See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 30 August 2011
<smaug> just a second
<lgombos> ArtB: have problems with the bridge, does not let me in
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?
DS: I got an email about adding JoyStick API to this WG
… maybe we can address that today
AB: how about AoB?
DS: that's fine
AB: any short announcements for today?
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.
... we last discussed this on July 19 http://www.w3.org/2011/07/19-webevents-minutes.html#item06
<mbrubeck> I commented on https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60612 last month but there was no response yet.
LG: I haven't made much progress
… action is still open
… There is a webkit bug
… I could create a patch to see what reaction we get
… Sorry about the lack of progress
MB: I propose we continue the discussion for v2
… and for v1 remove those params for v1
… thus we can continue with LC for v1
DS: I think that makes sense
<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.
OP: can you please clarify what is it you want to remove?
… I think some scripts use createTouch
MB: they can be useful for feature detection
… they are implemented but they would be included in the spec
AB: any other comments on Matt's proposal?
… I am somewhat indifferent
… we could do this, publish the LC and then ask the Webkit community for feedback
LG: so if they object to removing them, then what do we do?
AB: that would be feedback we would have to review and consider
OP: if they are removed, that could create some issues WRT testing
… it would prevent automatic testing
<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.
MB: if we think WK developers are willing to engage us during LC, we could leave it in
… looking for a way to move the spec forward
LG: I think this should be a high priority
AB: there are advantages to asking WK community before LC
… if we want to ask for feedback now, what are the specific questions we want to ask?
MB: I think the bug I commented
on includes the questions
... Andy Estes created the bug
… my comments explains which params are different and asks why they are different
AB: the last comment on this bug was about 6 weeks ago
… were there any discussions on the mail list?
LG: no, I don't think so
AB: so, if we don't get any feedback within a week, should we go with Matt's proposal to remove them?
LG: make sense
MB: I agree
… and this is for v1
… and for v2 we can continue discussions
DS: I defer to the group
DT: I think it make sense for now
CC: I agree
AB: OK; then that's the plan for this issue
AB: Issue-16 is also blocking LC
and Doug has open Action-60 for this http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/60.
... 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.
DS: I don't have a strong opinion on this
MB: I originally raised this issue
… and I don't think it needs to block LC
… it is an issue that is not addressed by any other W3C spec (that I know of)
DS: agree on the priority
DT: seems like an impl detail
DS: not sure I agree
DT: will apps really check for equality
DS: perhaps we can resolve this now
… I think each object should have its own identity
… Matt, what do you think?
MB: I think <missed it> should be immutable
DS: if we think something needs to go in the spec, I trust Matt's language
MB: I can propose text
DS: I think you should just add the text (no need for a proposal)
… and you could add a note for reviewers to provide feedback on this
AB: should I change Matt to the owner of Action-60
MB: yes, that is fine
AB: Matt, please ping me when you've done the edit and I'll close the issue
AB: any objections to handling Issue-16 this way?
[ None ]
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.
DS: I like this approach
… I just don't think it is worth blocking LC
… but I'm willing to listen to feedback
AB: comments on Doug's proposal to not block LC for this action?
… I think doing this is good but I don't think it has to block LC
DS: we could agree to adopt this for v2
AB: there's a proposal to not mandate the assertion markup for v1 but to do it for v2
… and to add it during CR for v1
AB: any objection to that proposal?
RESOLUTION: v1 will add assertion markup during CR and v2 will add it before LC
DT: it could be part of this WG
DS: yes, depending on the interpretation
… it would probably require rechartering
… so the W3C Team would have to look at this closely
… we also have the Intentional Events spec we haven't started
… there is some mention in the DOM 3 Events spec but not much
DT: is that Mozilla work?
DS: no, it's in the spec
... I would agree to push JoyStick spec if we want it
DT: I think that makes sense
… can look at wii remote
DS: D3E spec covers keyboard events
AB: any other comments?
OP: I wonder if there are any IP issues here?
… need to understand if Mozilla and Google are interested
AB: Google is a member of this WG
DS: I think the 1st order of biz is to get v1 to LC
… and then we can add JoyStick to this WG's charter
AB: perhaps we should talk to PLH and other W3C team
DS: yes, that makes sense
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Doug on whether the WG should take on JoyStick API [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Work with Doug on whether the WG should take on JoyStick API [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-06].
AB: would any object to this group adding it to our charter?
<mbrubeck> no objection
[ None ]
AB: let's get some more feedback
… but I don't foresee any issues
DT: Scott Graham said he would create a strawman
DS: given the strawman, it should be straightforward to move the spec fwd
… and not get behind on our other stuff
AB: any topics?
... re the next meeting, given the status of Issue-19, I think a call next week makes sense
… we could be in a position to record consensus to publish a LC for v1
AB: so next call is Sept 6
... meeting adjourned
<mbrubeck> lgombos: So, you are going to bring up issue-19 on the webkit mailing lists... is that correct?
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/with LC/with LC for v1/ Succeeded: s/created/commented on/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Default Present: +1.503.712.aaaa, +1.781.993.aabb, Art_Barstow, +1.206.792.aacc, mbrubeck, Doug_Schepers, Olli_Pettay, Cathy WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Dzung_Tran, Matt_Brubeck, Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Olli_Pettay, Doug_Schepers) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ Laszlo_Gombos Present: Laszlo_Gombos WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list! Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0036.html Found Date: 30 Aug 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html People with action items: barstow WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]