Web Events WG -- 01 Nov 2011

<ArtB> Scribe: Art

<ArtB> Date: 1 November 2011

<Josh_Soref> Scribe: Josh_Soref

RRSAgent: draft minutes

Charter

http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html

http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html#out-of-scope

Pub Status

ArtB: the only spec we've been working on is the "Touch Events Spec"

<AB> AB: publication status http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/PubStatus

AB: the group decided to fork the spec into Version 1 (codifying what's deployed in WebKit + Mozilla + Opera) and Version 2 (for features that are not yet implemented)
... Touch Events v 1 LC ends Nov 17
... we don't expect many comments
... and we'd then publish in December
... matt b of mozilla has written some tests

[ Introductions ]

Proposed Charter Changes

PH: we have comments on the charter!

AB: The gist of the proposal are two specs that we want to have sole ownership of: Mouse Lock, and Game Controllers
... and another which we want to have joint ownership of
... Mouse Lock is a proposal from the Chrome team to enable Games using HTML5 APIs
... They contributed their initial draft and it's in the hg repo
... But there hasn't been official discussion and we don't plan to do so until the charter is updated
... There's work by Mozilla on a Joystick API, and Google has done work as well
... they've agreed to coedit a Gamepad API
... we just need AC approval before we start working on it formally

DS: There are 4 conceptual levels of events
... physical, gestural, representational, intentional
... When I touch the screen, what is the event that is triggered by that action
... that's representational
... and then there's "what did the user intend to do"
... that's intentional (the Use Case)
... the gestural is somewhat between physical and representational
... gestural is one or more physical actions that together become a representational event
... for instance a double tap
... the mapping between physical and representational is different for every device

AB: The User Action Events (often called "Intentional Events")
... has been in scope for a while
... but we haven't made much progress on it
... James Craig of Apple has a draft spec
... and we were working to codify that relationship
... PF doesn't want to take ownership of that Spec

<ArtB> AB: DRAFT Charter for Intentional Events WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/08/intentional-events-charter#deliverables

AB: Instead, there's a proposal for a new WG solely for that Spec
... And Web Events would be a Joint deliverable with that WG
... And IP commitments on that Spec are only for that individual Spec (from people in either Group)
... We'll meet with the PF people in Ponderossa to talk about Intentional

DS: The Intentional Events WG will probably change its name
... There's also something called Web Intents
... which is totally unrelated

Other Charter Proposals

DS: there have been people who asked about adding MIDI to the charter of this group
... JA had asked about whether it matters whether something is connected or not
... there's also the DAPI (DAP) WG
... MIDI and Game Controllers unlike classic Mice are bidirectional
... e.g. Game Controllers vibrate

AB: As of yesterday, only Google has expressed formal interest of MIDI
... last night ETRI expressed an interest in MIDI

<ArtB> …. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0091.html

JS: Haptic will run into DAP

DS: MIDI has the potential to run into Audio

AB: I asked Chris Wilson of Google to mention his MIDI proposal on the public list

SW: The problem with the ETRI proposal is that a lot of the items mentioned can be grouped by category
... trackball, I haven't seen a device where user agents can capture raw inputs from the controller
... either way, I don't think expanding the number of devices in the user agent will help in the long run
... it just increases complexity, implementation cost, and reading / code use for developers
... trackball has 2 or 4 axes but normally looks like a mouse
... wimote is really two controllers
... - a camera that captures IR light
... - an accelerometer which conflicts with the Geo WG

<ArtB> ACTION: barstow respond to ETRI's Expanding Target Input Devices proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/01-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-86 - Respond to ETRI's Expanding Target Input Devices proposal [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-08].

SW: in theory, that should be two specs
... and neither should be in our WG
... Gesture in their proposal is really camera recognition

AB: The charter as currently structured would exclude that form of Gesture

SW: I don't think computer vision should be covered in this charter

DS: My main concern is
... we want our group to be tightly scoped
... so we can accomplish our deliverables in a timely fashion
... and we want to be friendly to organizations to enable them to join and provide their experience
... and I don't want to add things where we don't have editors
... I want a tightly run group so we can achieve our deliverables

AB: I'm opposed to adding a deliverable without two vendors committed to implementing

<ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned

- DRAFT -

Web Events WG

01 Nov 2011

Attendees

Contents

Charter

Pub Status

Proposed Charter Changes

Other Charter Proposals

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output