IRC log of webevents on 2011-03-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:42 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #webevents

15:02:42 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc

15:02:49 [Barstow]

RRSAgent, make log public

15:02:59 [Barstow]

ScribeNick: ArtB

15:02:59 [Barstow]

Scribe: Art

15:02:59 [Barstow]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0084.html

15:02:59 [Barstow]

Date: 29 March 2011

15:02:59 [Barstow]

Chair: Art

15:03:00 [Barstow]

Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference

15:03:02 [Barstow]

Regrets: Anders_Höckersten

15:03:27 [Barstow]

Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck, Olli_Pettay, Sangwhan_Moon

15:03:47 [Barstow]

Topic: Tweak Agenda

15:03:52 [Barstow]

AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0084.html ). Re Action-10 agenda topic, I'd like to turn it into a more generic Testing topic.

15:04:34 [Barstow]

DS: would like to add http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0088.html

15:04:44 [Barstow]

... I haven't read it in entirety yet

15:05:01 [Barstow]

... one of my colleagues mentioned it [Chris Lilley]

15:05:14 [Barstow]

... The work is being done by an academic researcher

15:05:31 [Barstow]

... From what I can gather, seems similar to what I've been thinking

15:05:52 [Barstow]

... describes how to build up a gesture

15:06:04 [Barstow]

... It is a Gesture Description Language

15:06:12 [Barstow]

... Perhaps the author can work with us

15:06:52 [Barstow]

AB: let's take it as AOB today or if we can't get to it, talk about it on the list or add it to next week's agenda

15:07:08 [Barstow]

Topic: Issue-1 "Resolve touch area re. radius and angle"

15:07:15 [Barstow]

AB: Issue 1 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/1 ) is now in the Pending Review state. Matt included a proposed resolution in the issue and checked-in a fix "Updated the spec to include a rotationAngle attribute as suggested by Olli in ACTION-17: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/1ea45991d3e9".

15:07:47 [Barstow]

AB: is that about right Matt?

15:07:49 [Barstow]

MB: yes

15:07:56 [Barstow]

DS: would like a bit of an explanation

15:08:07 [Barstow]

MB: I added a new property to Touch interface

15:08:14 [Barstow]

... called rotationAngle

15:08:26 [Barstow]

... it is angle in degrees from 90 to -90

15:08:33 [Barstow]

... describes ellipse

15:08:35 [Dzung_Tran]

Dzung_Tran has joined #webevents

15:08:40 [Dzung_Tran]

Present+ Dzung_Tran

15:09:00 [Barstow]

DS: sounds fine to me

15:09:08 [Cathy]

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/tip/touchevents.html#attributes

15:09:11 [Barstow]

OP: would be good to get feedback from the Canonical people

15:09:34 [Barstow]

... I sent an email to the list but didn't a reply

15:09:49 [Barstow]

DS: we should definitely ask for feedback from them

15:10:12 [Barstow]

MB: one think I didn't do was to talk about things outside of the elliptical touch area

15:10:34 [Barstow]

... that is, I made the scope fairly limited

15:11:08 [Barstow]

AB: do people want some time to review this?

15:11:12 [Barstow]

CC: I have a question

15:11:20 [Barstow]

... the proposal is +90 to -90

15:11:32 [Barstow]

... that gives two different ways to represent the area

15:11:56 [Barstow]

... not sure if two representations of the area is a problem or not

15:12:08 [Barstow]

MB: that's a good point

15:12:26 [Barstow]

... other specs talk about Major and Minor rather than RadiusX and RadiusY

15:12:35 [Barstow]

... I'd be happy to look at any change proposals

15:12:45 [Barstow]

OP: SVG has areaX and areaY

15:13:03 [Barstow]

... using radiusX and radiusY to be consistent with SVG

15:13:22 [Barstow]

DS: again, I don't think that SVG consistency here is that important

15:13:30 [Barstow]

OP: but consistency would be good

15:14:05 [Barstow]

DS: don't think SVG compatibility here is that important

15:14:23 [Barstow]

... and SVG could change to be consistent with our spec

15:14:38 [Barstow]

OP: really think we need feedback from Canonical

15:14:48 [Barstow]

DS: re +/-90 degrees

15:15:06 [Barstow]

... how to detect rotation seems tricky

15:15:32 [Barstow]

... not clear what it is relevant to (point of ref)

