15:00:10 RRSAgent has joined #webevents 15:00:10 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/11-webevents-irc 15:00:15 RRSAgent, make log public 15:00:26 Scribe: Art 15:00:26 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:00:26 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0020.html 15:00:26 Date: 11 September 2012 15:00:26 Chair: Art 15:00:26 Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference 15:00:33 RRSAgent, make log Public 15:00:38 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:00:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/11-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:01:00 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has now started 15:01:07 +??P13 15:01:09 -??P13 15:01:10 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has ended 15:01:10 Attendees were 15:01:10 rbyers has joined #webevents 15:01:41 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has now started 15:01:49 + +358.718.00aaaa 15:01:58 +??P28 15:02:49 zakim, p28 is Rick_Byers 15:02:49 sorry, ArtB, I do not recognize a party named 'p28' 15:03:07 +??P32 15:03:41 Cathy has joined #webevents 15:03:43 Zakim, ??P32 is me 15:03:43 +sangwhan; got it 15:03:48 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Sangwhan_Moon 15:04:15 +Scott_González 15:04:16 argh 15:04:30 Present+ Scott_González 15:05:24 Topic: Tweak Agenda 15:05:31 AB: yesterday I submitted a draft agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0020.html. After I submitted the agenda, there was a short exchange between me and Rick re test results for TEv1 spec and if there are related follow-ups, we can discuss them during the Testing topic. 15:05:57 +[IPcaller] 15:05:58 AB: Any change requests? 15:06:16 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay 15:06:16 +Olli_Pettay; got it 15:06:19 ArtB: ^ 15:06:24 Present+ Olli_Pettay 15:06:30 I'm in a bad place without external mic 15:07:02 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 15:07:02 sorry, smaug_, I do not see 'smaug' on this channel 15:07:08 Zakim, nick smaug_ is Olli_Pettay 15:07:08 ok, smaug_, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay 15:07:18 Zakim, nick rbyers is Rick_Byers 15:07:18 sorry, rbyers, I do not see a party named 'Rick_Byers' 15:08:08 Topic: Announcements 15:08:12 AB: any short announcements for today (I don't have any). 15:08:24 Topic: Testing the Touch Events v1 Candidate 15:08:46 AB: so, the general topic is "what must be done to complete a test suite for the TEv1 Candidate?" http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-touch-events-20111215/. There are also a few sub-topics I want to discuss. 15:09:00 AB: re the existing tests ... 15:09:08 AB: yesterday I did a line-by-line review of Matt's single-touch tests http://w3c-test.org/webevents/tests/touch-events-v1/submissions/Mozilla/. 15:09:18 AB: I think they are all good tests. I was pleasantly surprised by the coverage because the report says 17 tests are run but depending on how one counts, that file includes over 40 assertions. 15:10:13 AB: some related sub-topics are: 1) how does the group comes to consensus on the "goodness" of a test?; and 2) how are "good/approved" tests designated as such? 15:10:40 AB: the WebApps and HTML WGs handle these two issues by having an explicit "Call for Review" (CfR) for tests with a fixed period. If no negative comments are submitted, the tests are copied to an "approved" directory (f.ex. http://w3c-test.org/webapps/DOMCore/tests/approved/). I'd say that process work "reasonably well". 15:11:44 AB: I think we're going to need something like this 15:11:49 AB: any comments on how we should address these two issues? 15:12:38 AB: an advantage is that it is lightweight 15:12:49 … and I'm willing to do the admin stuff 15:12:57 AB: any comments? 15:13:02 would be really nice to get tests also from others than just Mozilla 15:13:11 … hearing none, I propose we adopt a similar model 15:13:28 q+ how to get others to submit tests 15:13:58 AB: any objections to WebEvents adoptiong a similar test approval process? 15:14:02 [ None ] 15:14:07 RESOLUTION: WebEvents will use the same test case approval process that is used by the WebApps and HTML WGs 15:14:16 AB: I can start a CfR for the single-touch tests and a separate CfR for Olli's multi-touch tests. How much time do people need? 15:14:57 RB: I already worked reviewed them 15:15:34 SM: the process is a bit different than what we use 15:15:40 … so that is my objection 15:15:49 it varies how many tests one test file actually has 15:16:03 I mean, it varies in webapps too 15:16:24 SM: it's not really an objection 15:16:40 … I may be able to reuse some of Opera's tests 15:16:49 IIRC multi-touch.html was mainly as an example how to add tests for multitouch 15:16:51 … and that can take some unpredictable amount of tests 15:17:12 RB: but those are two different issues (reviewing existing tests and submitting new tests) 15:17:18 … I'd like to submit some too 15:17:25 SM: yes, I guess you're right 15:17:37 AB: any objection to two week review for the existing tests? 