Web Events WG Voice Conference

06 Sep 2011


See also: IRC log


Art_Barstow, Sangwhan_Moon, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, Scott_Graham, Laszlo_Gombos, Cathy_Chan


<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 6 September 2011

<lgombos> Zakim: aadd is me

Tweak Agenda

AB: I posted a draft agenda on September 5 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0043.html. Any change requests? Depending on the outcome of the discussion of Issue-19, we may skip the topic about publishing a LC of Touch Events v1 spec.


AB: Any short announcements for today?
... Scott joins us for the first time

JG: video game industry in the past

… am now at Google on Chrome and webkit team

… want to support richer apps

… especially games

… I am particuarly interested in Joystick API I submitted

AB: in order for us to publish Joystick API, it must first be explicit in our charter

… I don't think that is going to be problematic to get it added

DS: yes, I agree adding Joystick to our charter shouldn't be problematic

… re-chartering also gives us more specific info about our scope now that we have a LC

… and that may make it easier for other Members to join this WG

… we can also consider adding other specs besides Joystick

SG: so the concern is getting too broad to raise other legal concerns?

DS: yes, that's the concern

… it's about IP/patent concerns

AB: we can add re-chartering to next week's topic list

JG: ok with me

Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit

AB: Issue-19 http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19 has open Action-55 for Laszlo http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/55.
... during our August 30 discussion on this issue http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webevents-minutes.html#item03, we agreed that if the action was still open today, we would do as Matt proposed, i.e. " 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."
... let's start with Laszlo. It appears he submitted the patch to webkit bug 60612 as he mentioned last week https://bug-60612-attachments.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=106379

LG: my action was to remove these paramaters

… to help get feedback from the WK community

… I completed my action

… but no feedback yet

… I did Cc people from Google and Apple

… The changes are fairly small

… We should get feedback within a few days and if not, I can do some followups

MB: that's great; thanks Laszlo

… I see 3 possibilities

… If the changes are agreed, spec won't need to change

… If the changes are not agreeable, we should change the spec to match webkit

… If this is controversial within the WK community, we can remove the method for v1 and take it up again in v2

DS: we can go to LC and mark this feature as "At Risk"

… getting a LC published is real importanat re getting feedback

… with the feature "At Risk", we can go to CR and not need to go back to LC

LG: so we can would leave the method but remove the params for LC?

DS: yes, we could do that; or mark those params and/or methods "At Risk"

… need a warning about the feature may be dropped

AB: is it the case that the spec now matches Webkit with LG's patch?

MB: yes, it does

LG: my proposal is to go to LC with the spec as it is today (with those params removed)

SM: I think we should push the spec as it is

… as I think this will force the issue

DS: we could just put it out there as it is

AB: I'm hearing we should go to LC with the spec as it is today

… i.e. no additional warnings or marks of "At Risk"

… Is that a fair characterization?

DS: that's fine with me

MB: I'm OK with that

… but I'm OK with marking it "As Risk" too

… With Laszlo's patch, the API is not quite identical

… I can minute the details

… The first several parms match but then WK has 2 additional params the spec does not include

… and those 2 params are apple specific

… But with LG's patch, the first several params do match

AB: so I think we have consensus to consider this issue closed
... any objections to closing this issue and the related action?

[ None ]

Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call WD of Touch Events v1

AB: any comments about publishing a LCWD of Touch Events v1 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html>

SM: I recall Cathy noticed some probs with the example code

MB: I think I have a related action

SM: I can take a look

<mbrubeck> action-61?

<trackbot> ACTION-61 -- Matt Brubeck to test Sangwhan's list examples against implementations -- due 2011-08-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/61

AB: we want the examples to be error free, but they are non-normative

<mbrubeck> I tested the first example and it does work on WebKit.

… thus fixing examples would not force another LC

<mbrubeck> I haven't tested the second one yet.

AB: I propose we publish a LCWD of the Touch Events v1 spec

… any objections or voices of support?

DS: support

LG: support

<Cathy> +1

<sangwhan> +1

<mbrubeck> +1

RESOLUTION: the WG agrees to publish a LCWD of the Touch Events v1 spec

AB: who is going to prep the doc?

DS: I can do that

AB: great

<sangwhan> mbrubeck: I would have loved to touch them myself, but my phone doesn't quite support multiple touches very well in a hardware level. A fancier piece of hardware is on it's way from the states very soon that's supposed to handle multiple touch better - I'll get to it as soon as that comes in.

AB: comment review period, 3 weeks it the minimum

DS: I propose 4 weeks

AB: any objections to 4 weeks?

<mbrubeck> no

[ None ]

<mbrubeck> sangwhan: Okay, I can finish testing then... I have both Android and iOS multi-touch hardware.

AB: so let's target a Sept 13 publication

… that will give some extra time for editorial changes

… We need to know if there are any specific WGs we want to request to review the spec?

… WebApps is one WG

<sangwhan> mbrubeck: I'll take a look at the logical flaws first - just let me know if something doesn't work.

… Any other WGs?

DS: the WAI P&F WG
... we could also ask HTML WG

AB: OK, so HTML WG, WebApps WG and WAI P&F WG

Any Other Business (AOB)

AB: let's plan for a call next week, September 13. Potential topics are status of the Intentional Events spec and testing.
... are there other topics for next week?

DS: yes, testing and Joystick API

MB: and we should have feedback from WK people re LG's patch

AB: other topics?
... anything else for today?

[ None ]

AB: meet on Sept 13
... meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/09/06 15:33:44 $

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/JG/SG/
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Default Present: +1.650.253.aaaa, +1.781.993.aabb, Art_Barstow, sangwhan, +1.206.792.aacc, mbrubeck, Doug_Schepers, +1.781.534.aadd, +1.781.993.aaee, Cathy, lgombos, scottmg
Present: Art_Barstow Sangwhan_Moon Matt_Brubeck Doug_Schepers Scott_Graham Laszlo_Gombos Cathy_Chan
Regrets: Olli_Pettay
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0043.html
Found Date: 06 Sep 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/09/06-webevents-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]