14:59:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webevents
14:59:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-irc
14:59:38 <Zakim> RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has now started
14:59:42 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
14:59:45 <Zakim> + +1.503.712.aaaa
14:59:52 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
14:59:53 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
14:59:53 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0036.html
14:59:53 <ArtB> Date: 30 August 2011
14:59:53 <ArtB> Chair: Art
14:59:53 <ArtB> Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference
15:00:23 <Zakim> + +1.781.993.aabb
15:00:31 <ArtB> zakim, aabb is Art_Barstow
15:00:31 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow; got it
15:01:02 <Zakim> + +1.206.792.aacc
15:01:10 <mbrubeck> Zakim, aacc is me
15:01:10 <Zakim> +mbrubeck; got it
15:01:18 <ArtB> Present: Dzung_Tran, Matt_Brubeck, Art_Barstow
15:01:32 <smaug> just a second
15:01:36 <Cathy> Cathy has joined #webevents
15:01:43 <ArtB> Present+ Cathy_Chan
15:01:51 <ArtB> Present+ Olli_Pettay
15:01:51 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
15:01:58 <ArtB> Present+ Doug_Schepers
15:02:02 <Zakim> +??P10
15:02:03 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:02:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html ArtB
15:02:15 <smaug> Zakim, ??P10 is Olli_Pettay
15:02:15 <Zakim> +Olli_Pettay; got it
15:02:34 <smaug> Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
15:02:34 <Zakim> ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
15:03:05 <lgombos> ArtB: have problems with the bridge, does not let me in
15:03:24 <Zakim> +??P12
15:03:47 <Cathy> zakim, ??P12 is me
15:03:47 <Zakim> +Cathy; got it
15:03:56 <ArtB> Present: Laszlo_Gombos
15:04:02 <ArtB> Topic: Tweak Agenda
15:04:09 <ArtB> AB: I submitted a draft agenda on August 30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0036.html. Are there any change requests?
15:04:46 <ArtB> DS: I got an email about adding JoyStick API to this WG
15:04:59 <ArtB> … maybe we can address that today
15:05:06 <ArtB> AB: how about AoB?
15:05:13 <ArtB> DS: that's fine
15:05:21 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
15:05:26 <ArtB> AB: any short announcements for today?
15:05:45 <ArtB> Topic: Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit
15:05:57 <ArtB> AB: Issue-19 "Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit" is blocking LC http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19. Laszlo has Action-55 open for this issue http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/55.
15:06:13 <ArtB> AB: we last discussed this on July 19 http://www.w3.org/2011/07/19-webevents-minutes.html#item06
15:06:33 <mbrubeck> I commented on https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60612 last month but there was no response yet.
15:06:51 <ArtB> LG: I haven't made much progress
15:06:56 <ArtB> … action is still open
15:07:07 <ArtB> … There is a webkit bug
15:07:27 <ArtB> … I could create a patch to see what reaction we get
15:07:33 <ArtB> … Sorry about the lack of progress
15:07:48 <ArtB> MB: I propose we continue the discussion for v2
15:07:58 <ArtB> … and for v1 remove those params for v1
15:08:06 <ArtB> … thus we can continue with LC
15:08:53 <ArtB> DS: I think that makes sense
15:09:05 <ArtB> s/with LC/with LC for v1/
15:09:19 <mbrubeck> For v1 we can remove initTouchEvent (and createTouch + createTouchList which are not useful without initTouchEvent), and wait until v2 to answer these questions and spec those.
15:09:22 <ArtB> OP: can you please clarify what is it you want to remove?
15:09:44 <ArtB> … I think some scripts use createTouch
15:10:00 <ArtB> MB: they can be useful for feature detection
15:10:20 <ArtB> … they are implemented but they would be included in the spec
15:10:34 <ArtB> AB: any other comments on Matt's proposal?
15:11:37 <ArtB> … I am somewhat indifferent
15:11:52 <ArtB> … we could do this, publish the LC and then ask the Webkit community for feedback
15:12:30 <ArtB> LG: so if they object to removing them, then what do we do?
