See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 21 August 2012
AB: I posted a draft agenda on
... Given Ricks' regrets, I propose we drop item #4 "TouchEvent test results for Chrome". Any objections to that?
... if anyone has comments for Rick's data, please respond to the list
... Any change requests?
[ none ]
AB: any short announcements for today? I don't have any.
AB: last week, Matt sent an email
about the identifiedTouch method in TEv1
... the main issue here is the status of the implementation of the identifiedTouch method in the TEv1 Candidate.
... there may also be a sub-issue here about what we mean in the CR's so-called "exit criteria" where it says "... and two or more independent implementations must pass each test before the specification exits Candidate Recommendation".
... that is a common criteria and it means that each test must be correctly implemented by at least two implementations. It does Not mean that two or more implementations must pass Every test. There's a big difference.
... there were some followups
MB: that clarification on the exit criteria helps a lot
… that is, it may not be a problem
… especially since Rick indicated Chrome can implement this method
… As such, I think this well taken care of
AB: ok; that's good. Anyone
... is there a problem with RIM/BB impl?
MB: I was concerned about whether they were updating their impl
… but if we have another impl, that isn't a problem
AB: so, the conclusion then is that we expect at least two implementations of this method
… is that correct?
… We have Chrome potentially, and Gecko and Sangwhan indicated Opera would implement it
MB: yes, we're OK re at least two impls of this method
AB: last week Matt agreed to ACTION-96: "Make a list of remaining work needed to complete the v1 test suite" http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/96
… how is that going Matt?
MB: I haven't completed that yet
… I will work on that action this week
AB: if anyone wants to help Matt
with that action, please contact him
... anything else on v1 testing for today?
[ No ]
AB: last week Doug agreed to
ACTION-95: "Talk to Microsoft about PointerEvents vis-a-vis
TouchEvents v2; Doug Schepers" http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/95
... for references, see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh673557.aspx and http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh441233.aspx as well as the excellent blog by Scott https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ukTwVTYH2_2pxSwdwaJ_UqRwa2wqWL9JLI-MANER8BQ/edit?pli=1 that enumerates some of the advantages of the PointerEvent.
DS: I had some confidential discussions with Microsoft
AB: Boris Smus sent an e-mail to
about his Pointer.js work https://github.com/borismus/pointer.js.
... any comments about this work?
MB: this is a shim that wraps PointerEvents and TouchEvents
… I think Scott was talking about doing something similar in jQuery
… could make sense to work together
SG: yes, I can look into that
… appears to be more about native touch events
… would make sense to look at his implementation
DS: Boris mentions rallying around a single spec
… which makes a lot of sense
<mbrubeck> As Scott points out, it looks like pointer.js implements an API based on Pointer Events, by wrapping Touch Events and Mouse Events
AB: thanks for that clarification Matt
AB: Richard Creamer submitted comments about TEv2 spec http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0001.html
<mbrubeck> It dispatches its own "native" DOM events (unlike jQuery which would presumably provide normalized events only through its own library methods, and not directly on the DOM).
<scott_gonzalez> He's actually overriding HTMLElement.addEventListener()
MB: yes, these comments should be addressed for TEv1 plus work
AB: any other topics for
... next call ...
… a main task ahead is completing the test suite for the v1 spec
… and that probably doesn't require any meeting time
… So, the next call will be when we have something substantive to discuss
DS: agree we need to complete the test suite
… a meeting can help us maintain focus
MB: I'll try to keep the test suite moving forward
AB: I can reiterate I think we need the minimal test suite that can prove interoperability
AB: next call then when we have
something to discuss
... anything else?
... 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 Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Default Present: scott_gonzalez, Olli_Pettay, ArtB, mbrubeck, Doug_Schepers, Cathy Present: Art_Barstow Matt_Brubeck Scott_González Olli_Pettay Cathy_Chan Doug_Schepers Regrets: Rick_Byers Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0012.html Found Date: 21 Aug 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/21-webevents-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]