14:58:40 RRSAgent has joined #webevents 14:58:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-irc 14:58:48 RRSAgent, make log Public 14:58:57 ArtB: didn't smaug take that on? 14:59:00 ScribeNick: ArtB 14:59:00 Scribe: Art 14:59:00 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0124.html 14:59:00 Date: 14 June 2011 14:59:00 Chair: Art 14:59:01 Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference 14:59:46 mbrubeck has joined #webevents 14:59:56 dialing... 14:59:59 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has now started 15:00:06 + +1.781.993.aaaa 15:00:16 zakim, aaaa is Art_Barstow 15:00:16 +Art_Barstow; got it 15:00:49 + +1.206.792.aabb 15:00:54 zakim, aabb is me 15:00:54 +mbrubeck; got it 15:02:10 Present: Art_Barstow, Matt_Brubeck, Cathy_Chan 15:02:18 +??P11 15:02:30 Zakim, ??P11 is Olli_Pettay 15:02:30 +Olli_Pettay; got it 15:02:33 + +1.781.534.aacc 15:02:48 Present+ Olli_Pettay 15:02:50 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 15:02:50 ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay 15:02:55 zakim, nick mbrubeck is Matt_Brubeck 15:02:55 sorry, mbrubeck, I do not see a party named 'Matt_Brubeck' 15:02:59 Present+ Laszlo_Gombos 15:03:02 +Doug 15:03:11 Present+ Doug_Schepers 15:03:21 Topic: Tweak Agenda 15:03:29 AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0124.html ). Any change requests? 15:04:05 Topic: Announcements 15:04:10 AB: any short announcements for today? 15:04:23 Topic: Issue-3 Click event target after DOM mutation during touchstart 15:04:31 AB: Issue-3 is one of our older issues ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/3 ) and Doug has one open action for it ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/23 ) 15:05:13 OP: I was wondering if we can specify in a more exact way 15:05:19 ... but it depends on the device 15:05:36 ... perhaps it is enough to say impls should dispense mouse up 15:05:41 MB: I agree with that 15:06:24 AB: we discussed this issue on June 7 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item05 ). On June 13, Olli followed up with an e-mail that closed his related Action-51 and proposed a spec change ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0123.html ) 15:07:13 [ group pauses to read Olli's proposal ] 15:07:18 DS: this looks OK to me 15:07:36 LG: looks ok 15:07:48 ... but the device specific 15:08:08 ... part isn't clear 15:08:20 OP: the OS may give some additional info 15:08:35 MB: scrolling to be done via diff gestures 15:08:57 s/to be/can be/ 15:09:09 ... some cases may not want to wait 15:09:27 LG: so, this is more about product decisions 15:09:34 ... and not really about the OS per se 15:09:48 DS: should we say something about why it is not a MUST? 15:10:04 MB: I can take an action to integrate OP's proposal into the spec 15:10:13 ... and to add some non-normative rationale 15:10:31 OP: my proposal is a bit stronger then what is in the spec 15:10:41 DS: agree that SHOULD is better here 15:11:14 ACTION: matt integrate Olli's proposal for Issue-3 (action-51) 15:11:14 Created ACTION-52 - Integrate Olli's proposal for Issue-3 (action-51) [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-06-21]. 15:11:47 AB: after Matt completes Action-52, do we consider this issue as closed? 15:12:12 ACTION-23 can be probably closed 15:12:12 ... I don't think we need any additional followup 15:12:49 AB: anything else on this issue? 15:13:13 DS: so Matt will close the issue after addressing action-52? 15:13:15 MB: yes 15:13:36 AB: please include the changeset number 15:13:38 MB: will do 15:13:48 Topic: Issue-16 Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object Identity 15:13:54 AB: Issue-16 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16 ) actually raises 2 questions/issues. Laszlo submitted feedback for this issue before our June 7 call ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0121.html ). We briefly talked about this issue on June 7 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item06 ) and everyone was actioned to read Laszlo's e-mail. 15:14:43 AB: perhaps it would be helpful to look at each question in the issue separately: 1) "Should the Touch Events standard specify whether certain operations return the same object?" and 2) "Should different touch events refer to the same objects?". 15:15:34 AB: re question #1, Matt - do you have a proposal for an answer? 15:15:47 MB: not sure but lean toward Yes 15:15:54 ... it could be an interop issue 15:16:02 ... and need to think about LG's input 15:16:16 LG: most objects aren't the same 15:16:23 ... if they are, we can note that 15:17:49 DS: re question #2, I would expect each touch event would have a unique identifier 15:17:57 MB: I think that is a reasonable expectation 15:18:20 ... but PPK noted that in some Webkit impls, events were reused 15:18:26 DS: that seems like a but to me 15:18:39 MB: agree and that bug has been fixed in newer version of Webkit 15:18:48 not events but touch objects were reused in webkit, I think 15:19:22 DS: if we are going to do some mapping b/w low to high events 15:19:28 from http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/02/persistent_touc.html it sounds like it was the TouchEvent object that was reused. 