14:59:44 RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents 14:59:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-irc 14:59:49 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started 14:59:54 ScribeNick: ArtB 14:59:54 Scribe: Art 14:59:54 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0173.html 14:59:56 + +1.717.578.aaaa 14:59:58 Chair: Art 15:00:00 jrossi2 has joined #pointerevents 15:00:03 Zakim, aaaa is me 15:00:03 +scott_gonzalez; got it 15:00:05 Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference 15:00:53 +Art_Barstow 15:01:22 +[Microsoft] 15:01:38 Cathy has joined #pointerevents 15:01:46 Present: Art_Barstow, Scott_Gonzalez, Jacob_Rossi, Cathy_Chan 15:01:59 Regrets: Doug_Schepers, Sangwhan_Moon 15:02:12 rbyers_ has joined #pointerevents 15:02:13 + +1.781.362.aabb 15:02:20 zakim, aabb is me 15:02:20 +Cathy; got it 15:02:30 +Matt_Brubeck 15:02:37 Present+ Matt_Brubeck 15:02:56 +[Microsoft.a] 15:03:09 Present+ Asir_Vedamuthu 15:03:34 zakim, Microsoft is jrossi2 15:03:34 +jrossi2; got it 15:04:00 +??P24 15:04:00 +[GVoice] 15:04:11 Present+ Rick_Byers 15:04:28 Topic: Getting started 15:04:33 AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0173.html. Any change requests? The main subject is to record the group's consensus on last call comments, assuming we have agreement on a comment. And thanks to Jacob for creating the comment list. 15:04:39 Present+ Peter_Beverloo 15:04:54 AB: Before we look at the comments, I will talk about the LC comment process. 15:05:16 Topic: Last Call comment process 15:05:20 AB: I want to make sure everyone understands the LC comment process and the various roles and responsibilities. 15:05:31 AB: please note: the process requires the group "round-trip" all comments. This means the group is responsible for: replying to all comments; notifying the Commenter of the group's decision; asking the Commenter if they agree or not with the group's decision; and recording all of this communication. (See for example http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TouchEvents-LCWD-24-Jan-2013.) 15:06:17 AB: if you have a Commenter role in this work flow, please make sure your reply to the group is recorded either via e-mail or via meeting minutes. 15:06:46 Topic: pointerType Extensibility 15:06:51 AB: based on previous discussions re pointerType extensibility e.g. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0172.html and http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-pointerevents-minutes.html#item04. 15:07:04 AB: I believe we have consensus to not do anything with this for v1 15:07:13 AB: any objections to that? 15:07:28 [ No ] 15:07:36 -[Microsoft.a] 15:07:43 RESOLUTION: pointerType extensibility: no additional changes for  for v1 15:07:48 AB: should this be added to the v.Next list? 15:08:06 RB: yes, I think we should 15:08:14 … but I am open to debate 15:08:24 +[Microsoft] 15:08:30 … think we can deal with this better when we have a concrete suggestion 15:08:34 JR: agree 15:08:38 SG: agree too 15:08:45 ACTION: barstow add pointerType extensibility to the PEv.Next feature list 15:08:45 Created ACTION-24 - Add pointerType extensibility to the PEv.Next feature list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-03-19]. 15:08:53 Topic: add a rotation attribute on PointerEvent? 15:09:03 AB: the question is if there a compelling reason to add? Most recent discussion is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0171.html 15:09:12 AB: the only followup was from Jacob. What do people think? Is this something to add to the v.Next feature list? 15:09:38 AB: we can also defer to the list 15:09:50 RB: we don't have immediate plans to add this 15:09:58 … thus I see no need to address this now 15:10:07 SG: I agree we can postpone this to v.Next 15:10:10 asir has joined #pointerevents 15:10:24 MB: doesn't IE10 support this? 15:10:38 SG: yes it is but people don't build apps that rely on it 15:10:44 smaug has joined #pointerevents 15:10:50 … there are some cases where it could be useful 15:10:58 … but I don't see a lot of interest 15:11:16 AB: any objections to resolving this as v.Next potential feature? 15:11:20 Nope. 15:11:25 [ None ] 15:11:26 No 15:11:28 zakim, [Microsoft] is me 15:11:28 +asir; got it 15:11:34 RESOLUTION: add a rotation attribute to PointerEvent?: group agrees "No", although add a related item to the v.Next feature list 15:11:55 argh 15:11:55 ACTION: barstow add rotation attribute to v.Next feature list 15:11:55 Created ACTION-25 - Add rotation attribute to v.Next feature list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-03-19]. 15:11:58 summer time 15:12:11 in US, but not in EU 15:12:11 AV: from process perspective, do we need to add these to Bugzilla? 