Web Events WG Voice Conference

30 Aug 2011


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

Tweak Agenda

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?

Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit

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

OP: yes

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

Issue-16: Should the spec be silent or prescriptive re Object Identity

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.
... 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 ]

Preparing Touch Events v1 spec for Last Call WD

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

<Dzung_Tran> +1

AB: any objection to that proposal?

RESOLUTION: v1 will add assertion markup during CR and v2 will add it before LC

JoyStick API

AB: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0035.html

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

Any Other Business (AOB)

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?

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] 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]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/08/30 16:10:07 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]