14:58:54 RRSAgent has joined #webevents 14:58:54 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-irc 14:59:01 RRSAgent, make log Public 14:59:30 ScribeNick: ArtB 14:59:30 Scribe: Art 14:59:30 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0064.html 14:59:30 Date: 26 April 2011 14:59:30 Chair: Art 14:59:31 Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference 15:00:20 +[IPcaller] 15:00:35 zakim, IPcaller is Olli_Pettay 15:00:35 +Olli_Pettay; got it 15:00:37 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay 15:00:37 sorry, smaug_, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]' 15:01:02 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 15:01:02 sorry, smaug_, I do not see 'smaug' on this channel 15:01:04 + +1.206.792.aabb 15:01:05 Cathy has joined #webevents 15:01:09 Present: Art_Barstow, Josh_Soref, Olli_Pettay 15:01:10 Zakim, aabb is me 15:01:10 +mbrubeck; got it 15:01:11 Zakim, nick smaug_ is Olli_Pettay 15:01:11 ok, smaug_, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay 15:01:23 Present+ Matt_Brubeck 15:01:30 Present+ Cathy_Chan 15:02:46 sangwhan: Are you able to join the call? 15:03:07 Topic: Tweak Agenda 15:03:13 AB: yesterday I sent a draft agenda to the list ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0064.html ). Any change requests? 15:03:20 +cathy_ 15:03:48 Topic: Getting Touch Events spec ready for First Public Working Draft 15:04:15 AB: last week I sent an e-mail to the list about the FPWD ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0055.html ). The e-mail describes the general purpose of a FPWD and related requirements. 15:04:39 AB: First, I'd like to take any questions about the process and then discuss the question about whether or not the Touch Events spec includes, at least at a broad level, all of the high priority features we intend to specify. 15:05:10 +??P24 15:05:21 zakim, cathy_ is me 15:05:21 +Cathy; got it 15:05:23 Present+ Sangwhan_Moon 15:05:31 zakim, +??P24 is me 15:05:31 sorry, sangwhan, I do not recognize a party named '+??P24' 15:05:51 AB: if no questions about the process, are there any comments about missing features? 15:06:37 AB: I had asked for missing features by April 26 and there were no comments 15:06:54 AB: I think we consider the feature set for the Touch Events spec to be complete 15:07:03 ... at least at a broad level 15:07:09 AB: we have some UCs & Requirements documented ( http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/Testing ). At a later stage (when we discuss publishing a Candidate Recommendation with the Director) we will need to identify the requirements addressed by the spec. 15:08:02 ArtB1 has joined #webevents 15:08:15 AB: if anyone has any comments on the UCs and Requirements, please send them to the list by May 3; otherwise let's considered then "approved" as of that date. IOW, they can change but we also think they capture our main UCs and requirements. 15:09:01 ArtB has joined #webevents 15:09:18 AB: if anyone has any comments on the UCs and Requirements, please send them to the list by May 3; otherwise let's considered then "approved" as of that date. IOW, they can change but we also think they capture our main UCs and requirements. 15:09:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html timeless 15:09:43 RRSAgent, make Public 15:09:43 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make Public', ArtB. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:09:53 RRSAgent, make log Public 15:10:00 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:10:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:11:16 JS: the UCs and Reqs doc is not linked from the Testing doc 15:11:29 ACTION: barstow create a link to the UCs and Reqs from the Testing doc 15:11:29 Created ACTION-43 - Create a link to the UCs and Reqs from the Testing doc [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-05-03]. 15:11:41 AB: lastly, what about an Introduction section for the Touch Events Introduction section ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0051.html )? Can someone commit to writing at least a short-ish paragraph (4-5 sentences)? 