16:01:57 RRSAgent has joined #webevents 16:01:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/06-webevents-irc 16:02:04 RRSAgent, make log public 16:02:11 Zakim, aabb is me 16:02:11 +Cathy; got it 16:02:15 ScribeNick: ArtB 16:02:15 Scribe: Art 16:02:15 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JanMar/0023.html 16:02:15 Date: 06 March 2012 16:02:15 Chair: Art 16:02:15 Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference 16:02:22 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:02:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/06-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:03:51 + +358.718.00aacc 16:03:55 zakim, who's here? 16:03:55 On the phone I see +1.717.578.aaaa, Cathy, +358.718.00aacc 16:03:56 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Cathy, ArtB, scottgonzalez, mbrubeck, timeless, trackbot, shepazu, lgombos 16:04:07 Zakim, aaaa is me 16:04:07 +scottgonzalez; got it 16:04:11 +Doug_Schepers 16:04:19 + +1.206.792.aadd 16:04:23 Zakim, aadd is me 16:04:23 +mbrubeck; got it 16:05:03 Zakim, who is here? 16:05:03 On the phone I see scottgonzalez, Cathy, +358.718.00aacc, Doug_Schepers, mbrubeck 16:05:04 trackbot has joined #webevents 16:05:05 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Cathy, ArtB, scottgonzalez, mbrubeck, timeless, shepazu, lgombos 16:05:09 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck, Scott_Gonzalez 16:05:20 Zakim, who is making noise? 16:05:30 mbrubeck, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: scottgonzalez (25%), +358.718.00aacc (100%) 16:05:33 Zakim, aacc is Art_Barstow 16:05:33 +Art_Barstow; got it 16:05:41 Topic: Tweak Agenda 16:05:45 Zakim, nick ArtB is Art_Barstow 16:05:45 ok, mbrubeck, I now associate ArtB with Art_Barstow 16:05:46 AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JanMar/0023.html. After that, Scott González posted a link to some work he has done and I'd like to add that to the agenda. 16:05:56 AB: any objections to adding that topic? 16:06:12 -Cathy 16:06:20 DS: that would be great 16:06:30 +Cathy 16:06:34 AB: ok, so we'll do that and add it right after Annoucements 16:06:44 AB: any other change requests for the agenda? 16:06:51 Topic: Announcements 16:06:57 AB: any short announcements for today? 16:08:02 MB: I will represent Mozilla in the PAG 16:08:07 AB: that's excellent Matt 16:10:47 Topic: Touch Events and MSPointer Events 16:10:56 AB: yesterday, Scott mentioned the work he has been doing comparing our Touch Events with MSPointer Events http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JanMar/0024.html. 16:11:32 SG: I'm working on normalizing pointer events in jQuery 16:11:44 … one of the things I noticed is the divergence in touch events 16:12:09 … My doc compares the two approaches 16:12:16 … includes the pros and cons 16:12:26 … I haven't found anyone using MSPointer 16:12:32 … I list the technical diffs 16:12:41 … both support multiple points 16:13:06 … I assume there are UCs for knowing if >1 touch occurs at the same time 16:13:39 … If anyone knows of some UCs for this, it would be good to know 16:13:56 … Both systems allow getting a list of the touches 16:14:13 … have to start from an event object in both cases 16:14:26 q+ 16:14:31 … If only care about 1 touch at a time, MSPointer is a bit easier 16:14:56 … With Touches, need to go to the list so a bit cumbersome 16:15:19 DS: would you please distinguish these two as Webkit versus IE models? 16:15:28 SG: yes, I can do that 16:15:42 SG: in webkit have the touch arrays 16:15:50 … and from there can get the touch point data 16:15:59 … In IE model, the data is directly on the Event 16:16:10 … because the data is always for a specific pointer 16:16:35 … In IE will get 2 events: 1 for the first finger and a second event for the 2nd touch 16:17:29 SG: WK model has no concept of hovering 16:17:40 … at least not built in 16:17:51 MB: in the v2 spec, we added enter and leave events 16:17:59 SG: the IE model does support hovering 16:18:20 … IE normalizes all pointer events into a MSPointer event 16:18:29 … so they do have a concept of hover 16:18:45 … a bit cumbersome though with touch, especially with a stylus 16:19:15 … Don't have full hover but that's probably a h/w limitation 16:19:29 DS: yes, I agree that's probably a hardware limitation 16:19:42 SG: MSPointer does have some future proofing 16:19:52 … i.e. it is easy to add new pointer devices 16:20:12 … currently supports pen, stylus, mouse and such but can add new devices 16:20:36 … Need to document more about the interaction with mouse events 16:21:42 … When devs are writing custom code for gestures, the data is async 16:22:02 … f.ex. for a swipe, need to know direction, and perhaps some other things 16:22:24 … This now requires a lot of custom code 16:22:34 … because may want to prevent the native handling 16:22:52 … Need some UCs from developers and the issues they are running into 16:23:16 AB: any comments, questions? 