15:19:35 huh 15:19:56 ... then we may need identify to refer to specific touch events 15:20:23 ... but it seems like we need unique id for every touch event (but not every touch point) 15:20:35 MB: no other DOM type spec talks about this 15:20:50 ... this came up because of earlier versions of Webkit 15:21:06 ... and their inconsistency with newer impls and other DOM specs 15:21:22 ... Given the new impls, perhaps we don't even need to mention this 15:21:58 DS: even if we don't spec a binding from low to high level events, I think developers will need to do that 15:22:27 ... I think there is value in defining unique touch events 15:22:36 ah, looks like iPhone used to cache/reuse the touchpoint *list*, at least based on the quircksmode example 15:22:45 ... would be good to talk to others, like Sencha about this 15:23:20 Cathy has joined #webevents 15:23:21 ... We want to specify things where the current unspecified behavior is leading to interop probs 15:23:35 ... We coud spec something and then if feedback is negative, we can remove it 15:23:59 LG: sounds OK to me 15:24:14 OP: yes (the old WK behavior is a bug) 15:24:53 AB: is anyone willing to create a proposal for text to address issue-16? 15:25:10 DS: I can make a proposal 15:25:37 ACTION: doug create a proposal to address issue-16 15:25:37 Created ACTION-53 - Create a proposal to address issue-16 [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-06-21]. 15:25:55 AB: do you need anything else from us Doug? 15:26:06 DS: if I need anything, I'll ask on the list 15:26:18 ACTION: barstow move issue-16 to Open 15:26:19 Created ACTION-54 - Move issue-16 to Open [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-06-21]. 15:26:34 AB: anything else on issue-16? 15:26:36 [ No ] 15:26:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html Cathy 15:26:49 Topic: Issue-17 Page X and Y parameters to createTouch 15:27:00 AB: Issue-17 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/17 ). We talked about this issue on June 7 ( http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item04 ). The status is that Matt submitted changeset #94 for this issue ( http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/53491ff3514b ). Olli agreed with this patch and Laszlo said he needed to review the changeset vis-à-vis Webkit. 15:27:28 AB: changeset #94 removes clientX/Y from initTouchEvent since they can be computed. Olli noted WebKit is inconsistent here (initTouchEvent vs. document.createTouch) 15:28:06 AB: so there are two related things here: 1) are there any objections to changeset #94 and 2) the spec's initTouchEvent method ( http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/default/touchevents.html#methods-1 ) which has no screenX/Y nor clientX/Y is not consistent with WebKit's implementation ( http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/TouchEvent.cpp#L55 ) and ( http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/WebCore/WebCore-658.28/dom/TouchEvent.idl ) 15:28:50 initTouchEvent in WebKit takes a bunch of parameters that it simply ignores. For full compatibility, we'd need to add a bunch of dummy parameters to initTouchEvent... 15:29:10 AB: let's start with changeset #94. Any objections to that i.e. remove clientX/Y? 15:29:42 AB: any objections to changeset #94? 15:29:49 [ None ] 15:30:02 AB: consider that changeset accepted 15:30:02 well, I guess it doesn't totally ignore them... need to do more research 15:30:18 AB: ok, initTouchEvent signatures - what, if anything do we want to do here to align the APIs? 15:30:19 TouchEvent.idl is bizarre. You can pass clientX/Y as parameters but can't you them 15:30:55 DS: I don't think we need to totally align the interfaces 15:30:57 http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/WebCore/WebCore-658.28/dom/UIEvent.idl (the parent interface) has pageX/pageY accessors) 15:31:15 ... we could make our API identical to Webkit 15:31:31 ... A script lib can take care of the diffs 15:31:42 ... e.g. give the "right" initializer 15:31:56 MB: I haven't seem any code in the wild that uses these initializers 15:32:05 ... I have seen some test cases for it 15:32:24 DS: so that says if Webkit wants to align with our spec, it would be easy for them to do 15:32:52 ... there are other differences, I think 15:33:14 LG: I haven't looked into the details of this 15:33:17 ah, and it looks like layerX/layerY correspond to the pageX/pageY parameters - http://www.google.com/codesearch#N6Qhr5kJSgQ/WebCore/dom/MouseRelatedEvent.cpp&q=initCoordinates&l=104 15:33:25 ... I don't fully understand why we want to remove this 15:33:50 ... but if this change is going in the right direction, perhaps