15:12:17 AB: no, we don't have to 15:12:45 … I would only add things to Bugzilla if we are going to make changes to the spec 15:13:09 JR: if I have original comments, and Resolution, as well as replies, I can create the LC comment doc 15:13:24 … and only add issues to Bugzilla if we agree to change the spec 15:13:41 AB: any objections to proceeding that way (i.e. only use Bugzilla for spec changes)? 15:13:47 AV: OK 15:13:59 Topic: Should pointerId be an integer? 15:14:04 AB: the discussion thread is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0170.html.  and we talked about this on Feb 26 http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-pointerevents-minutes.html#item05.) 15:14:10 AB: it appears we have agreement the answer is "No", although we could add a non-normative note e.g. the following 15:14:22 [[ 15:14:22 The pointerId selection algorithm is implementation specific. Therefore authors cannot assume values convey any particular meaning other than an identifier for the pointer that is unique from all other active pointers. As an example, values are not guaranteed to be monotonically increasing. 15:14:22 ]] 15:14:40 Correct 15:14:43 RB: I think, no change i.e. keep it an integer 15:14:50 AB: sorry, that is indeed what I meant 15:15:22 … any objections to keeping pointerID as integer? 15:15:31 RB: I'm ok with that provided we add that note 15:15:44 AB: any objections to Jacob's proposed text? 15:15:47 [ None ] 15:16:13 RESOLUTION: pointerID should be integer?: group agrees to keep pointerID as Integer, and a related non-normative note will be added to the spec 15:16:23 Topic: move examples to the front of the spec 15:16:27 AB: Alex Russell suggested "The spec should lead with examples, i.e., move Section 9 to where Section 2 is now." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0169.html 15:16:32 AB: any objections? 15:16:38 [ None ] 15:16:50 RESOLUTION: examples will be moved to the front of the spec 15:16:59 Topic: Change buttons field representation? 15:17:08 AB: the relevant thread is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0169.html 15:17:28 AB: do we want any changes here? 15:18:13 JR: there could be some benefits of adding some bitmasks 15:18:24 … and hence have multiple models 15:18:33 … but I think we should consider that for v.Next 15:18:48 SG: I think sticking with Mouse Model is best 15:18:59 … I think Alex acknowledged that in his comment 15:19:00 I agree with Jacob's comments - compatibility with MouseEvent is key to the design 15:19:14 AB any objections to staying with buttons as already specified? 15:19:20 [ None ] 15:19:27 zakim, who is noisy? 15:19:33 AB: add this to v.Next list? 15:19:38 rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Art_Barstow (52%), asir (33%) 15:19:44 … I think I'm hearing yes 15:19:54 asir: looks like the echo is coming from your end again. Are you muted? 15:19:58 RESOLUTION: change buttons field?: group agrees "No", although a related item will be added to v.Next list. 15:20:19 ACTION: barstow add buttons field to v.Next list as a potential new feature 15:20:27 Error creating new action - could not connect to Tracker. Please contact sysreq with the details of what happened. 15:20:28 Topic: conceptual overlap of new touch-action CSS property and pointer-events property 15:20:38 AB: The question is whether or not the new touch-action CSS property has sufficient conceptual overlap with the pointer-events property to consider merging them http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0169.html. 15:20:46 AB: some people (including Tab Atkins) recommended not merging them. 15:20:52 AB: does anyone think they should be merged, or do we keep them separate? 15:21:07 No, they're fundamentally different things in my opinion 15:21:22 AB: anyone think they should be merged? 15:21:23 agree they are different 15:21:26 [ No one ] 15:21:34 RESOLUTION: the touch-action CSS property will not be merged with CSS'  pointer-event property 15:21:45 one controls how hit testing works, the other controls what you do in response to a hit test -- so very different 15:21:47 Topic: navigator.maxTouchPoints is touch-specific 15:21:53 AB: Alex raised this question http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0169.html 15:21:59 AB: what, if anything, do we want to do with this? 15:22:28 RB: my concern is that I think we may want to add something in the future 15:22:34 … e.g. some input device API 15:22:47 … might want to ask a device a question about itself 15:23:01 JR: I can see a potential to add something in the future 15:23:13 RB: I don't have a concrete proposal now 15:23:19 … need more experience 15:23:37 JR: similar to pointerType issue in that we need more info 15:23:44 … to decide the right-thing-to-do 15:24:17 RESOLUTION: maxTouchPoints is touch-specific: the group agrees on no spec change needed but we should add this to v.Next 15:24:40 ACTION: barstow add maxTouchPoints issue to v.Next list 15:24:41 Created ACTION-26 - Add maxTouchPoints issue to v.Next list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-03-19]. 