15:12:31 <Dzung_Tran> Dzung_Tran has joined #webevents
15:12:42 <ArtB> AB: that would be feedback we would have to review and consider
15:12:44 <ArtB> LG: OK
15:12:58 <ArtB> OP: if they are removed, that could create some issues WRT testing
15:13:20 <ArtB> … it would prevent automatic testing
15:13:23 <mbrubeck> If we want to use LC as a way to solicit more feedback from WebKit devs, it might be more useful to leave initTouchEvent in and try to come to consensus on the parameters.
15:14:12 <ArtB> MB: if we think WK developers are willing to engage us during LC, we could leave it in
15:14:33 <ArtB> … looking for a way to move the spec forward
15:14:56 <ArtB> LG: I think this should be a high priority
15:15:36 <ArtB> AB: there are advantages to asking WK community before LC
15:16:21 <ArtB> … if we want to ask for feedback now, what are the specific questions we want to ask?
15:16:32 <ArtB> MB: I think the bug I created includes the questions
15:16:44 <mbrubeck> s/created/commented on/
15:17:40 <ArtB> MB: Andy Estes created the bug
15:18:07 <ArtB> … my comments explains which params are different and asks why they are different
15:19:22 <ArtB> AB: the last comment on this bug was about 6 weeks ago
15:19:36 <ArtB> … were there any discussions on the mail list?
15:19:40 <ArtB> LG: no, I don't think so
15:20:22 <ArtB> AB: so, if we don't get any feedback within a week, should we go with Matt's proposal to remove them?
15:20:26 <ArtB> LG: make sense
15:20:33 <ArtB> OP: yes
15:21:03 <ArtB> MB: I agree
15:21:09 <ArtB> … and this is for v1
15:21:18 <ArtB> … and for v2 we can continue discussions
15:21:32 <ArtB> DS: I defer to the group
15:21:44 <ArtB> DT: I think it make sense for now
15:21:49 <ArtB> CC: I agree
15:21:59 <ArtB> AB: OK; then that's the plan for this issue
15:22:18 <ArtB> Topic: Issue-16: Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object Identity
15:22:23 <ArtB> AB: Issue-16 is also blocking LC http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/16 and Doug has open Action-60 for this http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/60.
15:22:33 <ArtB> AB: we discussed this on August 9 http://www.w3.org/2011/08/09-webevents-minutes.html#item04 and I don't recall Doug proposing text for the spec that will address this issue.
15:24:04 <ArtB> DS: I don't have a strong opinion on this
15:24:14 <ArtB> MB: I originally raised this issue
15:24:24 <ArtB> … and I don't think it needs to block LC
15:24:40 <ArtB> … it is an issue that is not addressed by any other W3C spec (that I know of)
15:24:47 <ArtB> DS: agree on the priority
15:24:53 <ArtB> DT: seems like an impl detail
15:25:00 <ArtB> DS: not sure I agree
15:25:11 <ArtB> DT: will apps really check for equality
15:25:26 <ArtB> DS: perhaps we can resolve this now
15:25:50 <ArtB> … I think each object should have its own identity
15:26:03 <ArtB> … Matt, what do you think?
15:26:18 <ArtB> MB: I think <missed it> should be immutable
15:27:17 <ArtB> DS: if we think something needs to go in the spec, I trust Matt's language
15:27:22 <ArtB> MB: I can propose text
15:27:42 <ArtB> DS: I think you should just add the text (no need for a proposal)
15:28:08 <ArtB> … and you could add a note for reviewers to provide feedback on this
15:28:29 <ArtB> AB: should I change Matt to the owner of Action-60
15:28:43 <ArtB> MB: yes, that is fine
15:29:16 <ArtB> AB: Matt, please ping me when you've done the edit and I'll close the issue
15:29:18 <ArtB> MB: OK
15:29:29 <ArtB> AB: any objections to handling Issue-16 this way?
15:29:33 <ArtB> [ None ]
15:30:18 <ArtB> Topic: Preparing Touch Events v1 spec for Last Call WD
15:30:35 <ArtB> AB: the v1 spec is nearly ready for LC http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html. I think Doug's Action-56 http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/56 is still open although the spec has been split now.
15:30:49 <ArtB> DS: I like this approach
15:31:27 <ArtB> … I just don't think it is worth blocking LC
15:31:46 <ArtB> … but I'm willing to listen to feedback
15:32:18 <ArtB> AB: comments on Doug's proposal to not block LC for this action?