Webkit woud follow 15:34:00 ... The main rationale here is what? 15:34:30 MB: in WK, initTouchEvents takes one set of params and our spec uses another set of params 15:34:55 ... in some cases, we don't understand why WK uses the coordinates 15:36:19 webkit's TouchEvent doesn't have .clientX/Y or .screenX/Y, only .pageX/Y .layerX/Y (which are in UIEvent) 15:36:26 DS: has anyone done any testing to see about the use of 'clientX/Y' 15:36:34 http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/UIEvent.idl http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/UIEvent.idl 15:36:40 http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/dom/TouchEvent.idl 15:36:52 LG: there is some code shared among WK ports and there is some device-specific code 15:37:13 ... not clear where these APIs fall 15:37:22 ... I can look into this before the next call 15:37:56 DS: I can understand that f.ex. the 1st or last touch points may have some semantics 15:38:58 MB: the scenarios can get comples with multi-touch 15:39:07 s/comples/complex/ 15:39:47 DS: perhaps there is some convenience for them 15:40:00 MB: I don't want to include params if we don't have real need for them 15:40:17 DS: I think some WK testing would be useful 15:40:34 ... cases: not used, 1st touch event, most recent [last] 15:40:56 ... Laszlo, can you do some testing here? 15:41:04 LG: yes, I can take an action for that 15:41:35 ACTION: laszlo do some analysis of Webkit's implementations re Issue-17 15:41:35 Created ACTION-55 - Do some analysis of Webkit's implementations re Issue-17 [on Laszlo Gombos - due 2011-06-21]. 15:42:08 AB: can anyone help LG with this? 15:42:19 DS: we need some tests 15:42:29 ... I can test on other platforms if that is helpful? 15:42:46 LG: what other platforms other than WK? 15:42:58 MB: Opera Mobile 11 supports touch events 15:43:26 DS: so step 1 is to create tests; step 2 is to test on WK; step 3 is to test on Opera 15:43:51 If current implementations don't actually have specific semantics for TouchEvent.pageX/Y, I don't want to add them because I feel they will be a trap for authors. Using them will be convenient, but will lead to surprise. Using the TouchList properties is a little less convenient, but forces authors to think about what happens when more than one TouchPoint is present, so they won't be surprised. 15:44:31 AB: any last comments about issue-17? 15:44:43 Topic: Any Other Business (AOB) 15:45:11 vacation? what is that? 15:45:30 :) 15:45:42 AB: next meeting, I'm thinking 2 weeks from now 15:46:07 DS: most issues are now closed 15:46:15 .. where are we with this spec? 15:46:22 ... are there other things missing? 15:46:34 OP: I think we need to clarify the various lists 15:46:49 ... what are they for example 15:47:13 LG: in one of my e-mails I mentioned some of this 15:47:34 MB: last week I checked in some changes that do some of these clarifications 15:47:36 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/457c2df41b66 15:48:09 AB: is this an issue or an action? 15:48:17 DS: prefer to create an Issue 15:48:30 ... so we can create associated actions 15:48:36 ... track the discussions, etc. 15:48:39 smaug: info on changedTouches - http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/58323/trunk/WebCore/page/EventHandler.cpp. 15:48:44 AB: agree, it gives a good paper trail 15:48:59 MB: but we still need some examples 15:49:25 ISSUE: the spec needs more examples related to the various lists 15:49:27 Created ISSUE-18 - The spec needs more examples related to the various lists ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/18/edit . 15:49:45 DS: are we close to Last Call? 15:50:44 We need more tests. I'll be able to add more as the Mozilla Mobile team starts work on multi-touch. 15:50:46 AB: yes, it looks like we are gettig close 15:50:50 ... to LC, that is 15:51:22 DS: are we using the text markup to facilitate test case extractions 15:51:49 MB: we discussed this on a call when Doug wasn't here 15:51:58 sangwhan has joined #webevents 15:52:04 ... Sangwhan and I agreed it would be good to use that markup 15:52:12 DS: OK, I'll take an action to do so 15:52:24 Past discussion here: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html 15:52:31 http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html#item03 15:52:32 ACTION: Doug update the Touch Event spec to use markup to facilitate test case extraction 15:52:33 Created ACTION-56 - Update the Touch Event spec to use markup to facilitate test case extraction [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-06-21]. 