15:24:47 asir: that echo is really annoying when talking, can you try using a different phone? Eg. you can call Zakim using SIP... 15:25:00 SG: re the name, what about maxPointers? 15:25:34 RB: it would make it harder to pinpoint a definition 15:25:54 SG: agree it could depend on OS and/or hardware 15:26:05 RB: we don't have this in TouchEvents 15:26:26 JR: one way to use this as touch hardware detection i.e. is touch possible 15:26:37 … and then the UI could adapt accordingly 15:26:59 RB: there could be overlap with pointer and hover MQs 15:27:11 JR: the other UC is to know the specific number of devices 15:27:15 asir: much better, thanks 15:27:24 … app could then switch on number of devices 15:27:35 Zakim-mute worked 15:27:54 MB: may want it for single touch hardware 15:28:04 … so may want to name it MaxTouchPoints 15:28:25 RB: not clear if MQs is the right place or do we need a new API 15:28:41 … could have touch-points MQ 15:28:50 I think a media query would be good. 15:28:54 … would be more consistent with pointer and hover MQs 15:29:15 RB: but don't think this is critical to address (now) 15:29:27 … could move this to v.Next 15:29:59 … The UA needs a way to tell app it is on a touch screen 15:30:26 JR: not opposed to pointer and hover 15:30:47 RB: are there sites that rely on the number in practice? 15:31:06 -Matt_Brubeck 15:31:11 JR: mostly seeing checks for >= 0 15:31:43 AB: do we want to revisit the Resolution? 15:31:55 RB: question about adding a redundant API 15:32:06 SG: want to avoid duplicated APIs in the future 15:32:21 RB: if we could get touch-points added as a MQ 15:32:47 … then there would be no value in adding this API 15:33:02 SG: that would be OK with me 15:33:15 JR: there could be value in querying this from CSS 15:33:28 … there is already some content using this so we need to keep it 15:33:42 RB: understand but we wouldn't add it 15:34:17 AB: so, despite the RESOLUTION, it appears we need some more time to talk about this 15:34:38 JR: not sure how number of points supported is interesting from a view perspective 15:35:03 … I'm open to adding a new MQ 15:35:24 … not sure how that adds anymore than using maxTouchPoints 15:36:14 RB: there could be some scenarios that only want to query from CSS 15:36:23 … e.g. a map app and pinch/zoom 15:36:55 RB: I don't object strongly but I don't like redundant APIs 15:37:37 AB: so, looking at this from CanILiveWithItTest, is the resolution we agreed to earlier ok? 15:37:49 RB: yes, I can live with it as spec'ed 15:37:52 Would prefer keeping as spec'ed 15:37:57 SG: yeah, it's fine 15:38:09 AB: so the maxTouchPoints RESOLUTION stands 15:38:37 AB: so, there is the CR phase which is YA opportunity to gather data 15:39:07 Topic: Clarifying the spec's positioning 15:39:17 AB: Alex wrote "The pointer event spec does not require other device events be supported (e.g. mouse events, touch 15:39:17 events, etc.)" in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0169.html. 15:39:30 AB: what needs to be done here? Some additional non-normative text? 15:40:05 One more point on the last topic: many media queries are already redundant with javascript APIs (eg. width, height), so from that perspective it's not terrible for navigator.maxTouchPoints to be largely redundant with the pointer media query. 15:40:06 JR: as I said in my reply, I think this is conceptual. 15:40:21 … if there is a need for some non-normative text, I can add it 15:40:57 AB: any other comments or objections to adding a non-normative statement to address this issue? 15:41:00 [ None ] 15:41:21 RESOLUTION: group agrees some additional non-normative text re spec's "positioning" should be added. 15:41:27 ACTION: Jacob propose text re the "spec's positioning" (see LC comment from Alex Russell) 15:41:28 Created ACTION-27 - Propose text re the "spec's positioning" (see LC comment from Alex Russell) [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-03-19]. 15:41:42 Topic: Click and contextmenu events 15:41:42 jrossi2: probably not necessary to mute and unmute now - the problem was fixed by muting asir 15:41:55 AB: this topic has raised by Rick in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0163.html and discussed on Feb 26 http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-pointerevents-minutes.html#item06. 15:42:07 AB: where are we on this issue? 