15:33:35 <ArtB> … I think doing this is good but I don't think it has to block LC
15:34:00 <ArtB> DS: we could agree to adopt this for v2
15:34:26 <ArtB> AB: there's a proposal to not mandate the assertion markup for v1 but to do it for v2
15:34:42 <ArtB> … and to add it during CR for v1
15:34:50 <Dzung_Tran> +1
15:34:52 <ArtB> AB: any objection to that proposal?
15:35:52 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: v1 will add assertion markup during CR and v2 will add it before LC
15:36:31 <ArtB> Topic: JoyStick API
15:36:57 <ArtB> AB: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0035.html
15:37:02 <ArtB> DT: it could be part of this WG
15:37:12 <ArtB> DS: yes, depending on the interpretation
15:37:25 <ArtB> … it would probably require rechartering
15:37:42 <ArtB> … so the W3C Team would have to look at this closely
15:37:57 <ArtB> … we also have the Intentional Events spec we haven't started
15:38:09 <ArtB> … there is some mention in the DOM 3 Events spec but not much
15:38:17 <ArtB> DT: is that Mozilla work?
15:38:24 <ArtB> DS: no, it's in the spec
15:38:48 <ArtB> DS: I would agree to push JoyStick spec if we want it
15:39:02 <ArtB> DT: I think that makes sense
15:39:25 <ArtB> … can look at wii remote
15:39:57 <ArtB> DS: D3E spec covers keyboard events
15:40:32 <ArtB> AB: any other comments?
15:40:47 <ArtB> OP: I wonder if there are any IP issues here?
15:41:20 <ArtB> … need to understand if Mozilla and Google are interested
15:41:28 <ArtB> AB: Google is a member of this WG
15:41:42 <ArtB> DS: I think the 1st order of biz is to get v1 to LC
15:42:05 <ArtB> … and then we can add JoyStick to this WG's charter
15:42:33 <ArtB> AB: perhaps we should talk to PLH and other W3C team 
15:42:38 <ArtB> DS: yes, that makes sense
15:43:07 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow work with Doug on whether the WG should take on JoyStick API
15:43:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Work with Doug on whether the WG should take on JoyStick API [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-06].
15:43:29 <ArtB> AB: would any object to this group adding it to our charter?
15:43:31 <mbrubeck> no objection
15:43:31 <ArtB> [ None ]
15:44:22 <ArtB> AB: let's get some more feedback
15:44:37 <ArtB> … but I don't foresee any issues
15:45:29 <ArtB> DT: Scott Graham said he would create a strawman
15:46:18 <ArtB> DS: given the strawman, it should be straightforward to move the spec fwd
15:46:27 <ArtB> … and not get behind on our other stuff
15:46:50 <ArtB> Topic: Any Other Business (AOB)
15:47:02 <ArtB> AB: any topics?
15:47:22 <ArtB> AB: re the next meeting, given the status of Issue-19, I think a call next week makes sense
15:47:38 <ArtB> … we could be in a position to record consensus to publish a LC for v1
15:48:17 <ArtB> AB: so next call is Sept 6
15:48:25 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
15:48:35 <Zakim> -Olli_Pettay
15:48:38 <Zakim> - +1.503.712.aaaa
15:48:43 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
15:48:44 <Zakim> -Cathy
15:48:45 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
15:49:03 <Zakim> -mbrubeck
15:49:04 <Zakim> RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has ended
15:49:06 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.503.712.aaaa, +1.781.993.aabb, Art_Barstow, +1.206.792.aacc, mbrubeck, Doug_Schepers, Olli_Pettay, Cathy
15:49:17 <mbrubeck> lgombos: So, you are going to bring up issue-19 on the webkit mailing lists... is that correct?
16:10:01 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:10:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html ArtB
16:11:13 <lgombos> mbrubeck: I see if I can create a patch and ping the bug (and CC a few more guys). If that is not enough I bring it up on webkit-dev
16:11:27 <mbrubeck> cool, thanks lgombos
17:26:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webevents
19:30:26 <smaug> smaug has joined #webevents
20:04:51 <smaug> smaug has joined #webevents