See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 27 September 2011
<ted_> zakim: nick ted_ is Ted_Mielczarek
<ssharma2> aaaa is ne
<ssharma2> Suman Sharma
AB: I submitted a draft agenda on
Any change requests? I think it makes sense to combine Issue-21
and Issue-22 as one topic. We can talk about charter update
... any change requests for the agenda?
AB: reminder our f2f meeting at
the annual TPAC meeting week is November 1 and the registration
deadline is October 14
... if we do meet that day - and at the moment it is not clear if we will need to meet - it will only be in the morning (09:00-12:00 SFO time zone) and we will have a voice conference bridge for remote attendees.
... there is no requirement to come to the f2f meeting
... we have Suman joining us from Intel
SS: I work for Intel
… my group is interested in home related standards
… I attend other standards meeting
… f.ex. Khronos
DS: welcome; nice to have you on board
… it would be good to have a Khronos connection
Suman: I will definitely help as needed
AB: are you in same group as Tran?
Suman: no, he is in PC group
AB: welcome to the group!
… I have an action related to following up with Khronos so I'll contact you about that
AB: any other announcements for today?
DS: I published a new draft of the charter
… that includes Mouse Lock and Gamepad
AB: we will take that during AoB. Thanks!
AB: reminder that October 11 is
the comment deadline for the TE v1 LCWD http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20110913/.
We are doing a good job of addressing comments as they come in
(i.e. not waiting until after the comment deadline).
... one administrivia issue is the LC Comment tracking document. I propose using a wiki http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0058.html . Any objections to that?
DS: why not use tracker?
AB: I find wiki easier
AB: I don't object to using Tracker
… but if we agree to use a wiki I'll take an action to create it and seed it
AB: any objections to using a wiki?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow create a wiki to track comments for the TE v1 LCWD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/27-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-76 - Create a wiki to track comments for the TE v1 LCWD [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-10-04].
AB: Issue-19: Align
initTouchEvent parameters with Webkit; any feedback from Webkit
... I note Laszlo isn't here today
… Does anyone know if there has been any related discussion by the Webkit community?
AB: we will continue this next meeting ...
AB: Issue-23 is a result of
comments from Anne http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/23
... we talked about this last week and agreed then to keep initTouchEvent method in v1 http://www.w3.org/2011/09/20-webevents-minutes.html#item03. Since then, Matt and Anne had some followups http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0077.html
<shepazu> agend+ IE10 Touch support https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/09/20/touch-input-for-ie10-and-metro-style-apps.aspx
AB: so where are we with this?
MB: Anne thinks there is no good reason to include initTouchEvent in v1
… I tend to agree with him
… I know Doug and Olli want to keep it
… I think we others to reply to Anne
… I didn't need it for my tests
DS: Matt, are your tests manual?
… or automatic
MB: they are manual
DS: previous feedback is that we want to move to automatic tests if possible
<mbrubeck> I think even if we do write automated tests, they will be very limited in what they can test.
DS: is there an analog in existing impls?
DS: does WK have initTouchEvent today?
MB: yes, it does
… although WK's interface is different then the LCWD
… it includes some additional params
DS: and you don't think they will change their behavior?
MB: we are still waiting for feedback from the WK community
DS: I understand the approach
… but I also am concerned their is a widely implemented replacement, I have reservations about removing it
… I don't want to stand in the way
AB: would this mean TE v1 spec would have a dependency on DOM4?
DS: not necessarily
… we could just define initializer/constructor that exists in DOM4
… because DOM4 isn't likely to be done for a couple of years
… and if DOM4 then changes, we can make a revision
… I think future specs will match the more general behavior
… It would mean we need to go back to LC, I think
… Do you agree Matt?
MB: it would significantly lengthen the time to get v1 to REC
… We want to move fwd with a constructor we need for testing and will then deprecate it
DS: I think it can be used for other purposes
MB: it has been in WK since 2007 but I have seen no code in the wild that uses it
… If someone has some data shows it is being used, I'd like to see it
… ATM, only Gecko follows the spec
DS: does anyone else have an opinion?
<smaug> here we have a test using initTouchEvent :p http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/events/test/test_bug648573.html?force=1#60
MB: if we want to take v1 fwd to match existing impls
[ Scribe missed some stuff so we pause while Matt enters his comments in IRC … ]
<mbrubeck> then we have two options: specify initTouchEvent as implemented in WebKit (with WebKit-only gesture parameters, etc.), or leave it out of v1.
<mbrubeck> If we are willing to wait longer on making v1 a Recommendation, then we have more options.
DS: it would mean we would need to back to LC (if the function is removed)
… we kinda' knew that
… as we talked about it before
… The 2nd LC would only be 3 weeks
… I think we need a discussion on the list
… Some people may object to us not having a constructor at all
… We don't want to keep bouncing back and forth
AB: I agree we need more discussion on the list
… do we need a new thread? or can we use the thread with Anne?