15:42:12 rbyers: cool, unmuted 15:42:44 RB: Jacob agreed they are pretty much the same and should be treated the same 15:43:10 JR: click is mentioned 15:43:24 RB: some text in Section 8, non-normative 15:43:45 [ JR reads relevant text … ] 15:44:14 RB: yes, we should just expand the note 15:44:19 … e.g. add double-click too 15:44:44 RESOLUTION: group agrees to add some addtional text to Section 8 15:45:06 ACTION: Jacob add text to Section 8 to address Rick's click and context menu issue 15:45:14 Error creating new action - could not connect to Tracker. Please contact sysreq with the details of what happened. 15:45:37 Topic: Test Assertions: 15:45:43 AB: Cathy, do you have any status on test assertions to share? 15:46:06 CC: no, not yet; should have something in the next couple of weeks 15:46:13 AB: ok, thanks 15:46:21 AB: if you can help with this effort, please contact Cathy via the list 15:46:46 Topic: Any other Business 15:46:52 AB: any new implementation status to share? 15:59:14 Here's the bug tracking adding pointer events to chrome: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=162757 16:00:09 Here's the text I wrote there: 16:00:10 Pointer events offers a number of improvements, and solves important problems with touch events. However adding a new (largely redundant) input model to the web is not something we can take lightly. We're actively debating whether the benefits justify the conceptual complexity of having a new input model. I welcome any comments on this bug (especially from site/library developers using both touch and pointer events today). 16:01:07 [ Scott talked about some TE / PE info in jQuery ] 16:01:21 RB: would like to see a blog about that 16:01:32 … there are two polyfills for PE now 16:01:40 … Msft has one 16:01:51 … and Google has one 16:01:55 s/Msft/Microsoft/ 16:02:03 http://aka.ms/handjs 16:02:06 Google one: https://github.com/toolkitchen/PointerEvents 16:02:15 … the pollyfills are tricky, especially for performance reasons 16:02:40 RB: touch-action CSS property in particular is problematic 16:02:48 AB: thanks for adding those 16:02:51 https://github.com/borismus/pointer.js 16:02:51 Not perfect (Eg. relies on a touch-action html attribute, instead of trying to parse CSS like hand.js) 16:02:59 SG: there is another polyfill from Boris Smus 16:03:20 RB: yeah, but Boris' isn't as complete so I recommend the Google one I mentioned above 16:03:54 … pointer.js is worth looking at but it isn't complete 16:04:37 SG: we still have some issues we are discussing 16:04:53 RB: are those design discussion done in public? 16:05:16 SG: yes; a lot are in IRC; others are in pull requests 16:05:35 RB: when jQuery makes important decisions, would love to hear about it 16:05:43 SG: I can send that info to the list 16:05:57 AB: on March 19 I have a conflict and will not be available. We will have a meeting if Doug can Chair it. 16:06:13 AB: regardless, please continue to use the list 16:06:23 Good progress today in closing issues!!! 16:06:31 AB: anything else? 16:06:35 Yes, thank you Art! 16:06:41 AB: meeting adjourned 16:06:46 -[GVoice] 16:06:48 Thank you Art!!! 16:06:48 -scott_gonzalez 16:06:50 -Art_Barstow 16:06:51 -Cathy 16:06:53 -jrossi2 16:06:54 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:06:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:06:57 -??P24 16:07:00 jrossi2 has left #pointerevents 16:07:30 RRSAgent, make log Public 16:07:36 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:07:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:11:58 disconnecting the lone participant, asir, in RWC_PEWG()11:00AM 16:11:59 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended 16:11:59 Attendees were +1.717.578.aaaa, scott_gonzalez, Art_Barstow, +1.781.362.aabb, Cathy, Matt_Brubeck, jrossi2, [GVoice], asir 16:12:19 zakim, bye 16:12:19 Zakim has left #pointerevents 16:38:01 rrsagent, bye 16:38:01 I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-actions.rdf : 16:38:01 ACTION: barstow add pointerType extensibility to the PEv.Next feature list [1] 16:38:01 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-irc#T15-08-45 16:38:01 ACTION: barstow add rotation attribute to v.Next feature list [2] 16:38:01 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-irc#T15-11-55-1 16:38:01 ACTION: barstow add buttons field to v.Next list as a potential new feature [3] 16:38:01 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-irc#T15-20-19 16:38:01 ACTION: barstow add maxTouchPoints issue to v.Next list [4] 16:38:01 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-irc#T15-24-40 16:38:01 ACTION: Jacob propose text re the "spec's positioning" (see LC comment from Alex Russell) [5] 16:38:01 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-irc#T15-41-27 16:38:01 ACTION: Jacob add text to Section 8 to address Rick's click and context menu issue [6] 16:38:01 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/12-pointerevents-irc#T15-45-06