15:17:43 [ None ] 15:18:09 AB: I can start a CfR for the single-touch tests and a separate CfR for Olli's multi-touch tests; two week review period 15:18:53 AB: so Olli, are you OK with starting a CfR for the mulit-touch tests? 15:19:01 I don't think that is needed 15:19:12 IIRC sangwhan or someone was going to write more tests 15:19:25 based on the multi-touch.html test 15:19:30 AB: so Olli, you mean they aren't ready for review? 15:19:52 SM: I'd like to convert our tests to testharness.js 15:19:59 … but I don't have approval for that yet 15:20:22 ArtB: multi-touch.html is ok, but we may want to split the tests differently 15:20:31 I mean, to more files 15:21:21 RB: I think talking about organization make sense 15:21:22 sounds quite nice 15:22:32 Question on test organization seems coupled to the question of whether the test suite will be manual-only 15:22:45 If so, organizing to minimize the number of manual steps required seems critical 15:22:56 AB: yes, that make sense 15:24:20 AB: my recommendation is that we do a CfR for the multi-touch tests too and then reviewers can comment on whether or not it would be better to split the file until multiple files 15:24:27 my question "has any WG started using webdriver/selenium/watir?" was sort of related to the point that rick raised, in a sense that manual tests are no fun so either make a manual test test multiple things with minimal user interaction possible, or split everything up but do it in something like webdriver/selenium/watir to make tests less painful 15:24:39 AB: any objections to two CfRs now? 15:24:47 [ None ] 15:24:56 AB: so I'll start two different CfRs 15:25:06 webdriver/selenium etc don't work everywhere 15:25:19 that's true 15:25:26 AB: there is some work being done by the Browser Test Tools WG 15:25:36 … I don't follow that group closely 15:25:49 … but I can find out their status re WebDriver 15:26:07 ACTION: report on the status of WebDriver work by the Browser Test Tools WG 15:26:07 Sorry, couldn't find user - report 15:26:11 Right, I propose that the tests should always have the option of being run manually 15:26:22 ACTION: Barstow report on the status of WebDriver work by the Browser Test Tools WG 15:26:22 Created ACTION-97 - Report on the status of WebDriver work by the Browser Test Tools WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2012-09-18]. 15:26:25 so that we can test on any sort of browser / mobile device... 15:27:01 RB: want to make sure the tests can be run manually 15:27:07 … so can run on any mobile devices 15:27:12 AB: I agree 15:27:15 Fair point, yes 15:27:50 AB: we haven't really talked about basic principles or constraints or requirements re testing 15:28:00 … if someone wants to do so, that would be good 15:28:59 AB: so the next question is how many more tests are needed to test the CR? 15:29:09 AB: some gaps I noticed when reviewing single-touch are: the 3 methods that extend the Document interface http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-touch-events-20111215/#extensions-to-the-document-interface; cancelevent (could be hard to automate?); preventDefault 15:29:50 AB: I guess there is also Cathy's analysis to use 15:30:36 AB: how are we doing to determine "the test suite is done"? 15:30:52 ( multitouch case will need plenty of tests for various touch lists) 15:31:05 … that question could be a bit premature if people haven't yet reviewed what we do have 15:31:25 RB: one thing I am struggling with is the level of UA details 15:31:33 … e.g. preventDefault 15:31:46 … could be hard f.ex. to determine exact coordinates 15:31:54 AB: that's a good point 15:32:26 … and to extent I think that comes back to some previous discussions we've had regarding the level of depth testing we need to do 15:32:46 (Default handling is defined in the spec for certain cases, so there is stuff to test) 15:33:00 AB: do we have any volunteers to help us figure out a plan for the testing? 15:33:45 RB: I volunteer to review the spec (as I'm analyzing the existing tests) and note those areas that are not tested 15:34:01 … What do I do if I want to create some new tests/assertions? 15:34:08 would be nice to get patch files if one decides to also fix testcases, not only review them 15:34:36 AB: I would say bug fixes and smalll additions could be done directly 15:34:51 forking/branching is definitely a option, .patch is a option, committing directly to tip would be another option 15:34:55 … for more significant additions, a separate file may make more sense 15:35:41 AB: I'd say that people should make a recommendation 15:36:08 RB: ok, I'll take an action to create one test before the next meeting 15:36:20 ACTION: Rick create a new test case for the TEv1 spec 15:36:20 Created ACTION-98 - Create a new test case for the TEv1 spec [on Rick Byers - due 2012-09-18]. 15:36:56 SM: if the spec is underspecified re UA behavior, I'd like to hear about it 15:37:50 RB: for example the scrolling text in the touch event text leaves a lot of flexibility for UAs 15:39:03 RB: perhaps the test suite should just focus on the API and not UA behavior/semantics at all 15:39:10 AB: in general I agree 15:39:28 … and in that sense, the text as written today is "good enough" 15:40:39 AB: I'll ping Matt about his action related to "so, what test cases are missing from the v1 test suite" 15:40:56 AB: anything else for today on testing? 