15:53:03 AB: will action-56 block LC? 15:53:10 DS: it shouldn't block it 15:53:22 ... if that process creates issues, that's good 15:53:41 DS: does it appear the touch shape area is adequately spec'ed? 15:54:16 MB: we have already received comments on that and it appears solid 15:54:27 +??P5 15:54:32 ... we are lacking TouchLeave and TouchEnter feedback 15:54:37 ... they are new parts 15:54:39 zakim, ??P5 is me 15:54:39 +sangwhan; got it 15:55:46 DS: well, LC is a great way to get feedback 15:56:05 AB: yes, LC is important because it says "the group thinks it is done" 15:56:43 ... I think a LC in July or August is possible 15:56:58 DS: would like to get it ready in the next two weeks 15:57:21 MB: how important is a good set of test cases re going into LC 15:57:38 DS: I would like to have a good set of test cases before LC 15:57:57 MB: a colleague of mine has some relevant test cases 15:58:12 ... I will see if they can be ported to our test framework 15:58:23 ... that could get some tests for us within a few weeks 15:58:44 DS: the test suite is required in Candidate phase 15:59:01 ... but it's always better to have test cases earlier 15:59:37 MB: the spec is already being written around existing impl 15:59:57 DS: some rigor about what needs to be tested 16:00:05 ... and a plan to flesh it out 16:00:28 ... should be considered the minimum before going to tLC 16:00:33 s/tLC/LC/ 16:01:08 ... My action-56 should give us a very good idea of the scope of the test suite 16:01:19 ... and I will try to do this within the next two weeks 16:01:29 ... and I *LOVE* creating test cases! 16:01:53 AB: excellent! You Da' Man Doug! 16:02:36 AB: in summary, we have a few issues to address and a couple of high priority actions to complete 16:02:49 ... and a more complete test suite 16:02:56 ... and then we will be ready for LC 16:03:13 ... But that all seems do-able in July (or August) 16:04:27 AB: it would be good if we had an idea about the Intentional Events spec 16:05:00 DS: agree but this can help others with their decision to participate 16:08:50 Present+ Sangwhan_Moon 16:08:58 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:08:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:10:45 [ Some discussions about how to test the various features on multi-touch ... ] 16:11:14 DS: if we have some stuff in the spec that isn't widely implemented, we could put those features in a v2 spec 16:11:26 ... and then we can advance v1 quicker 16:11:47 MB: yes, I can see some value in that 16:12:26 DS: the 3 things: TouchEnter, TouchLeave and Touch Area 16:12:35 ... may be better to move into v2 spec 16:12:45 ... and v1 is the "this works today" spec 16:12:58 (where "Touch Area" refers to radiusX/radiusX/rotationAngle) 16:13:01 also, "force" 16:13:40 DS: how to do people think about this v1 and v2 idea? 16:13:42 MB: I like it 16:13:53 SM: makes sense (kinda' like widgets v1 and v2) 16:14:07 AB: I don't have a strong opinion either way 16:14:15 OP: make sense to me to have a v2 now 16:14:26 ... then it is like XHR1 and XHR2 16:15:10 LG: yes, I think it makes sense but don't have a strong opinion 16:15:15 CC: yes, agree with LG 16:16:15 AB: propose resolution: Touch Enter, Leave, Area and Force are moved to a v2 spec immediately 16:16:24 MB: from a logistics view, 16:16:35 ... we should add a v2 branch in the Mercurial repo 16:17:03 DS: can you do that Matt? 16:17:11 MB: yes 16:17:21 DS: are merges easy? 16:17:34 MB: usually but may need some manual intervention 16:17:47 AB: any objections to the proposed resolution above? 16:17:50 [ None ] 16:18:08 RESOLUTION: Touch Enter, Leave, Area and Force will be moved to a v2 spec 16:18:52 AB: so, next meeting 16:18:56 ... next week? 16:19:13 ... any objections to a meeting on June 21? 16:19:21 AB: next meeting is June 21 16:19:46 - +1.781.534.aacc 16:19:53 ... please address Open Actions as soon as you can! 16:19:58 AB: meeting adjourned 16:20:03 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:20:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:20:13 -Olli_Pettay 16:20:16 -Doug_Schepers 16:20:17 -Art_Barstow 16:20:20 -sangwhan 16:20:34 -mbrubeck 16:20:36 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has ended 16:20:38 Attendees were +1.781.993.aaaa, Art_Barstow, +1.206.792.aabb, mbrubeck, Olli_Pettay, +1.781.534.aacc, Doug_Schepers, sangwhan 16:20:56 Argh, forgot to ask one last thing - anything stale in the tracker I should pick up? 16:39:27 zakim, bye 16:39:27 Zakim has left #webevents 16:39:41 RRSAgent, bye 16:39:41 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-actions.rdf : 16:39:41 ACTION: matt integrate Olli's proposal for Issue-3 (action-51) [1] 16:39:41 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-irc#T15-11-14 16:39:41 ACTION: doug create a proposal to address issue-16 [2] 16:39:41 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-irc#T15-25-37 16:39:41 ACTION: barstow move issue-16 to Open [3] 16:39:41 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-irc#T15-26-18 16:39:41 ACTION: laszlo do some analysis of Webkit's implementations re Issue-17 [4] 16:39:41 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-irc#T15-41-35 16:39:41 ACTION: Doug update the Touch Event spec to use markup to facilitate test case extraction [5] 16:39:41 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-irc#T15-52-32