Web Events WG Voice Conference -- 29 Mar 2011

<Barstow> ScribeNick: ArtB

<Barstow> Scribe: Art

<Barstow> Date: 29 March 2011

Tweak Agenda

<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.

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

<Barstow> ... I haven't read it in entirety yet

<Barstow> ... one of my colleagues mentioned it [Chris Lilley]

<Barstow> ... The work is being done by an academic researcher

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

<Barstow> ... describes how to build up a gesture

<Barstow> ... It is a Gesture Description Language

<Barstow> ... Perhaps the author can work with us

<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

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

<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".

<Barstow> AB: is that about right Matt?

<Barstow> MB: yes

<Barstow> DS: would like a bit of an explanation

<Barstow> MB: I added a new property to Touch interface

<Barstow> ... called rotationAngle

<Barstow> ... it is angle in degrees from 90 to -90

<Barstow> ... describes ellipse

<Barstow> DS: sounds fine to me

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

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

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

<Barstow> DS: we should definitely ask for feedback from them

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

<Barstow> ... that is, I made the scope fairly limited

<Barstow> AB: do people want some time to review this?

<Barstow> CC: I have a question

<Barstow> ... the proposal is +90 to -90

<Barstow> ... that gives two different ways to represent the area

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

<Barstow> MB: that's a good point

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

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

<Barstow> OP: SVG has areaX and areaY

<Barstow> ... using radiusX and radiusY to be consistent with SVG

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

<Barstow> OP: but consistency would be good

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

<Barstow> ... and SVG could change to be consistent with our spec

<Barstow> OP: really think we need feedback from Canonical

<Barstow> DS: re +/-90 degrees

<Barstow> ... how to detect rotation seems tricky

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

<Barstow> [ Scribe missed comment by MB ... ]

<Barstow> DS: what if finger is offscreen and then orientation changes

<Barstow> ... does x, why change, does orientation change

<Barstow> MB: a lot of things change in that case

<Barstow> ... including rX and rY

<Barstow> DS: think we need to think about this

<Barstow> AB: my conclusion is we need some more time

<Barstow> ... do we want a fixed review period

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

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

<Barstow> AB: I propose people send comments during the next week

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

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

<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.

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

<Barstow> MB: yes

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

<Barstow> AB: any objections?

<Barstow> [ None ]

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

<Barstow> ACTION: barstow move issue-7 to closed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

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

Issue-8 - initTouchEvent function

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

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

<Barstow> ... WebKit already has an impl of this proposal

<Barstow> ... it would require some new functions in the Document interface

<Barstow> AB: any comments or feedback?

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

<Barstow> ... is that name diff intentional

<Barstow> ... or is it something we should change

<Barstow> DS: I deliberately did not look at the WebKit docs

<Barstow> ... when I created my proposal

<Barstow> ... I think TouchPoint is more descriptive

<Barstow> ... and more intuitive

<Barstow> ... Our TouchPoint is a bit different

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

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

<Barstow> DS: I would like to hear from others

<Barstow> SM: I think we should use different names

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

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

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

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

<Barstow> ACTION: barstow talk to Laszlo about the interface names in the Touch API spec vis-à-vis what WebKit is used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action02]

<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].

<Barstow> AB: is there agreement this is an issue

<Barstow> MB: I think we should make Names a separate issue

<Barstow> ACTION: barstow create an Issue for the Interface names [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action03]

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

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

<Barstow> DS: yes

<Barstow> AB: any disagreement

<Barstow> [ None ]

<Barstow> ACTION: barstow move issue-8 to Open state [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action04]

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

Issue-9 Interaction of touch events and mouse events

<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 )

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

<Barstow> ... we have a bunch of input re existing impls

<Barstow> ... the impls agree in the order

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

<Barstow> SM: for our impl, interop is the main concern

<Barstow> DS: I need to think more about it

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

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

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

<Barstow> AB: any objections to moving to Open state?

<Barstow> DS: no

<sangwhan> +1

<sangwhan> (as in, no)

<Barstow> ACTION: barstow move Issue-9 to the open state [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-webevents-minutes.html#action05]

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

Issue-6 Touch Targets in Frames

<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 ).

<Barstow> AB: Doug, anything to discuss today?

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

Testing

<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.

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

<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.

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

<Barstow> OP: so the harnes is only using WebAPIs

<Barstow> ... wonder if it is sufficient for touch testing

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

<Barstow> ... We use something similar to what Webkit uses

<Barstow> ... Think we are going to need more than just testharness

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

<Barstow> OP: WebKit exposes an object to the web page

<Barstow> ... so they can use touch events

<Barstow> ... Gecko has something similar

<Barstow> ... And I expect Opera, IE must use something similar

<Barstow> DS: this came up at a recent SVG f2f meeting

<Barstow> ... hooks specifically for testing can be useful

<Barstow> ... Perhaps testing hooks or modes standard will be useful

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

<Barstow> ... think standardization here could be tricky

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

<smaug_> sangwhan: what is watir?

<sangwhan> http://watir.com/

<Barstow> SM: I think FX, IE support waitr

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

Gestural Interface Specification Language

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

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

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

<Barstow> DS: everyone should read this

<Barstow> ... allows defining new gestures e.g. "double pinch"

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

<Barstow> ... This is an extensible system

<Barstow> ... that allows app devs to define their own gestures

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

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

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

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

<sangwhan> http://tisch.sourceforge.net/

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

AoB

<Barstow> AB: anything else for today?

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

<Barstow> ... I did some experimentation

<Barstow> ... my email contains some details

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

<Barstow> SM: please add it to next week's agenda

<Barstow> AB: next call is April 5.

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

<Barstow> ... I encourage everyone else to do the same

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

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

<Barstow> AB: Meeting Adjourned

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

<smaug_> mbrubeck: the meeting starts at 8am in MV?

<mbrubeck> smaug_: Yes, though I'm in Seattle.

<smaug_> mbrubeck: ah. but next week in MV?

<mbrubeck> yes!

<Barstow> ScribeNick: Barstow

<mbrubeck> see you there?

- DRAFT -

Web Events WG Voice Conference

29 Mar 2011

Attendees

Contents