15:16:16 [Barstow]

[ Scribe missed comment by MB ... ]

15:16:30 [Barstow]

DS: what if finger is offscreen and then orientation changes

15:16:40 [Barstow]

... does x, why change, does orientation change

15:16:48 [Barstow]

MB: a lot of things change in that case

15:16:55 [Barstow]

... including rX and rY

15:17:29 [Barstow]

DS: think we need to think about this

15:17:42 [Barstow]

AB: my conclusion is we need some more time

15:18:15 [Barstow]

... do we want a fixed review period

15:18:24 [Barstow]

... and if no comments, Matt's proposal is accepted

15:18:36 [Barstow]

DS: yes, think so; we don't need to be perfect with our early WDs

15:18:54 [Barstow]

AB: I propose people send comments during the next week

15:19:17 [Barstow]

... and if no one raises any concerns with Matt's proposal we consider it accepted

15:19:45 [Barstow]

Topic: Issue-7 "Targets for touch events: Elements or Nodes?"

15:19:51 [Barstow]

AB: Issue-7 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/7 ) Matt included a proposed resolution in the issue and checked in a fix that codifies a previous agreement.

15:20:35 [Barstow]

AB: I think Matt codifed last week's agreement; is that true?

15:20:36 [Barstow]

MB: yes

15:20:42 [Barstow]

AB: proposed resolution: Matt's fix for Issue-7 is accepted and the issue is Closed

15:20:54 [Barstow]

AB: any objections?

15:20:58 [Barstow]

[ None ]

15:21:03 [Barstow]

RESOLUTION: Matt's fix for Issue-7 is accepted and the issue is Closed

15:21:15 [Barstow]

ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to closed

15:21:15 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-26 - Move issue-7 to closed [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

15:21:27 [Barstow]

Topic: Issue-8 - initTouchEvent function

15:21:35 [Barstow]

AB: Matt Brubeck raised Issue-8 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/8 ).

15:22:00 [Barstow]

MB: we haven't specified how content scripts can create touch events

15:22:16 [Barstow]

... WebKit already has an impl of this proposal

15:22:38 [Barstow]

... it would require some new functions in the Document interface

15:22:56 [Barstow]

AB: any comments or feedback?

15:23:30 [Barstow]

MB: WebKit uses an interface called "Touch" whereas our spec uses "TouchPoint"

15:23:38 [Barstow]

... is that name diff intentional

15:23:49 [Barstow]

... or is it something we should change

15:24:04 [Barstow]

DS: I deliberately did not look at the WebKit docs

15:24:12 [Barstow]

... when I created my proposal

15:24:24 [Barstow]

... I think TouchPoint is more descriptive

15:24:33 [Barstow]

... and more intuitive

15:25:12 [Barstow]

... Our TouchPoint is a bit different

15:25:24 [Barstow]

... but it does mean we don't have an instant implementation

15:26:00 [Barstow]

AB: in terms of being able to write tests as we spec, having consistency here would be useful

15:26:15 [Barstow]

DS: I would like to hear from others

15:26:39 [Barstow]

SM: I think we should use different names

15:27:01 [Barstow]

... it would be confusing for us to use the same name if the interfaces are different

15:27:20 [Barstow]

MB: but the other two interfaces we define are the same as WebKit's names

15:28:02 [Barstow]

AB: we could do a 1-week Call for Consensus on the name

15:28:58 [Barstow]

DS: not so much about name but about are we mimicing WebKit

15:29:49 [Barstow]

ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names in the Touch API spec vis-à-vis what WebKit is used

15:29:49 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-27 - Talk to Laszlo about the interface names in the Touch API spec vis-à-vis what WebKit is used [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

15:30:07 [Barstow]

AB: is there agreement this is an issue

15:30:51 [Barstow]

MB: I think we should make Names a separate issue

15:31:06 [Barstow]

ACTION: barstow create an Issue for the Interface names

15:31:06 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-28 - Create an Issue for the Interface names [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

15:31:48 [Barstow]

AB: so is issue-8, now in Raised state, be move to Open?

