<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 13 September 2011

Tweak Agenda

AB: yesterday I sent the draft agenda to the list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0051.html. Any change requests?

[ None ]

Announcements

AB: any short announcements for today? The LC for TEv1 will be published today http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-Touch-Events-20110913/. Congratulations to everyone and thanks to the Editors!
... any other announcements for today?

Issue-19: Align initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit; feedback from Webkit community?

AB: last week we agree to close Issue-19 http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/19 and we said we would put it on today's agenda in case there was feedback to discuss.
... Laszlo isn't here today

… is there any activity on that bug?

DG: there was an e-mail from Anne van Kesteren

MB: I'll respond to that

… it also affects the v2 spec

AB: we will consider AvK's e-mail as a formal LC comment

… The Editors will need to track LC comments

… and there are various ways to do that

<scribe> ACTION: barstow discuss LC comment processing with the editors [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-63 - Discuss LC comment processing with the editors [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-20].

AB: anything else on this topic?

Targets of Touch Events; Cathy Chan on 7-Sep:

AB: Cathy submitted some comments about the targets of touch events http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0046.html

CC: the question was about touchcancel event

… it doesn't have as much info about targets

… so I was wondering if some additional text should be added

… perhaps more similar to touchend

MB: I agree those are good issues

… I suspect touchcancel should be similar to touchend

… We need to check what impls are doing

AB: so is there consensus the spec needs to change?

DS: yes, that seems reasonable to me

MB: I agree the spec needs to change

… before the spec is changed, we need to see what impls are doing

DS: I think that means we need an issue and action to check impls

<scribe> ACTION: cathy create an issue for the touchcancel question raised on Sept 7 2011 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-64 - Create an issue for the touchcancel question raised on Sept 7 2011 [on Cathy Chan - due 2011-09-20].

CC: the other question

… is about target of touchend

… is that the same element as touchstart

… One of the examples may need to be updated

AB: any comments?

MB: I haven't looked at Q1 yet

DT: I think the intention is a touchstart is needed

… We should check existing impls

<anders_hockersten> dropping in and out, will comment here instead

AB: should we consider Cathy's comments as LC comments?

DS: yes

<anders_hockersten> seems like it could be hard to make an implementation that can listen to just touchend, if it is supposed to also emulate mouse events

<anders_hockersten> but I haven't thought it fully through

AB: feels like we should record this as an issue

… and that people should respond to Cathy's email

… after they have read the mail and done some testing

MB: I agree, to create an issue

<anders_hockersten> +1

<scribe> ACTION: cathy create an Issue for Q1 of the Sept 7 comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-65 - Create an Issue for Q1 of the Sept 7 comments [on Cathy Chan - due 2011-09-20].

Testing Touch Events v1

AB: Some test cases for the TE spec have been created by Matt http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/file/923f5ba58a22/test
... do we know where the testing gaps? This would be "automatic" if the spec's assertions were marked accordingly.

… wondering about the size of the problem space

MB: for v1, the test cases I wrote were for single touch use cases

… we will need additional tests for multi touch

… e.g. when added or order of removd

… we also need to cover other attrs

… We probably have about 20-25% coverage now

… Thus the test cases will need to be roughly 3 times larger than what we have now

DS: traditionally, we separte simple things into small test files

MB: yes, I see some advantages of that for some features

DS: what about synthesizing events

MB: we could do that

<smaug> yikes

<smaug> meeting

… We may not agree on how to synthesize events

DS: ideally, some could be synthesized

… there are 4 diff event types

… If we had automated tests, we could generate a test for each type

… then a test for each attr

<mbrubeck> argh

<anders_hockersten> sound drops intermittently from voice bridge for me

<smaug> I need to find some empty room

<anders_hockersten> really bad at times (like when I was trying to say something) but generally the dropouts have been few and short

<smaug> my headset is somewhere in the hotel

MB: if we synth tests, we don't get much info about responses to real inputs

DS: one goal is to test the spec itself

… need to make sure it is implementable

… The other goal is to test true interoperablility

… For the 1st goal, I think some synth test make sense

… to test e.g. attrs

… 4 events with 7 attrs

MB: and there are lists too

DS: yes; also may have single or multiple items in the list

… need to test each create method

<smaug> that is me

DS: think this will give us about 50 tests t

… and they should be relatively straight forward to create

MB: sounds good
... the other thing about synth tests is they can get complicated if we remove init method

AB: need people to create test cases

… I don't think we should expect the Editors to do all of the work

… although they are certainly welcome to do so if they want to

AB: any ideas about determining who will test what

MB: first, we need to get more than 1 person writing tests

OP: I will probably write some test cases when reviewing a patch for multitouch

<Dzung_Tran> DT: I will help

AB: who else can commit to writing test cases

… Thanks Tran

… Is there something in particular Tran?

DT: I could look into multitouch

… if that is needed

MB: yes, but Olli is interested in that area too

… thus Tran and Olli should coordinate

AB: ok, so Tran and Olli can help. Anyone else?
... Doug, any additional thoughts or advice here?

DS: we should look closely at what the testing group is doing

… so that we leverage their work as much as possible

AB: and by "testing group", you mean what Doug?

DS: there was a WG proposed a while ago

… I'll drop a link

AB: we agreed months ago to leverage the testharness.js framework that is being used by WebApps WG, HTMLWG and others

<shepazu> http://www.w3.org/2011/05/testing-ig-charter.html

AB: anything else on testing for today?