15:12:08 AB: any volunteers for that? 15:12:12 JS: I can't commit now 15:12:20 SM: I can take that action 15:12:49 ACTION: sangwhan Create an input for the Introduction section by April 29 15:12:49 Created ACTION-44 - Create an input for the Introduction section by April 29 [on Sangwhan Moon - due 2011-05-03]. 15:13:00 AB: because of the W3C's May Advisory Committee meeting, there is a publication moratorium and that means the very last day we can request publication is May 6 (if we want to publish the FPWD before the AC meeting). 15:13:54 JS: I am happy to review the Introduction 15:14:01 SM: OK, I'll send you a draft 15:14:19 AB: that's great; a FPWD can be prepared early next week 15:14:29 AB: proposed Resolution: the group agrees to publish a FPWD of the Touch Events spec 15:14:44 AB: any objections or voices of support? 15:14:47 +1 15:14:50 +1 15:14:51 +1 15:14:54 +1 15:15:03 AB: I hear no objections and only support 15:15:04 +1 15:15:13 RESOLUTION: the group agrees to publish a FPWD of the Touch Events spec 15:15:35 AB: anything else on FPWD? 15:15:45 Topic: Testing 15:15:56 AB: A few days ago Mark announced he created about 7 tests with over 20 assertions ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0063.html ). This is excellent Mark! And Mark is using the testharness.js that is being used by the HTML WG and the WebApps WG ( http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/file/ad7715ddbcda/test/testharness.js ). 15:16:18 s/Mark/Matt/g 15:16:26 s/Mark/Matt/ 15:16:41 AB: I am interested in comments on the testharness ( ) (written by Opera's James Graham). 15:17:04 MB: the testharness is fine for what I'm doing 15:17:18 ... some common patterns may result in some additional helper functions 15:17:24 ... but no real problems with the harness 15:17:29 AB: that's good to hear 15:17:55 ... there is a mail list for discussions about the harness; think it's public-test-infra@w3.org 15:18:28 MB: I have one test file 15:18:38 ... it displays a rectangle to be touched 15:18:49 ... initiates the touchstart event 15:18:56 ... and tests some attributes 15:19:10 ... Need to create some other tests for moving 15:19:17 ... and multi-touches 15:19:26 ... some "finger dancing" 15:19:38 ... Multi-touch tests won't be supported for all hardware 15:19:55 ... so we need to mention that some tests may not work 15:20:21 AB: has anyone else tried testharness.js? 15:20:34 ... need to ensure the spec supports not supporting certain things 15:20:37 ... It would be good for others to contribute tet cases 15:20:45 s/tet cases/test cases/ 15:21:09 MB: if someone wants to write simple tests 15:21:18 ... could start with touchenter and touchleave 15:21:34 ... although without some implementation, would be hard to test the test 15:22:02 ... One question, for attrs like rX and rY, can be hard to test if values are accurate 15:22:10 ... Not sure how to handle that 15:22:20 ... Could be left for implementations to test themselves 15:22:36 AB: good point; any feedback on that? 15:22:41 JS: I can ask around 15:22:49 ... I think we ignored rotation 15:23:30 ... Could check with tablet people 15:23:38 SM: the hardware people 15:23:40 wacom 15:24:18 AB: Doug an I have a standing action to try to get additional players in the WG 15:24:29 s/an/and/ 15:24:46 ArtB1 has joined #webevents 15:24:55 ... by having a FPWD, that should be easier 15:25:00 Zakim, who is noisy 15:25:00 I don't understand 'who is noisy', smaug_ 15:25:14 ArtB has joined #webevents 15:25:34 ArtB has joined #webevents 15:25:40 AB: a call or two ago we talked briefly about the "A Method for Writing Testable Conformance Requirements" document ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011AprJun/0031.html ). 15:27:12 AB: Doug had asked for the Testing topic today but he isn't here 15:27:20 MB: I looked at the doc; 15:27:27 ... somewhat ambivalent 15:27:38 ... the Touch Events spec is relatively small 15:27:58 ... as such, I don't feel strongly that we need to use it 15:28:11 ... but if someone wants to implement it (in the spec itself), I can work with it 15:28:38 AB: since the Editors are doing the work, I want to listen to their feedback 15:28:57 SM: I agree with Matt 15:29:11 ... doesn't seem like we need it for the Touch Events spec 15:30:05 SM: perhaps we can consider it for the Intentional Events spec 15:30:25 AB: agree we can consider the Intentional Events spec separately 15:31:14 ACTION: Doug submit an opinion on Writing Testable Conformance Reqs for the Touch Events spec 15:31:14 Created ACTION-45 - Submit an opinion on Writing Testable Conformance Reqs for the Touch Events spec [on Doug Schepers - due 2011-05-03]. 