<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 7 June 2011

aabb is Art_Barstow

aacc is Matt_Brubeck

<smaug> I'll re-call

Tweak Agenda

AB: the agenda ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0115.html ) was posted yesterday and it proposes continuing the topics from the last meeting on May 24 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0112.html ).
... I'd like to move Issue-17 after Issue-6.
... the last topic about "specifying behavior for devices with touch hardware" is really about the status of the Intensional Event spec.
... any other change requests?

Announcements

AB: any short announcements?
... here's something that people may want to read/scan: http://io9.com/5808604/10-physical-gestures-that-have-been-patented

Issue-6 (Open) Touch targets in frames

AB: yesterday Matt submitted a proposal for Issue-6 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 ). Any comments on Matt's proposal ( http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/29ec4253b862 )?
... thanks Matt! Note June 9 is the deadline for comments.

MB: I didn't think I needed to go too deep
... I didn't talk about levels of nesting
... "child browsing context" is from the HTML5 spec
... I don't know if that term is used elsewhere

DS: HTML5 is the first place to define that

MB: I should add a reference to HTML5
... is that OK re spec maturity?

DS: an Informative is fine
... a Normative reference requires a certain level of stability
... We are running into this problem in other areas

AB: my recommendation is to do-the-right-thing i.e. if the reference should be Normative then make it Normative
... and as Doug said, the Staff is trying to determine a way forward for other specs

MB: the definition is within Normative spec

DS: let's assume we can solve this so make it Normative reference
... and if we have a problem down the road, we will do something different

AB: if anyone has any comments on Matt's proposal, please send them to the list by June 9

Issue-17 (Raised) Page X and Y parameters to createTouch

AB: yesterday Matt submitted a proposal for Issue-17 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17 ). Any comments on Matt's proposal ( http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/53491ff3514b )?
... thanks Matt! June 9 is the deadline for comments.

MB: I am particuarly interested in feedback from Olli
... since it is based on his work
... In Gecko, we take all 3 parameters
... Can't leave out Page 'x and y'
... No real advantage to specifying clientS and clientY rather than computing them
... Think this will give more consistency

OP: I am fine with this change

LG: so Webkit does not include clientX and clientY
... I need to make sure Webkit didn't change

<mbrubeck> As far as I know, WebKit includes clientX/clientY in the Touch interface, but not in the parameters to document.createTouch.

LG: I need to check Webkit vis-à-vis Matt's latest change

<lgombos> http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/WebCore/WebCore-658.28/dom/TouchEvent.idl

OP: Webkit is apparently inconsistent here
... createTouch takes pageXandY and screenXandY
... We can do what Webkit does
... It's a bit ugly but compatible

<smaug> http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/Document.cpp#L5032 vs http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/TouchEvent.cpp#L55

MB: initTouchEvent in TouchEvents spec is not compatible with WebKit initTouchEvent

LG: there a couple of issues
... one is to review the changes Matt proposed
... and the other is the differences in the initTouchEvents

AB: so, we should leave this open until we get more feedback from at least Laszlo
... when can you give us some feedback Laszlo?

LG: I will try to get the feedback this week

AB: anything else on Issue-17 for today?

Issue-3 (Raised) Click event target after DOM mutation during touchstart

AB: Issue-3 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3 ) is in the raised state. Doug has related Action-23 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23 ). We last discussed this on May 24 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html#item04 )

DS: I haven't been able to work on this; sorry about that
... I will try to get something out this week

OP: the click should be dispatched since it happens after the touch events
... I think we had agreement click should be dispatched

DS: if there is general agreement among the impls, we should use that

AB: so what does that mean in terms of what needs to be specified?

<sangwhan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0082.html

AB: i.e. what change(s) need to be made in the spec?

DS: if Olli wants to make a proposal, I am fine with that

OP: yes, I can make a proposal

<scribe> ACTION: olli make a proposal for Issue-3 based on current implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Make a proposal for Issue-3 based on current implementations [on Olli Pettay - due 2011-06-14].

Issue-16 (Raised) Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object Identity

AB: Issue-16 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16 ) is in the raised state. Laszlo has related Action-46 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/46 ). We last discussed this on May 24 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html#item05 )

LG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0121.html
... I don't think objects should have persistence
... Recommend people read the link in my email
... PPK had a related blog
... Assuming events perisist probably is not a good idea

<smaug> http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/58323/trunk/WebCore/page/EventHandler.cpp. doesn't seem to work

LG: I consider my action as done

<mbrubeck> smaug: Remove the final .

<mbrubeck> ".", that is

LG: and we can discuss it

<smaug> ah

AB: from a process perspective, yes I will close Action-46

DS: I need to read this

AB: any other comments on Issue-16?
... the homework is for people to read Laszlo's e-mail

Status of Intentional Events Spec

AB: on May 24, we talked ( http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webevents-minutes.html#item07) about the thread Gregers Gram Rygg started on May 12 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0098.html ) re "Proposal to specify behavior for terminals without touch hardware".
... that discussion lead to a discussion about the Intentional Events spec where some preliminary work has been done by WAI's Protocols and Formats WG ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html ), namely Apple's James Craig.
... James indicated (off-list) he hopes to have an Editor's Draft type doc to share in June.

DS: I don't have any additional status

AB: ongoing action for Doug and I to keep up with James' work

AOB

AB: regarding the next call
... it appears we still have open, discussions for Issues 3, 16 and 17
... I would prefer to have more calls in June and less in July and August
... any objections to a call on June 13?
... next call is June 14
... please follow-up on Issues 3, 16 and 17 on the list
... meeting adjourned

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Default Present: +1.781.534.aaaa, +1.781.993.aabb, +1.206.792.aacc, Doug_Schepers, sangwhan, Olli_Pettay
Present: Art_Barstow Matt_Brubeck Cathy_Chan Laszlo_Gombos Doug_Schepers Olli_Pettay Sangwhan_Moon
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0115.html
Found Date: 07 Jun 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html
People with action items: olli