<scribe> ACTION: Tran create multitouch test cases for the Touch Events spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - Create multitouch test cases for the Touch Events spec [on Dzung Tran - due 2011-09-20].

Intentional Events spec: status and plans

AB: the last time we discussed the group's so-called "Intentional Events" spec was June 7 http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-webevents-minutes.html#item07
... the WAI's Protocols and Formats is interested in this topic.
... Apple's James Craig has done some work http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html but that draft is more than a year old
... Doug, do you have an update on this? Wondering about the next steps?

DS: I am not aware of a newer spec

AB: do we need to talk off list about what to do next Doug?

DS: yes

<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Doug on next steps for the Intentional Events spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Work with Doug on next steps for the Intentional Events spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-20].

DS: I think there is some talk in the WAI about starting a new group for this area

Joystick API

AB: the RfC to add Joystick API to our charter ended 9-Sep http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0041.html. Given there were no objections, I will move forward with the formal re-chartering process.

<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Doug and PLH to add Joystick API to WebEvents' charter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-68 - Work with Doug and PLH to add Joystick API to WebEvents' charter [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-20].

MB: I talked to Mozilla's TedM

<smaug> I've asked ted to join this group

<mbrubeck> Ted wrote draft API spec at https://wiki.mozilla.org/JoystickAPI

AB: I presume Matt means Ted Mielczarek

<mbrubeck> he is willing to join the group, and might be pursuaded to help edit the spec

AB: ok, that's great to read Matt

<smaug> (this network can't handle hundreds of mozillians and their laptops and tablets)

<mbrubeck> As an aside, he wants to change the name to "game controller API" because apparently only old people still call them joysticks. :)

… I'll take an action to followup with Mozilla's AC rep to get Ted to join

DT: I have a question about rechartering

… will it be general enough so that other input devices can be added without chartering

… F.ex., a wheel - it works differently than a joystick

<anders_hockersten> brb redialing

SG: I agree with Matt that something like Game Controller may be a better name

DS: I agree we need to abstract about events

… but using "Game" could cause problems with getting some members to join

<smaug> Ted mentioned that he will probably change the name of the APi

SG: I envisioned wheels being included within the joystick API

… need to think about keeping scope limited

… so we can get spec done in a reasonable time

DS: D3E includes wheel

… We need to be careful about expanding the scope of the charter

… If anything, tighter scope will help us get more W3C Members to join the WG

… Think we should just include Joystick API

… and if we need a new API, then we add that explicitly

… That said, we can still talk about other things that are out of scope

… and other stuff may be better for a CG

AB: we need to be careful about any scope changes

… would prefer to just add 1 new deliverable

<anders_hockersten> I have to leave now. Have a nice <timezone-appropriate-time-of-day>!

… We also need to separate Touch Events into v1 and v2

AB: not sure about us having technical discussions about Joystick without it being in the charter

DS: if we keep the discussions high level, that should be ok

… and we all have to keep in mind we can't formally publish anything until its in the charter

AB: so what do we do next re Joystick?

… do we try to merge ...

DS: we could ask TedM to join us

… it may make sense to split the call into TE and Joystick halves

<smaug> I think joystick is perhaps such thing which could be handled mainly in mailing list

<smaug> since it may get lots of feedback from outside the group

<scribe> ACTION: barstow invite TedM to join us next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Invite TedM to join us next week [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-09-20].

Mouse Lock

<shepazu> Mouse Lock Specification Draft https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uV4uDVIe9-8XdVndW8nNGWBfqn9ieeop-5TRfScOG_o/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CM-dw7QG&ndplr=1

<shepazu> Vincent Scheib, Google

DS: for mouse moves

… and lock into an element

… can control viewport

… This has been a conversation on public-webapps

… Vincent's doc has a lot of reqs and use cases

… It may be appropriate to work on it in this WG

SG: I agree it makes sense to add it to this WG

… there are similar requirements to Joystick

DS: are there any objections to adding it to our charter?

AB: I need to review it

… Can you ask TV Raman before we start a RfC to add it?

DS: yes

<smaug> There are probably still security issues in the mouselock

<smaug> so, it needs to be reviewed that in mind

<scribe> ACTION: Doug ask TV Raman about Google's interest in adding Mouse Lock to WebEvents charter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Ask TV Raman about Google's interest in adding Mouse Lock to WebEvents charter [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-09-20].

AB: I'll start an RFC after we hear from Raman
... any concerns or voices of support for Mouse Lock?

DS: I'm not sure that "Mouse Lock" is the best name

… since it can work for other devices too

Any Other Business (AOB)

AB: any other topics for today?

<smaug> I'm not 100% sure the mouse lock API is exactly what we want, but atm I don't have any other proposal

AB: we should a call next week

… any objections?

AB: next call on September 20
... 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/thous/thus/
Succeeded: s/name/API/
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Default Present: +46.3.13.48.aaaa, scottmg, Art_Barstow, +1.206.697.aabb, mbrubeck, +46.3.13.48.aacc, anders_hockersten, Doug_Schepers, +1.503.712.aadd, lgombos, Olli_Pettay
Present: Art_Barstow Matt_Brubeck Anders_Hockersten Doug_Schepers Cathy_Chan Dzung_Tran Scott_Graham Laszlo_Gombos Olli_Pettay
Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0051.html
Found Date: 13 Sep 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-webevents-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow cathy doug invite plh tedm tran with work

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