See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 7 August 2012
<mbrubeck> //me having dialing trouble
AB: a draft agenda was sent to the list on August 6 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0005.html. I'm going to move the IndieUI TF status to announcements. Any change requests?
AB: the Touch Events PAG is now
The PAG recommended the WG continue with Touch Events v1 spec
... I want to mention that Matt Brubeck's input was invaluable to the PAG so a Very Big Thanks to Matt and thanks to Doug too for his work on the PAG!
... I appreciate their efforts!
... any questions/comments about the PAG?
... 2nd announcement: the IndieUI Task Force http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/IUITF has now had several calls http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Minutes.
... the Call for Proposals ended July 15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Jun/0012.html. Apple submitted an input for the Events spec http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html. IBM and others submitted an input for the Context spec http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Aug/0000.html.
<smaug_> argh, I can't join the call today
AB: it would be really good to get broader participation from others, especially browser vendors, and in particular Google, Mozilla and Opera.
RB: I've paying some attention
… want to get the Android team to participate
… there is some confusion re what scenarios are A11Y specific versus more general scenarios
MB: I haven't followed it yet
… I expect someone to follow when they have some time
AB: thanks for the updates
RB: would like to get something like gesture events
… I think there are some important scenarios that are missing from Apple's input
… Just looking at Apple's input, seems like it is more about A11Y
… If maninpuating using touch with scaling, then we will want to be involved
DS: the TF is coming from an accessibility perspective
… dealing with browser vendors and APIs isn't their "strong suit"
… they can learn from us and browser vendors and we can learn from them too
… Would be really valuable to have you (Rick) participate
… and start with UCs
RB: it's good to see a concrete proposal
… we will try to add our scenarios
AB: that would be great
... if you want to join the TF, please contact Doug
AB: a primary task now is to get
TEv1 out of CR http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html
and that means we need to complete the test suite and to get at
least two implementations to pass each test.
... first, what is the Implementation status?
RB: I believe Chrome on Windows and Chrome on ChromeOS have experimental builds
… Chrome on Android has supported it for a long time
… There could be some minor diffs
… but the intent is to be completely compliant to the spec (v1)
… If there are diffs, I would consider them as bugs
MB: the intent of v1 was to specifify what has actually be implemented
… if there were places where implementations differed, we intentionally did not specify that
… I haven't run our implementation against the spec recently
… but our intent is to comply with the spec and to change our impl to match the spec (if needed)
<rbyers> Details on Chrome support for touch events:
AB: did Opera implement TEv1?
<rbyers> Current builds on Windows and ChromeOS have touch support behind a flag (about:flags - 'Enable touch events'
MB: yes, Opera Mobile implements it
AB: the TE spec's test suite is http://w3c-test.org/webevents/tests/touch-events-v1/. We have submissions from Mozilla only.
<rbyers> On by default in Chrome 22 - going to beta mid-aug
AB: we also have the Touch events
test assertions tables that Cathy created http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions.
We discussed this data on January 17 http://www.w3.org/2012/01/17-webevents-minutes.html#item03.
... so there are questions about what needs to be done; who is going to do the work, etc.
DS: we are having a similar discussion in the Audio WG
… W3C is trying to do more about testing e.g. sharing resources across WGs
AB: are you hiring someone?
DS: yes, we are going to hire someone
… in the meantime, I can get PLH or MikeSmith to come and talk about the testing
MB: we added some tests to tip but did not merge them to v1 branch
… I can take an action to update the v1 branch
<scribe> ACTION: brubeck Merge touch event tests to v1 branch [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Merge touch event tests to v1 branch [on Matt Brubeck - due 2012-08-14].
RB: Matt, do you share tests between Mozilla and the WG's tests?
MB: the W3C tests are different than our tests
RB: Webkit has some related tests that could be used
MB: Webkit and Gecko tests aren't really focused on spec compliance
DS: we would like to change that i.e. to make sure our tests are directly usable by implementers
MB: we do import 3rd party test suites into our infrastructure
… f.ex. we do that with WebGL tests
… it should be possible to get W3C testharness tests to be ported to Gecko infra
… The tests we have were created as I wrote the spec
RB: wonder if some abstraction layer would be useful here
… Can we get one automated test?
