See also: IRC log
<shepazu> ArtB: didn't smaug take that on?
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 14 June 2011
AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0124.html ). Any change requests?
AB: any short announcements for today?
OP: I was wondering if we can
specify in a more exact way
... but it depends on the device
... perhaps it is enough to say impls should dispense mouse up
MB: I agree with that
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 )
[ group pauses to read Olli's proposal ]
DS: this looks OK to me
LG: looks ok
... but the device specific
... part isn't clear
OP: the OS may give some additional info
MB: scrolling can be done via
... some cases may not want to wait
LG: so, this is more about
... and not really about the OS per se
DS: should we say something about why it is not a MUST?
MB: I can take an action to
integrate OP's proposal into the spec
... and to add some non-normative rationale
OP: my proposal is a bit stronger then what is in the spec
DS: agree that SHOULD is better here
<scribe> ACTION: matt integrate Olli's proposal for Issue-3 (action-51) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Integrate Olli's proposal for Issue-3 (action-51) [on Matt Brubeck - due 2011-06-21].
AB: after Matt completes Action-52, do we consider this issue as closed?
<smaug> ACTION-23 can be probably closed
AB: I don't think we need any
... anything else on this issue?
DS: so Matt will close the issue after addressing action-52?
AB: please include the changeset number
MB: will do
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 (
). 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.
... 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?".
... re question #1, Matt - do you have a proposal for an answer?
MB: not sure but lean toward
... it could be an interop issue
... and need to think about LG's input
LG: most objects aren't the
... if they are, we can note that
DS: re question #2, I would expect each touch event would have a unique identifier
MB: I think that is a reasonable
... but PPK noted that in some Webkit impls, events were reused
DS: that seems like a but to me
MB: agree and that bug has been fixed in newer version of Webkit
<smaug> not events but touch objects were reused in webkit, I think
DS: if we are going to do some mapping b/w low to high events
<mbrubeck> from http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/02/persistent_touc.html it sounds like it was the TouchEvent object that was reused.
DS: then we may need identify to
refer to specific touch events
... but it seems like we need unique id for every touch event (but not every touch point)
MB: no other DOM type spec talks
... this came up because of earlier versions of Webkit
... and their inconsistency with newer impls and other DOM specs
... Given the new impls, perhaps we don't even need to mention this
DS: even if we don't spec a
binding from low to high level events, I think developers will
need to do that
... I think there is value in defining unique touch events
<smaug> ah, looks like iPhone used to cache/reuse the touchpoint *list*, at least based on the quircksmode example
DS: would be good to talk to
others, like Sencha about this
... We want to specify things where the current unspecified behavior is leading to interop probs
... We coud spec something and then if feedback is negative, we can remove it
LG: sounds OK to me
OP: yes (the old WK behavior is a bug)
AB: is anyone willing to create a proposal for text to address issue-16?
DS: I can make a proposal
<scribe> ACTION: doug create a proposal to address issue-16 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Create a proposal to address issue-16 [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-06-21].
AB: do you need anything else from us Doug?
DS: if I need anything, I'll ask on the list
<scribe> ACTION: barstow move issue-16 to Open [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Move issue-16 to Open [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-06-21].
AB: anything else on issue-16?
[ No ]
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.
... changeset #94 removes clientX/Y from initTouchEvent since they can be computed. Olli noted WebKit is inconsistent here (initTouchEvent vs. document.createTouch)
... 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 )
<mbrubeck> 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...
AB: let's start with changeset
#94. Any objections to that i.e. remove clientX/Y?
... any objections to changeset #94?
[ None ]
AB: consider that changeset accepted
<mbrubeck> well, I guess it doesn't totally ignore them... need to do more research
AB: ok, initTouchEvent signatures - what, if anything do we want to do here to align the APIs?
<smaug> TouchEvent.idl is bizarre. You can pass clientX/Y as parameters but can't you them
DS: I don't think we need to totally align the interfaces
<mbrubeck> http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/WebCore/WebCore-658.28/dom/UIEvent.idl (the parent interface) has pageX/pageY accessors)
DS: we could make our API
identical to Webkit
... A script lib can take care of the diffs
... e.g. give the "right" initializer
MB: I haven't seem any code in
the wild that uses these initializers
... I have seen some test cases for it
DS: so that says if Webkit wants
to align with our spec, it would be easy for them to do
... there are other differences, I think
LG: I haven't looked into the details of this
<mbrubeck> 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
LG: I don't fully understand why
we want to remove this
... but if this change is going in the right direction, perhaps Webkit woud follow
... The main rationale here is what?
MB: in WK, initTouchEvents takes
one set of params and our spec uses another set of params
... in some cases, we don't understand why WK uses the coordinates
<smaug> webkit's TouchEvent doesn't have .clientX/Y or .screenX/Y, only .pageX/Y .layerX/Y (which are in UIEvent)
DS: has anyone done any testing to see about the use of 'clientX/Y'
LG: there is some code shared
among WK ports and there is some device-specific code
... not clear where these APIs fall
... I can look into this before the next call
DS: I can understand that f.ex. the 1st or last touch points may have some semantics
MB: the scenarios can get complex with multi-touch
DS: perhaps there is some convenience for them
MB: I don't want to include params if we don't have real need for them
DS: I think some WK testing would
... cases: not used, 1st touch event, most recent [last]
... Laszlo, can you do some testing here?