16:23:38 DS: thanks for the summary and mentioning pain point 16:23:55 … Do you have a sense of the +/- of both models? 16:24:21 SG: I've built an abstraction around mouse, pointer, touch 16:24:32 … I tend to think MSPointer is easier to work with 16:24:40 … Don't have to walk thru any arrays 16:25:01 … So I think it is a bit nicer but I haven't built anything advanced yet 16:25:39 DS: would it be possible to get some members of jQuery community to give us some feedback 16:25:48 … re both models i.e. the +/- of each 16:26:01 SG: yes, I think I can get some of that info 16:26:22 … i.e. try to find what people like and the pros and cons of each (IE vs. Webkit) 16:26:31 … I don't think the WK model is intuitive 16:26:41 … but people are now used to it 16:27:00 … When they then switch to MSPointer, there is a learning curve 16:27:16 … and that's unfortunate but the reality developers must face 16:27:49 SG: going back to the drawback to both models, that affects mouse 16:27:59 … cause probs f.ex. with text selection 16:28:16 s/cause probs/causes problems/ 16:28:39 DS: I have seen some comments about IE model being more amenable to an app that works across devices 16:29:18 … can start with one touch and then extend 16:29:52 SG: if there was a generic pointer event could stop using mouse 16:30:07 … one model would indeed be ideal 16:30:30 DS: I started down that path with D3E and touch events 16:30:43 … but we decided to do touch in a separate spec 16:31:11 SG: if we had a standard similar to pointer, an abstraction over Webkit would make sense 16:31:19 Mozilla also had a separate-event-per-pointer model before implementing the WebKit/W3C model: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Touch_events_%28Mozilla_experimental%29 16:31:25 … and we could then add something like that to jQ 16:32:15 MB: Mozilla implemented our own Touch API for Windows 16:32:24 … like MSPointer event uses one event per touch 16:32:33 … it doesn't have getTouch method 16:32:44 … which is a good addition 16:32:55 … if the app needs to know the number of touch points 16:32:58 q+ 16:33:02 … With IE can get that data 16:33:21 DS: we had proposed something like that for the keyboard model [D3E] 16:33:50 … if we were going to do something like that, would probably make sense to have methods to get all touches and another to get all keys pressed 16:34:38 s/getTouch/getPointerList/ 16:34:42 AB: what do we do with this information and what specific follow-on action(s) are there? 16:35:10 DS: I think Scott agreed to do followup on the +/- of both approaches 16:41:36 q- 16:42:51 DS: I just want to be clear that this IP issue means that some touch event libraries can also be affected 16:44:28 AB: I've been wondering how widely known is this IP disclosure 16:44:44 SG: I think most people think there is a touch standard 16:44:56 s/most people/most web developers/ 16:45:31 … a lot of confusion about what's going on and the state of the TE spec 16:46:55 SG: we will not abstract to MSPointer because it is not a standard 16:47:09 … and we will not normalize to W3C Touch Events because of the PAG 16:47:35 … However, if the PAG says that is OK, then that is good 16:47:47 … and then we can abstract on top of the TE spec 16:47:58 … but we won't do that until the PAG is clear here 16:49:16 SG: jQuery won't release a normalization layer if the feature is not a standard 16:49:30 … because to do so is bad for the Web 16:49:37 … We want to focus on standards 16:49:51 … and to help the W3C 16:50:43 DS: thanks for that information Scott 16:51:13 … it's good to know a standard is mandatory to be considered for a normalization layer 16:54:17 Topic: Update on Touch Events PAG 16:54:36 AB: the Touch Events PAG http://www.w3.org/2012/01/touch-pag-charter has now met twice and the minutes are Member-confidential https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-te-pag/ 16:54:44 AB: I'll give a brief summary of the status but we will *not* talk any specifics about the IP Apple disclosed 17:02:33 Topic: AoB 17:02:53 AB: any other topics for today? 17:03:03 AB: re the next call, it will be scheduled when needed 17:04:11 AB: meeting adjourned 17:04:31 -Doug_Schepers 17:04:32 -Cathy 17:04:32 -scottgonzalez 17:04:40 -Art_Barstow 17:04:45 -mbrubeck 17:04:46 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has ended 17:04:47 Attendees were +1.717.578.aaaa, +1.781.266.aabb, Cathy, +358.718.00aacc, scottgonzalez, Doug_Schepers, +1.206.792.aadd, mbrubeck, Art_Barstow 17:04:49 RRSAgent, make minutes 17:04:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/06-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 17:05:40 ArtB: What time is today's PAG meeting? 17:05:50 mbrubeck: 3pm EST 17:06:11 okay. I haven't got ahold of dbaron yet; I need to figure out if he's working today 17:06:18 mbrubeck: ok, thanks 17:06:29 I guess it's still early 17:20:37 zakim, bye 17:20:37 Zakim has left #webevents 17:40:02 rrsagent, bye 17:40:02 I see no action items