15:31:53 [Barstow]

DS: yes

15:32:02 [Barstow]

AB: any disagreement

15:32:04 [Barstow]

[ None ]

15:32:12 [Barstow]

ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state

15:32:12 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-29 - Move issue-8 to Open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

15:32:24 [Barstow]

Topic: Issue-9 Interaction of touch events and mouse events

15:32:33 [Barstow]

AB: Matt also raised Issue-9 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/9 ) and there has been some discussion on the list ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0080.html )

15:33:32 [Barstow]

MB: the question is, what the spec should do related to mouse events and touch events

15:33:43 [Barstow]

... we have a bunch of input re existing impls

15:33:51 [Barstow]

... the impls vary in the order

15:34:02 [mbrubeck]

s/vary/agree/

15:34:09 [Barstow]

... Need to decide if we specify order or leave it to the implementation to decide

15:35:01 [Barstow]

SM: for our impl, interop is the main concern

15:35:39 [Barstow]

DS: I need to think more about it

15:36:45 [Barstow]

AB: from a process perspective, we can leave it in the Raised state

15:36:57 [Barstow]

... or if we agree it is an Issue, we can move it to the Open state

15:37:19 [Barstow]

... Sounds like we need to make a decision, as such, I propose we move it to Open

15:37:30 [Barstow]

AB: any objections to moving to Open state?

15:37:32 [Barstow]

DS: no

15:37:37 [sangwhan]

+1

15:37:42 [sangwhan]

(as in, no)

15:37:44 [Barstow]

ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state

15:37:44 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-30 - Move Issue-9 to the open state [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-04-05].

15:38:41 [Barstow]

Topic: Issue-6 Touch Targets in Frames

15:38:49 [Barstow]

AB: Issue-6 ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/6 ) has Action-24 for Doug "Follow-up on Issue-6 on the email; enumerate some of the questions and sub-issues" ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/24 ) . We have discussed this issue before, most recently 22 March ( http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-webevents-minutes.html#item04 ).

15:38:53 [Zakim]

-Shepazu

15:39:03 [Zakim]

+Shepazu

15:39:11 [Barstow]

AB: Doug, anything to discuss today?

15:39:40 [Barstow]

DS: I started my email; expect to send it within the next few days

15:39:52 [Barstow]

Topic: Testing

15:39:59 [Barstow]

AB: Laszlo responded to Action-10 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0076.html ) and he included a link to WebKit's touch tests ( http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/events/touch ). AFAIU, those tests require an WebKit impl to run.

15:40:38 [Barstow]

AB: at some point we need to talk about a testing framework/harness.

15:40:50 [Barstow]

AB: several groups such as HTML WG, DAP WG, Web Performance WG have agreed to use testharness.js ( http://w3c-test.org/resources/testharness.js ). Because of this, it seems like we should also use it unless there a compelling reasons not to use it.

15:41:43 [Barstow]

AB: is anyone willing to commit to analyzing this harness in the context of Touch API testing?

15:42:24 [Barstow]

OP: so the harnes is only using WebAPIs

15:42:35 [Barstow]

... wonder if it is sufficient for touch testing

15:43:07 [Barstow]

... think we need to have something all browser vendors can use

15:43:22 [Barstow]

... We use something similar to what Webkit uses

15:43:43 [Barstow]

... Think we are going to need more than just testharness

15:43:55 [Zakim]

-Shepazu

15:44:15 [Zakim]

+Doug_Schepers

15:45:10 [Barstow]

DS: are you going to look at WebKit's touch tests?

15:45:21 [Barstow]

OP: WebKit exposes an object to the web page

15:45:29 [Barstow]

... so they can use touch events

15:45:39 [Barstow]

... Gecko has something similar

15:45:55 [Barstow]

... And I expect Opera, IE must use something similar

15:46:24 [Barstow]

DS: this came up at a recent SVG f2f meeting

15:46:42 [Barstow]

... hooks specifically for testing can be useful

15:47:10 [Barstow]

... Perhaps testing hooks or modes standard will be useful

15:47:37 [Barstow]

OP: only want to expose that during testing (not generally available to all web pages)

15:47:47 [Barstow]

... think standardization here could be tricky

15:47:58 [Barstow]

... but may be able to standardize a common subset of what is needed

15:48:02 [smaug_]

sangwhan: what is watir?