DS: we need to be clear about our proposal
… so we get a sense if there will be any objections
… We need to be clear on why we want to remove it
… and the implications of doing so
AB: would be good if someone could start a thread about this
… Are there any volunteers?
MB: I can respond on the ongoing thread
… I know Olli may have some feedback
… As well as others
OP: we need something for testing
MB: another question is how imp is it to finalize v1 as a REC as soon as we can?
… if we are willing to take longer, we aren't as constrained by existing impls
DS: I'd like to go REC as soon as we can
MB: why is that Doug?
DS: the patent commitments don't start until a spec reaches REC
… and that gives implementers more "confidence" re the patent risks
… but we also understand some implementers don't care about patent issues
… Some members want specs to proceed as chartered
… It would show we can make progress on something
… which is good for setting expectations
MB: ok; got it
AB: as a wrap up for today, Matt agreed to respond on the list
… is there anything else for this today?
… I think this is the most critical issue that has been so far
… So we need to think it through and get feedback
DS: removing eliminates two issues
… the Issue Laszlo has with his WK patch
… and might stop us from having to do the deprecation of initTouchEvent
… Certainly for v2 we need a more solid constructor function
… And doing the removal would get us to REC faster
AB: Issue 21 is "Description of
touchcancel event is missing some details" and it originates
from one of Cathy's LC comments http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/21
. Matt and Cathy have related Action-72 and Action-73 http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/72
... Issue 22 is "Does an element have to also register for touchstart event in order to receive touchend/touchmove events" http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/22 and Cathy has related Action-72 http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/72
... yesterday Cathy submitted proposed text to address both of these issues http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0083.html.
... the proposal is to change text in 4 sections.
MB: I haven't looked at the proposal yet
CC: there are two issues
… touchcancel description is missing some details
… to address this, I suggest a change to some existing text
… and also add a new paragraph in section 5.7 (touchcancel event)
… I also propose changing touchend and touchmove text to clarify
… (those are the 2nd and 3rd changes in my email)
AB: any comments?
… please review Cathy's proposed changes and send comments to the list
MB: at a first glance, they look good to me. Thanks Cathy!
DS: yes, thanks Cathy
AB: do we want to set a deadline for comments and if there are no comments, we consider them acceptable?
DS: yes, that's fine by me
AB: I propose then that if no one raises any issues by 12:00 Boston time on Friday Sept 30, we consider the changes acceptable
… any objections to that?
[ None ]
AB: Cathy agreed to make the changes if that's OK.
… Is that agreeable?
DS: fine with me
MB: ok with me
AB: Olli reported on the list he hasn't done action-74 so we'll skip this topic today
AB: re adding Gamepad API and
Mouse Lock API to our charter, Doug has a Draft charter that
includes these two APIs http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html.
... thanks Doug!
… Did you make any changes to section 1.?
DS: yes, to add Lock and Gamepad, I needed to create some subsections
… so the Touch Interfaces is now its own section (1.1)
… I added the new specs to the Deliverables section
AB: any comments?
... this looks great
<scottmg> I had a quick read, looks good to me
… the Intentional Events is missing from the Deliverables
DS: until we get something from P&F WG, not sure we have anything to add
… I'll need to talk to them
AB: this is an interesting question
… don't think we need to block re Intentional Events
DS: I'll add it to deliverables
Suman: re games, what about depth camera?
DS: that is out of scope
… we need to be careful about adding specs in areas where there are patent concerns
… since that can prevent some Members from joining this WG
… And I would like to get more Members involved
Suman: ok; thanks for that information
… A lot of the important players are small and not W3C Members
DS: other than IP concerns, I think we should also try to keep a relatively narrow focus
Ted: yes, I agree with keeping the scope relatively narrow
DS: we also don't want to add deliverables without editors and a draft spec
… we can also recharter at some other time e.g. 6 months from now
… Let's talk about depth offline
AB: I'll respond and ask people to send comments
… what is next?
DS: I need to get some internal W3C review
… I can try to expedite the review
AB: I would like the AC review of the charter to start before the AC meeting on Nov 1
DS: I'll work toward getting an AC review as soon as I can
AB: anything else on the charter?
DS: Microsoft has implemented some touch intentional events
DS: it's unfortunate they didn't participate in our Touch Events spec
… I think there will be some interop issues
… It's simple but perhaps too simple
… They did prefix their events
… Perhaps later we can converge
AB: I think that gives us an
action to followup with Microsoft
... next call is October 4, if there is sufficient topics.
... 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) Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art_Barstow Cathy_Chan Matt_Brubeck Ted_Mielczarek Olli_Pettay Suman_Sharma Doug_Schepers Regrets: Dzung_Tran Sangwhan_Moon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0082.html Found Date: 27 Sep 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/09/27-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]