 2011

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 10 May 2011

<smaug> Oops, I had muted my speaker, not microphone

Tweak Agenda

AB: I posted the draft agenda on May 6 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0092.html ). Any change requests?

[ None ]

Short Announcements

AB: FPWD published May 5; congratulations to the Editors and WG ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20110505/ ). Any other short annoucements?
... FYI, Josh is no longer employed by Nokia

Object Identity

AB: on April 26, Matt Brubeck sent an e-mail re Object Identity ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0068.html ). The only person that responded was Olli.
... what do others think; what do we do about Object Identity; is there some spec'ing that needs to be done?

MB: I don't have a strong opinion
... but web devs have talked about it
... I think we should at least get an opinion
... We may not have to specify anything here
... but OTOH, if there is consensus to spec something then we should

OP: I wonder why WebKit might be changing their behavior
... would like to understand that
... QuirksMode indicated WebKit will change

MB: WebKit is a bit diff than my examples

OP: we need to discuss this with someone who is implementing this in WebKit
... need to know if they are reusing their Touch objects

MB: agree we need more feedback from implementors
... until then, I think the spec should remain silent

OP: perhaps someone from Nokia can find out

<scribe> ACTION: barstow follow up with Laszlo re Object Identity implementation in WebKit [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Follow up with Laszlo re Object Identity implementation in WebKit [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-05-17].

ISSUE: Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object Identity

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-16 - Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object Identity ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16/edit .

preventDefault Research;

AB: on April 26 Matt sent an e-mail regarding some research he did on preventDefault ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0069.html ). Andrew Grieve and Matt had some additional responses.
... is there some additional spec'ing that needs to be done?

MB: Andrew suggested a simple fix
... I don' think there were any objections to that
... Another open issue if spec should say something about scrolling
... It would be useful for implementors
... I'll make a proposal about preventing scrolling
... Probably in terms of May or Should rather than Must requirements

<scribe> ACTION: brubeck submit a proposal for re scrolling and the preventDefault research thread [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Submit a proposal for re scrolling and the preventDefault research thread [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-05-17].

Issue-3 - Click event target after DOM mutation during touchstart

AB: Issue-3 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3 ) was opened weeks ago. There was some recent follow-up by Sangwhan and Andrew ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0081.html ). Doug has related Action-23 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23 ).
... who can take the lead here and make a proposal?

<shepazu> Action-23?

<trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Doug Schepers to follow-up on Issue-3 -- due 2011-03-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23

DS: I don't see a way around this issue
... I have some behavior defined for Activiate in the DOM 3 Events spec
... We could borrow some of that
... But if someone wants to help, that's fine

MB: our initial Gecko implementation behaves the same way as Android and iPhone

AB: that's quite a bit of synergy
... are there any volunteers to help here?
... Doug, we'll wait for your input here

DS: I can propose something by the end of today
... We need to decide if this is a Should or a Must

MB: we already addressed touchstart and default actions and click
... this is about what to do if DOM changes

DS: I need to take a look at this

AB: ok, so the status of Issue-3 is we will wait for Doug to complete action-23
... If anyone wants to help, please do so

MB: the reason Gecko behaves as it does is because we wait for touch to end before simulate up/down events
... all of those events occur in the DOM after the touch sequence

Issue-6 - Touch targets in frames

AB: Issue-6 was raised by Andrew last February ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 ). Doug has related Action-24 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/24 ). The last discussion was February 22 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-webevents-minutes.html#item08 ).

DS: I need to send an e-mail about this

AB: is this a relatively straight fwd proposal?

DS: would like to know what WebKit and Gecko do
... need to consider security here

MB: need to be careful here
... don't want any data leaking

DS: also could observe a pattern of how the user is moving on the larger outside page
... and where the iframe is

MB: if you can trick the user in a specific way, can get some data on the user

AB: so Doug, you are OK with the way iOS and Android handle this?

DS: basically, yes

AB: so how do we close this?

DS: just need an Editor to add the text

MB: I can do that

AB: that would be great Matt

<scribe> ACTION: brubeck propose text to address Issue-6 (routing to the child iframe) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-48 - Propose text to address Issue-6 (routing to the child iframe) [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-05-17].

Issue-8 - initTouchEvent function

AB: Issue-8 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/8 ) was created in March. Olli has related Action-34 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/34 ) and Doug has related Action-36 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/36 ). The last time we discussed this was during the April 12 call ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/att-0039/WebEvents-min-12-Apr-2011.html#issue-8 ).
... this method is already defined in the spec. What else needs to be specified?

MB: I committed a proposal
... there is one open sub-issue
... it is noted in the spec
... re the arguments of this method
... it takes page x and 'y' and client x and 'y'
... Think we can close Issue-8
... and open a new issue

AB: any objections to that?

<scribe> ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to the closed state [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Move issue-8 to the closed state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-05-17].

ISSUE: page x and 'y' paramters to create touch

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-17 - Page x and 'y' parameters to create touch ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17/edit .

MB: I started a thread on this issue

<mbrubeck> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0078.html

MB: we should take issue-17 to the list

OP: Gecko and Webkit aren't aligned here

<smaug> Currently Gecko doesn't compute clientX/Y values automatically from pageX/Y, like webkit does

[ Scribe missed some details exchanged between Olli and Matt ...]

<mbrubeck> The spec (which is based on what Olli implemented in Gecko) is written to allow backward compatibility with WebKit/Safari, while also allowing consistency with mouse events.

<mbrubeck> If we keep the API in the spec, we should specify that if pageX/Y are null, then they will be computed based on clientX/Y, and vice-versa.

AB: thanks Olli and Matt for embellishing the minutes!

<mbrubeck> Or we could simplify the spec and make it work like mouse events (breaking compatibility with content that uses the current WebKit API).

MB: I will make a proposal on the list

<scribe> ACTION: brubeck make a proposal to address Issue-17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-webevents-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - Make a proposal to address Issue-17 [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-05-17].

High-level Intentional Event Spec

AB: I am interested in expectations, plans and such

DS: I have some information
... Apple made a proposal to Web Apps WG
... for the Protocols and Formats WG
... to add some a11y features to D3E
... Decided a joint deliverable between Web Events and WAI WG would be a good way to move fwd

AB: is James' earlier proposal public?

<shepazu> James Craig is working on the "Independence for User Interface" (IndieUI) proposal

AB: James' proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html
... is P&F WG working on this IndieUI spec?

DS: no, I don't think so yet; but expect it or something like it will be
... not sure about its priority, especially with ARIA

AB: so is the IndieUI going to be the Intentional Events spec we are chartered to do?

DS: yes, that is my expectation
... in cooperation with the P&F WG
... I will notify Web Events WG when there is something to review

AB: getting early access to a draft, would be very useful

DS: I will convey that to him

<shepazu> Recommended these resources: [1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html [2] http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/spec-conventions.html [3] http://dev.w3.org/2008/dev-ind-testing/extracting-test-assertions-pub.html

AB: ok; thanks

DS: If James follows these conventions, the spec should be similar in format to what we are already doing
... Need a way for author to map from low-level to high-level intentional events
... I can get the related paper from the IETF

AB: I think you mean GISpL http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-echtler-gispl-specification-00

DS: may need a separate event listener
... needs some more thinking
... event types and a range of values
... register for some event with a set of params
... and the listener would get some set of values for the registered params
... I think I should send an e-mail about this
... there could be a more elegant solution

AoB

AB: no call next on May 17
... next call will be May 24
... any other topics for today?
... meeting adjourned

- DRAFT -

Web Events WG Voice Conference

10 May 2011

Attendees

Contents