15:48:26 [sangwhan]

http://watir.com/

15:49:07 [Barstow]

SM: I think FX, IE support waitr

15:49:42 [Barstow]

AB: ok, I think this give us all some extra reading

15:50:33 [Barstow]

Topic: Gestural Interface Specification Language

15:50:47 [Barstow]

AB: earlier today Doug sent a link to the Gestural Interface Specification Language

15:50:58 [Barstow]

... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JanMar/0088.html

15:51:13 [Barstow]

... proposal is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-echtler-gispl-specification-00

15:51:15 [Dzung_Tran_]

Dzung_Tran_ has joined #webevents

15:51:23 [Barstow]

DS: everyone should read this

15:52:19 [Barstow]

... allows defining new gestures e.g. "double pinch"

15:53:11 [Barstow]

... and then when that gesture occurs, app can then take some action

15:53:51 [Barstow]

... This is an extensible system

15:54:01 [Barstow]

... that allows app devs to define their own gestures

15:54:31 [Barstow]

AB: do you happen to know if there has been any related impl work?

15:54:38 [Barstow]

DS: no, I don't know but we can contact him

15:55:24 [Barstow]

AB: everyone should consider it as an Action to read this relatively short proposal

15:55:52 [Barstow]

... depending on our feedback, we can perhaps invite the author to discuss this on the list or maybe attend a call with us

15:56:03 [sangwhan]

http://tisch.sourceforge.net/

15:56:34 [Barstow]

AB: seems like this type of functionality would be out of scope for IETF

15:56:53 [Barstow]

Topic: AoB

15:56:59 [Barstow]

AB: anything else for today?

15:57:06 [Barstow]

SM: I've done some work on Action-18

15:57:24 [Barstow]

... I did some experimentation

15:57:57 [Barstow]

... my email contains some details

15:58:27 [shepazu]

shepazu has joined #webevents

15:58:37 [Barstow]

AB: if the problem with email persists, please notify Doug and I

15:58:46 [Barstow]

SM: please add it to next week's agenda

15:58:54 [Barstow]

AB: next call is April 5.

15:59:40 [Barstow]

AB: Matt's done a good job of following up offlist

15:59:52 [Barstow]

... I encourage everyone else to do the same

16:00:04 [Barstow]

DS: if this time is problematic, we should find another time

16:00:24 [Barstow]

AB: if the call time is an issue, please notify Doug and I

16:00:31 [Barstow]

AB: Meeting Adjourned

16:00:34 [mbrubeck]

This time (0800 local time) is okay for me, though later would be fine.

16:00:38 [Zakim]

-Doug_Schepers

16:00:40 [Zakim]

-Olli_Pettay

16:00:42 [Zakim]

-sangwhan

16:00:45 [Zakim]

-Art_Barstow

16:00:50 [Barstow]

RRSAgent, make minutes

16:00:50 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html Barstow

16:00:52 [smaug_]

mbrubeck: the meeting starts at 8am in MV?

16:00:54 [Zakim]

-Matt_Brubeck

16:00:55 [Zakim]

RWC_()11:00AM has ended

16:00:56 [Zakim]

Attendees were +1.781.993.aaaa, Art_Barstow, +1.206.792.aabb, Matt_Brubeck, Shepazu, Olli_Pettay, sangwhan, Doug_Schepers

16:01:17 [mbrubeck]

smaug_: Yes, though I'm in Seattle.

16:01:18 [Barstow]

RRSAgent, make log Public

16:01:24 [Barstow]

RRSAgent, make minutes

16:01:24 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html Barstow

16:01:33 [smaug_]

mbrubeck: ah. but next week in MV?

16:02:04 [mbrubeck]

yes!

16:02:06 [Barstow]

ScribeNick: Barstow

16:02:16 [mbrubeck]

see you there?

16:02:16 [Barstow]

RRSAgent, make Minutes

16:02:16 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html Barstow

16:02:39 [smaug_]

mbrubeck: yeah, I'll be there

16:08:53 [sangwhan]

sangwhan has left #webevents

16:11:29 [ArtB]

ArtB has joined #webevents

16:31:39 [smaug_]

smaug_ has joined #webevents

18:05:10 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #webevents

18:20:18 [smaug_]

smaug_ has joined #webevents

18:58:49 [ArtB]

rrsagent, bye

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-actions.rdf :

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to closed [1]

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-21-15

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names in the Touch API spec vis-à-vis what WebKit is used [2]

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-29-49

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow create an Issue for the Interface names [3]

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-31-06

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state [4]

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-32-12

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state [5]

18:58:49 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-irc#T15-37-44