Web Events WG Voice Conference

10 Jan 2012


See also: IRC log


Art_Barstow, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck, Olli_Pettay, Suman_Sharma


<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 10 January 2012

Tweak Agenda

AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JanMar/0001.html. Cathy sent regrets and asked that her topic be deferred. We won't do a deep dive but I'll take some general comments.
... any other change requests?


AB: any short announcements for today?

Status of PAG re Apple's patent disclosures for Touch Events v1 spec

AB: Doug, what is the status of the PAG for Apple's patent disclosures http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/45559/status#current-disclosures?

DS: we are discussing timing for the PAG

… I think we need to start a PAG

… think it will be started before the end of the month

… perhaps within a week or two

AB: any questions for Doug?

<mbrubeck> http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/WebCore/WebCore-7533.20.24/dom/TouchEvent.idl

DS: it is possible for us to use a different touch model e.g. what Microsoft implemented

AB: there is also a proposal that Sangwhan said he would submit

DS: are other people open to the idea of using a different model?

… want to know if people would change their implementation

MB: I think we would be open to implementing another model

… I think the question is whether there would be other mobile vendors that would use it

OP: which windows model are you referring to Doug?

DS: WP 7

AB: yes, we would be interested in looking at other models

… having a RF standard for touch events is really important for the OWP

… Perhaps the PAG will ask the WG for alternate proposals

DS: I don't think the PAG should make such a request because it kinda means they have ruled the patents are applicable

… I think the WG should look for alternatives

AB: yes, good point

… is there an action for you or me or someone else?

DS: I think everyone should ask internally about this

AB: I agree

Strawman Touch Event proposal

AB: Sangwhan said he would submit an alternate Touch Event proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0151.html
... we won't discuss this today since Sanghwan isn't here

Touch events test assertions

AB: On December 21, Cathy announced http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0158.html her 1st draft at test assertions for the TEv1 spec http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions
... I don't want to do a deep dive today without Cathy present but we can take some general comments
... I haven't looked at Cathy's work in detail

<smaug> "503 Service Unavailable"

Test directory structure

AB: in December, I proposed we follow the test directory structure used by WebAppsWG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0160.html. Our scenario is a little bit different because we are using the webevents Hg root http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents for both specs and tests, whereas WebApps only puts tests in its Hg root http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps and its specs have their own Hg root.
... any comments on the proposed structure?

MB: looks OK to me


DS: looks fine to me

<scribe> ACTION: barstow implement the testing directory structure proposed in December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Implement the testing directory structure proposed in December [on Arthur Barstow - due 2012-01-17].


AB: any other topics for today?
... what's that status on the IndieUI WG charter, Doug?

… it would be good to start work on the Intentional Events spec

DS: I'm not sure but will look into it

… and I'll send an update to the list

AB: excellent

DS: I agree with Art that it would be good to get something going on that spec

AB: let's plan to have a call next week

… and I'll cancel if there aren't sufficient topics

DS: are we still going on with tests or waiting for the PAG?

AB: one topic for next week is Cathy's test assertion table

… and I presume that should give us a better sense of the set of tests needed for the TEv1 spec

… So, I think we should continue with tests

DS: yeah (agree)

AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: barstow implement the testing directory structure proposed in December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/01/10 16:39:43 $

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)

Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Present: Art_Barstow Doug_Schepers Matt_Brubeck Olli_Pettay Suman_Sharma
Regrets: Cathy_Chan
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JanMar/0001.html
Found Date: 10 Jan 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-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]