… If so, then I can see if I can make it work in our test infra
DS: would like to make the tests automated
AB: in other WGs (e.g. WebApps and HTML), a "Test Facilitator" has been designated and they are "stewards" for the test suite. Any volunteers for that role?
MB: I have taking that role so I can do that
AB: thanks very much Matt!
MB: I think we have one test that passes on FF and Opera but fails on Webkit
RB: please send me the details
MB: I think we also have a test that only applies to v2
… so I need to fix that
… I just ran the tests we do have on 4 browser ;)
AB: so do we have a rough idea about how many more tests are needed?
DS: I suspect we only have a very small coverage right now
… we can look at what other groups are doing
… must go beyond feature testing
MB: we have one test file (single touch) that has 17 tests and about 30 test assertions
… we have a multi-touch test file too and it has several tests with more assertions
… I suspect we are about 25% of the way there
AB: given the v1 spec is mostly about documenting history, perhaps it would be acceptable to create a "minimalist" test suite
DS: I wouldn't object to that
RB: I can understand that but there is some risk
… we don't want implementations to miss important cases
… and thus have interop problems
… Touch is important now and will continue to be even more important
… so we need to do a good job with the test suite.
DS: as always, we need to also consider resource constraints
RB: agree there is a tradeoff
… If v2 is too slow to come out, the web will move on without us
DS: would like to get Microsoft to participate in v2
RB: yes, would like to get them to help with v2 too
<mbrubeck> Ahh, the identifiedTouch method is implemented by Gecko and by BlackBerry OS 6.0 (but not by Safari, Chrome, Opera, or Android)
DS: I have talked to Microsoft about participating
AB: I have talked to them too
DS: we need to review their work for v2
MB: yes agree but we need to be careful about IP issues
RB: would be nice to know why Microsoft won't participate
… could be lots of reasons
[ digression about W3C Patent Policy and licensing … ]
SG: the PointerEvents versus TouchEvents already creates a fork in the web
… If we could get Msft to participate, that would be great
… Otherwise, we can use a shim to normalize
DS: I can approach Microsoft again if people think that would be useful
RB: yes, I think so
AB: me too
RB: we have looked at PointerEvents
… like it more than TouchEvents
SG: yes, that's a good idea (for Doug to talk to Microsoft)
… If there is a shim, it would be easier to write once for PointerEvents rather than twice for TouchEvents
<mbrubeck> Yes, I think we should gather consensus and present it to Microsoft as an argument in favor of participation
<scribe> ACTION: doug Talk to Microsoft about PointerEvents vis-a-vis TouchEvents v2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Talk to Microsoft about PointerEvents vis-a-vis TouchEvents v2 [on Doug Schepers - due 2012-08-14].
RB: the PointerEvents model includes Gesture events
… can this WG go there i.e. gesture events?
DS: that raises some concerns for me
SG: Microsoft just changed their gestures
… added a new touch action
… can do custom gestures
… when I say "just changed", I mean June
AB: we have a couple of topics we
couldn't get to
... what about TEv1 tests?
MB: the action I took earlier isn't needed but I could take an action to determine what needs to be done
RB: I can take a look at the test suite
AB: if you have any comments Rick, please send them to the list
<mbrubeck> ACTION: mbrubeck Make a list of remaining work needed to complete the v1 test suite. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Make a list of remaining work needed to complete the v1 test suite. [on Matt Brubeck - due 2012-08-14].
AB: 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/minor tests/minor diffs/ Succeeded: s/good job/good job with the test suite/ Found Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Default Present: +1.519.513.aabb, +358.718.00aacc, Cathy, scott_gonzalez, +1.206.792.aadd, mbrubeck, rbyers, ArtB, Doug_Schepers Present: Art_Barstow Cathy_Chan Scott_González Rick_Byers Matt_Brubeck Doug_Schepers Regrets: Olli_Pettay Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0005.html Found Date: 07 Aug 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html People with action items: brubeck doug event mbrubeck merge talk tests touch WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]