<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

Date: 22 November 2011

Tweak Agenda

AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0127.html. Any change requests?

[ None ]

Announcements

AB: any short announcements for today?

[ None ]

Apple's patent disclosures for Touch Events v1 spec

AB: last week Apple disclosed 3 patents and 1 patent application applies to the Touch Events spec http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/45559/status.
... the only information I have regarding the licensing terms for these patents is that each is marked as " not under Royaltee-Free commitment" [sic].
... so that leaves some uncertainty
... as a consequence of these disclosures, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception will be created to discuss what, if anything, the WG should do.
... the "constituents" of the PAG is documented in the Patent Policy http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-composition. Note that WG members are not members; it is composed of AC reps, attorneys, WG Chair and some W3C Staff. A W3C Staff member will Chair the PAG.
... typically, PAGs take several months to reach a "PAG Conclusion" http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-conclude. I suspect the average is around six months although I have been a member of a PAG that was open for over two years.
... the WG may continue to work on a spec while a PAG is open. In fact, the spec can proceed all of the way to Proposed Recommendation while a PAG is open.
... without Member input, PAGs will drag on and on ...
... I'd be happy to open the floor to discussions about the PAG mechanics and process but I don't want to talk about the specifics of these patents since that is the job of the PAG.
... some Members do not want their WG participants to have any discussions about any patents
... Lastly, although these disclosures create a lot of FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt), this is part of the "game" whether we like it or not, and I won't tolerate any Member bashing.
... and I don't mean to imply that anyone in this meeting would do so, but that's just a general process statement

DS: I agree with Art on this

AB: remind everyone these minutes are Public
... any questions or concerns?

DS: I'm happy to answer questions on this call

… and if anyone wants to discuss this offlist, please let me know

Touch Events v1 LCWD comment deadline ended November 17

AB: the comment deadline for the October 27 LCWD <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20111027/> ended November 17. The comment tracking doc is http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TouchEvents-LCWD-27-Oct-2011
... the only comment submitted during LC#2 was the minor bug that was accidentally added to the spec. That fix has been agreed and applied.
... the PFWG has still not replied to the response we sent to them 6 weeks ago http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0047.html re their comments for LC#1. I don't think a publication of a CR should block waiting for PFWG

DS: agreed

AB: As I mentioned earlier, we may proceed to Candidate Recommendation if we want to do so and not block on the PAG; or we can block on the PAG "Conclusion".
... here are the PAG "conclusions": http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-conclude

DS: in general, I don't think conclusion #6 is in the spirit of W3C's RF specs

… as such, I don't think that's what we want to do

MB: Mozilla will only implement and ship specs that have RF licensing terms for implementers

<shepazu> (I expained RAND a bit)

<mbrubeck> For more elaboration of Mozilla's position on RAND vs RF licensing, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/1350.html

AB: so, we can either move toward CR or block for the PAG

… I could start a 1 or 2 week CfC to move to CR

… and use that time to discuss this internally with your company/org

DS: I think moving to CR is the right thing to do

… and assume things will work out

… but we should also think about a contingency plan

AB: any other comments about starting a CfC to pub a CR

MB: I agree; no additional work is needed; the spec is ready

SM: I also agree

AB: is a 1-week CfC enough

OP: perhaps 2 would be better

DS: yes, I think that is reasonable

AB: the only thing I wanted to mention is that December 12 is the last day to request publication for 2011
... how about a 10-day CfC?

… any objections to that

[ None ]

RESOLUTION: Art will start a 10-day CfC to publish a CR of Touch Events v1 spec

Contingency Plan for Touch Events spec

DS: this is unfortunate;

… the folks in this WG have done good work

… I don't want to give up on a Touch Events spec

… and we got a good spec is short amount of time

… I only see 2 ways around this

… One is to circumvent any IP/claims we know about

… and that something the PAG can recommend to this WG

… I haven't looked at the patents

… so I don't have a sense of the severity

… It could be a small amount of work is needed but I don't know yet

… The 2nd option ...

… If it turns out what we defined is totally tainted, we may have to do something else

… There are some other touch interfaces

… We adopted the Webkit model

… Mozilla had a different model

… Microsoft also has a different model

<mbrubeck> Mozilla's original approach: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Touch_events_%28Mozilla_experimental%29

… It could be one of these other approaches may make sense to pursue

… I would hate to start over but it could give us an opportunity to define a better interface

<mbrubeck> MS pointer events: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/09/20/touch-input-for-ie10-and-metro-style-apps.aspx

… Our current spec gives a good network approach given the pervasive use of Webkit

… but there are other models to consider

… Do others think it is reasonable to consider a different starting point?

AB: I think it's a little early but OTOH, it is perhaps inevitable

… Has anyone done any comparisons?

DS: what about fennec?

OP: we have a lower level API; pretty basic

… f.ex. no touch point lists

… much closer to mouse events

DS: I think there is more similarity b/w the mouse and touch interface in Msft's model than our TE spec

… thus their model can make content creation easier

SS: so, if we need to re-evaluate, shouldn't we wait for the PAG

… especially if the probability is high?

DS: I think that is a reasonable stance

… but personally, I would like to keep moving forward

Suman: I understand that too Doug

… I'm just trying to understand what people are thinking

DS: want to separate the IP work the PAG will do and the technical work the WG will do

AB: during this CfC, I think it's appropriate if responses are sent to the group's Member-confidential list
... I hope everyone uses the 10-day CfC to get some internal discussion

DS: one thing the PAG might do is to look at prior art

… and how the spec holds up to the prior work as opposed to the patents

… It is possible some other Member has IP in this area too and that could lead to a good resolution

Suman: when will this CfC end?

AB: I'll start it today, and the deadline will be 10 days from today

<scribe> ACTION: barstow start a 10-day CfC to publish CR of Touch Events v1 spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-webevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-88 - Start a 10-day CfC to publish CR of Touch Events v1 spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-29].

Charter update

AB: the latest Draft proposal for Touch Events WG is http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html
... the latest Draft proposal for Indie UI WG (fka Intentional Events WG) is http://www.w3.org/2011/11/indie-ui-charter
... off-list, one Member of the WG raised a concern about some other Member not being able to participate in the Gamepad and PointerLock specs if they are added to Web Events' charter. As such, those two APIs may be added to some other "friendly" WG or used as the basis of a new WG.

DS: more concretely, they could be added to WebApps WG

… or put in a new WG like a "Game" WG

… then other specs could be added to that WG

… f.ex. MIDI

AB: Doug, do you have any status or other info you can share?

DS: I don't have any new info to share

… I can inquire and report back

… I think the charters are mostly ready

… If we don't add Gamepad and PointerLock, we don't need to re-charter

… because the Intentional Events spec is already in our charter

SM: during our f2f meeting I mentioned another model

DS: I think that is similar to what Msft has done

… would you please create a strawman about that?

SM: yes, I can do that

AB: anything else on this topic?

AoB

AB: any other business for today?

SM: I got access to the stream api from Khronos group

… I don't think we need to worry about it

… it is way too complicated

Suman: they have several proposals

… agree we don't have to look at it

AB: I will determine next Monday if we will have a call on Nov 29
... 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)

Succeeded: s/has done/have done/
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: Art
Present: Art_Barstow Doug_Schepers Cathy_Chan Suman_Sharma Sangwhan_Moon Olli_Pettay Matt_Brubeck
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0035.html
Found Date: 22 Nov 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-webevents-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.