15:41:28 Topic: Encourage more consistent semantics of Touch.identifier? 15:41:42 AB: Rick started a thread about Touch.identifier http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0017.html. 15:42:05 AB: I think one of the main questions is if the spec is under specified re Touch.identifier and/or if should additional non-normative hints should be provided 15:42:39 RB: this came from a demo I wrote 15:42:51 … it showed colors are different from iOS and Adroid 15:43:14 … I used identifier to influence color 15:43:29 … Behaviour differences can be a problem though 15:43:40 … some people will consider this as a bug 15:44:06 … Re the spec, the existing text re identifier may be OK 15:44:12 … but we should talk about it 15:44:22 IMO the spec is clear enough. id is id, not any specific number. (Perhaps id should have been string) 15:44:25 … May want all of the implementations to do the same thing here 15:44:52 Is this related to a previous issue we had? - http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/15 15:45:00 SG: re Msft's PointerEvents, they reserve id 0 for the mouse 15:45:15 … all pointer events that come from the mouse have the same identfier 15:45:49 … SG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0018.html 15:46:20 RB: we could say id 0 is reserved 15:46:46 … So Matt raised this issue back in April 15:47:09 … Oh, this explains Chrome's behavior 15:47:14 I haven't seen any bug reports in Mozilla's bugzilla about this issue. Are there any in webkit's bugzilla or in Opera's bug database? 15:47:34 … and the spec was changed based on Matt's feedback 15:48:01 SM: I don't think FF will change its impl 15:48:56 s/FF/Safari/ 15:49:40 The main issue is that current implementations will probably not change based on a constraint that is introduced in the specification, namely the first implementation of touch events 15:49:45 AB: so what do you think Rick? 15:49:57 RB: I didn't realize a previous decision has been made 15:50:16 … I think we will probably mean we will change Chrome to match iOS 15:50:33 … Would like to hear from others 15:50:53 … Should we intentionally constrain impls here? 15:50:57 Opera does follow the algorithm that Matt mentions in the issue noted above, with a exception that the non-primary touch points will change identifiers, which is due to how we internally handle touch points 15:51:20 AB: there is needs to be a balance 15:51:28 … and need to reflect what's been implemented 15:51:34 sangwhan: what do you mean 'change identifiers'? It can't change while the touch point is active, right? 15:52:01 e.g. So first two touches will be [0,1] but the second will be [0,2] and the third with three touch points will be like [0,3,4] (I'm not testing this live, so that's just a idea) 15:52:07 Makes sense 15:52:33 SM: need to know the primary touch 15:52:59 … perhaps we can a small constraint re the primary touch should be 0 15:53:24 RB: should we put something in the spec that mobile Safari will never conform to 15:53:40 s/can a/can add a/ 15:53:50 SM: yeah, this is a tricky call 15:54:31 … if we add that small constraint, I don't think we will have a large interop issue 15:54:54 why you need to special case the "primary touch". Shouldn't that be [0] in the touch list 15:55:42 SG: if you have a "primary" touch, then a 2nd and then lift the first finger, the 2nd becomes the primary 15:56:15 AB: should we take this to the list? 15:56:50 RB: I think it would be OK to keep v1 as is and to consider this change for v2 15:56:56 … would that be OK? 15:57:01 AB: yes, that would be OK 15:57:01 arg 15:58:08 RB: I don't feel strongly enough about this to not change v1 at this point 15:58:29 Either way works for me (less editing, at least ;)) 15:58:48 AB: any additional followups should be done on the list 15:58:54 thanks 15:59:00 Topic: AoB 15:59:05 AB: any other business/topics for today? 15:59:11 -Olli_Pettay 15:59:16 AB: re next meeting ... 15:59:28 … I say in two weeks (CfRs will have been done) 16:01:37 -sangwhan 16:01:39 -??P28 16:01:39 -Scott_González 16:01:40 … meeting adjourned 16:01:43 - +358.718.00aaaa 16:01:45 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has ended 16:01:45 Attendees were +358.718.00aaaa, sangwhan, Scott_González, Olli_Pettay 16:14:24 zakim, bye 16:14:24 Zakim has left #webevents 16:25:04 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:25:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/11-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 17:25:32 rrsagent, bye 17:25:32 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/11-webevents-actions.rdf : 17:25:32 ACTION: report on the status of WebDriver work by the Browser Test Tools WG [1] 17:25:32 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/11-webevents-irc#T15-26-07 17:25:32 ACTION: Barstow report on the status of WebDriver work by the Browser Test Tools WG [2] 17:25:32 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/11-webevents-irc#T15-26-22 17:25:32 ACTION: Rick create a new test case for the TEv1 spec [3] 17:25:32 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/11-webevents-irc#T15-36-20