15:31:38 AB: anything else on Testing for today? 15:31:54 Topic: Open and Raised Issues: 1 or 2, time permitting ... 15:32:11 AB: issues in Raised and Open state are: Issue-3, Issue-5, Issue-6, and Issue-8. 15:32:19 There is also http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/11 15:32:39 MB: and Issue-11 15:33:00 AB: my recollection on Issue-11 is that comments should have been submitted before today's call 15:33:16 action-27 is confusing :) 15:33:55 MB: if we use TouchPoint that would break some existing content 15:34:08 we could use that as a way to be a different interface... 15:34:17 AB: any additional comments re Issue-11 15:34:24 but for compatibility, renaming makes sense 15:34:28 AB: I propose we change the name of TouchPoint to Touch 15:34:33 +1 15:34:38 AB: any objections? 15:34:46 ... or voices of support 15:34:56 AB: +1 15:35:07 AB: hearing no objections 15:35:08 Sounds a bit ambiguous, but no better ideas so +1 15:35:35 RESOLUTION: the TouchPoint Interface will be renamed to "Touch" interface 15:36:08 AB: would you please Matt, commit that change this week? 15:36:14 MB: yes, I will make that change today 15:36:19 AB: thanks Matt! 15:37:15 AB: my inclination is to not do a deep dive on 3, 5, 6 or 8 on this call 15:37:25 AB: we can use the FPWD to explicitly ask for feedback on the issues. 15:37:36 AB: also including a pointer to the Open and Raised Issues in the spec (e.g. SoTD section) may be good. 15:38:10 AB: and Issue-14 was created today 15:38:18 ... by Olli 15:38:34 OP: not sure if those methods are being used 15:38:43 ... eg. by Apple or Google 15:38:57 SM: preventDefault is another topic 15:39:27 MB: I can an action to define preventDefault 15:39:34 SM: that is Action-5 15:40:06 ... and I am the owner 15:40:18 AB: do we want to change the owner of Action-5? 15:40:23 SM: yes, please do 15:41:30 AB: so I will leave it to the Editors to decide if they want to explicitly ask for feedback re any of the Open and/or Raised issues 15:41:56 AB: anything else on this topic for today? 15:42:06 Topic: AoB 15:42:12 AB: no call on May 17 15:42:37 AB: I think the main task between now and May 3, is to get the spec ready for FPWD 15:42:50 ... that's a new process for Matt and Sangwhan 15:42:55 ... but Doug is an expert 15:43:18 AB: propose our May call schedule is May 10 and May 24 15:43:50 AB: any comments or concerns? 15:43:58 AB: next call is May 10 15:44:11 ... and the 2nd call in May is tentatively May 24 15:44:18 AB: anything else for today? 15:44:32 ... please continue to work on Issues and Actions via the mail list 15:44:38 AB: Meeting Adjourned 15:44:46 -Olli_Pettay 15:44:48 -Art_Barstow 15:44:49 -sangwhan 15:44:53 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:44:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:45:06 -mbrubeck 15:47:00 -Cathy 15:47:01 -timeless 15:47:01 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has ended 15:47:03 Attendees were +1.781.993.aaaa, Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, timeless, +1.206.792.aabb, mbrubeck, Cathy, sangwhan 15:49:29 sangwhan has left #webevents 15:49:57 ArtB has joined #webevents 16:03:50 RRSAgent, bye 16:03:50 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-actions.rdf : 16:03:50 ACTION: barstow create a link to the UCs and Reqs from the Testing doc [1] 16:03:50 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-irc#T15-11-29 16:03:50 ACTION: sangwhan Create an input for the Introduction section by April 29 [2] 16:03:50 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-irc#T15-12-49 16:03:50 ACTION: Doug submit an opinion on Writing Testable Conformance Reqs for the Touch Events spec [3] 16:03:50 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-webevents-irc#T15-31-14