LG: yes, I can take an action for that
<scribe> ACTION: laszlo do some analysis of Webkit's implementations re Issue-17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Do some analysis of Webkit's implementations re Issue-17 [on Laszlo Gombos - due 2011-06-21].
AB: can anyone help LG with this?
DS: we need some tests
... I can test on other platforms if that is helpful?
LG: what other platforms other than WK?
MB: Opera Mobile 11 supports touch events
DS: so step 1 is to create tests; step 2 is to test on WK; step 3 is to test on Opera
<mbrubeck> 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.
AB: any last comments about issue-17?
<smaug> vacation? what is that?
AB: next meeting, I'm thinking 2 weeks from now
DS: most issues are now
... where are we with this spec?
... are there other things missing?
OP: I think we need to clarify
the various lists
... what are they for example
LG: in one of my e-mails I mentioned some of this
MB: last week I checked in some changes that do some of these clarifications
AB: is this an issue or an action?
DS: prefer to create an
... so we can create associated actions
... track the discussions, etc.
<lgombos> smaug: info on changedTouches - http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/58323/trunk/WebCore/page/EventHandler.cpp.
AB: agree, it gives a good paper trail
MB: but we still need some examples
ISSUE: the spec needs more examples related to the various lists
<trackbot> 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 .
DS: are we close to Last Call?
<mbrubeck> We need more tests. I'll be able to add more as the Mozilla Mobile team starts work on multi-touch.
AB: yes, it looks like we are
... to LC, that is
DS: are we using the text markup to facilitate test case extractions
MB: we discussed this on a call
when Doug wasn't here
... Sangwhan and I agreed it would be good to use that markup
DS: OK, I'll take an action to do so
<mbrubeck> Past discussion here: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html
<scribe> ACTION: Doug update the Touch Event spec to use markup to facilitate test case extraction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update the Touch Event spec to use markup to facilitate test case extraction [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-06-21].
AB: will action-56 block LC?
DS: it shouldn't block it
... if that process creates issues, that's good
... does it appear the touch shape area is adequately spec'ed?
MB: we have already received
comments on that and it appears solid
... we are lacking TouchLeave and TouchEnter feedback
... they are new parts
DS: well, LC is a great way to get feedback
AB: yes, LC is important because
it says "the group thinks it is done"
... I think a LC in July or August is possible
DS: would like to get it ready in the next two weeks
MB: how important is a good set of test cases re going into LC
DS: I would like to have a good set of test cases before LC
MB: a colleague of mine has some
relevant test cases
... I will see if they can be ported to our test framework
... that could get some tests for us within a few weeks
DS: the test suite is required in
... but it's always better to have test cases earlier
MB: the spec is already being written around existing impl
DS: some rigor about what needs
to be tested
... and a plan to flesh it out
... should be considered the minimum before going to LC
... My action-56 should give us a very good idea of the scope of the test suite
... and I will try to do this within the next two weeks
... and I *LOVE* creating test cases!
AB: excellent! You Da' Man
... in summary, we have a few issues to address and a couple of high priority actions to complete
... and a more complete test suite
... and then we will be ready for LC
... But that all seems do-able in July (or August)
... it would be good if we had an idea about the Intentional Events spec
DS: agree but this can help others with their decision to participate
[ Some discussions about how to test the various features on multi-touch ... ]
DS: if we have some stuff in the
spec that isn't widely implemented, we could put those features
in a v2 spec
... and then we can advance v1 quicker
MB: yes, I can see some value in that
DS: the 3 things: TouchEnter,
TouchLeave and Touch Area
... may be better to move into v2 spec
... and v1 is the "this works today" spec
<mbrubeck> (where "Touch Area" refers to radiusX/radiusX/rotationAngle)
<mbrubeck> also, "force"
DS: how to do people think about this v1 and v2 idea?
MB: I like it
SM: makes sense (kinda' like widgets v1 and v2)
AB: I don't have a strong opinion either way
OP: make sense to me to have a v2
... then it is like XHR1 and XHR2
LG: yes, I think it makes sense but don't have a strong opinion
CC: yes, agree with LG
AB: propose resolution: Touch Enter, Leave, Area and Force are moved to a v2 spec immediately
MB: from a logistics view,
... we should add a v2 branch in the Mercurial repo
DS: can you do that Matt?
DS: are merges easy?
MB: usually but may need some manual intervention
AB: any objections to the proposed resolution above?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: Touch Enter, Leave, Area and Force will be moved to a v2 spec
AB: so, next meeting
... next week?
... any objections to a meeting on June 21?
... next meeting is June 21
... please address Open Actions as soon as you can!
... 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) Succeeded: s/to be/can be/ Succeeded: s/comples/complex/ Succeeded: s/tLC/LC/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art_Barstow Matt_Brubeck Cathy_Chan Olli_Pettay Laszlo_Gombos Doug_Schepers Sangwhan_Moon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0124.html Found Date: 14 Jun 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webevents-minutes.html People with action items: barstow doug issue-16 laszlo matt move[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]