IRC log of pointerevents on 2013-03-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:00:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:01:02 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log public
15:01:03 [Zakim]
15:01:08 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
15:01:13 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
15:01:18 [ArtB]
15:01:23 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
15:01:23 [ArtB]
Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:01:24 [smaug]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
15:01:24 [Zakim]
+Olli_Pettay; got it
15:01:33 [smaug]
Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
15:01:33 [Zakim]
ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
15:01:41 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has joined #pointerevents
15:01:48 [ArtB]
Regrets: Doug_Schepers, Cathy_Chan
15:01:53 [jrossi2]
15:02:16 [Zakim]
15:02:33 [ArtB]
Present+ Art_Barstow, Rick_Byers, Jacob_Rossi, Olli_Pettay, Scott_Gonzalez, Asir_Vedamuthu
15:02:49 [ArtB]
Topic: Getting started
15:02:55 [ArtB]
AB: I posted a draft agenda a few days ago The main subject is to discuss the LC comments for which we have no recorded resolution regarding what, if anything, should be done about the comments.
15:03:13 [ArtB]
AB: any change requests?
15:03:34 [ArtB]
JR: + extensions to Element interface
15:03:38 [ArtB]
15:03:46 [ArtB]
AB: would someone please agree to scribe with the proviso others will help fill any gaps and make corrections?
15:04:18 [ArtB]
Scribe: Rick
15:04:24 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: rbyers
15:04:40 [ArtB]
Topic: Pointer event behavior across windows
15:04:45 [ArtB]
AB: Rick Byers submitted this comment
15:04:53 [ArtB]
AB: it appears an IE bug was identified but not clear if the spec needs to be changed e.g. a non-normative note about PEs across windows.
15:05:25 [rbyers]
RB: probably outside the scope of the spec
15:05:43 [rbyers]
JR: also discussed similar issue on Dom3 events and didn't do anything there
15:06:17 [rbyers]
RESOLUTION: Cross-window issues are out of scope for this spec
15:06:20 [ArtB]
Topic: 3D Pointers
15:06:21 [rbyers]
OP: Agree, out of scope
15:06:26 [ArtB]
AB: Bill Fisher submitted this comment
15:06:35 [ArtB]
AB: we discussed this feature request before more generally in the context of the pointerType extensibility thread and agreed we need more experience before adding normative text.
15:06:59 [ArtB]
AB: Jacob replied as such in Bill's reply to Jacob, he mentions the need for a z-coordinate
15:07:09 [asir]
asir has joined #pointerevents
15:07:20 [asir]
zakim, [microsoft] is me
15:07:20 [Zakim]
+asir; got it
15:07:46 [rbyers]
JR: Intriguing discussion, tempting to just jump and support. But this is a tricky point in the specs lifetime - need to resist the temptation.
15:07:58 [rbyers]
.. We're probably going to want to have a long discussion, don't think it's as simple as he describes
15:08:06 [rbyers]
.. It will be awhile before we see implementations
15:08:12 [rbyers]
.. If we rush this into V1 we'll probably get something wrong
15:09:19 [rbyers]
RB: Seems like if we get extensibility right, this should be successful being implementation-specific first before being standardized
15:09:30 [rbyers]
... To what extent are his concerns here justified?
15:09:49 [rbyers]
JR: LeapMotion has shown that prototypes are reasonable
15:09:51 [AutomatedTester]
AutomatedTester has joined #pointerevents
15:10:12 [rbyers]
... not beyond the realm of posibility to extend the interface with additional properties for experimentation
15:10:42 [rbyers]
AB: Tend to agree that without more experimentation, this would end up blocking going to candidate
15:10:55 [rbyers]
... Feels like the right thing to do is to do it in V2
15:11:18 [rbyers]
SG: I don't think this is necessary in v1. Better to start close to mouse (what we have now), then once we have people on pointer we can focus more on how we handle other newer types of input.
15:11:20 [rbyers]
OP: I agree
15:11:58 [rbyers]
RESOLUTION: 3d pointers are out of scope for Pointer Events v1, but will consider for v2 when we have more experimentation
15:12:27 [ArtB]
Topic: Last Call comments from Yandex
15:12:37 [ArtB]
AB: Chaals' comments are in The comments are from "people at Yandex who implemented Pointer Events for our services". (BTW, Yandex joined the PEWG a few days ago.)
15:12:57 [rbyers]
AB: Yandex has joined this working group
15:13:12 [ArtB]
AB: the e-mail raises 3-4 different issues
15:13:23 [ArtB]
AB: Jacob's reply to Chaals/Sergey and Sergey's reply
15:14:56 [jrossi2]
rbyers: first issue raised is that they prefer preventDefault() over touch-action
15:15:05 [jrossi2]
rbyers: we've talked several times
15:15:19 [jrossi2]
rbyers: jacob commented on the reasoning
15:15:29 [jrossi2]
rbyers: yandex asked about other browser vendors
15:15:41 [jrossi2]
rbyers: I replied with links to a test page and G+ post about it
15:15:53 [jrossi2]
rbyers: at this point, no way we're going to change PE to use preventDefault() model
15:16:40 [asir]
Agree with Rick's position
15:16:42 [rbyers]
AB: Agree this isn't something we should be considering changing
15:16:46 [rbyers]
OP: Agree
15:17:36 [rbyers]
RESOLUTION: declarative-only control over browser default action (touch-action property) will remain the only mechanism for now
15:17:59 [ArtB]
AB: "Tilt angles are very difficult to work with, why not use standard
15:17:59 [ArtB]
spherical coordinates?"
15:18:20 [asir]
Gist from Jacob's response: Tilt angles. This is based on USB standard
15:18:41 [rbyers]
AB: Jacob responded pointing at USB documentation
15:19:18 [rbyers]
RB: Not a significant issue, good as is
15:19:29 [rbyers]
RESOLUTION: keep tiltX/tiltY units as defined
15:20:06 [rbyers]
AB: next issue - "pointer capture doesn't add any value, artifact of ie6"
15:20:56 [rbyers]
RB: is there a compelling reason why capture needs to be in v1?
15:21:45 [rbyers]
... JR: a substantial difference between these APIs and the capture APIs in IE5/6 is that these handle multi-touch
15:22:05 [rbyers]
... using the capturing phase it's tricky to track specific pointers to specific elements
15:22:49 [rbyers]
... could imagine slider scenario extended to mixing board with multiple sliders, each capturing a pointer
15:22:56 [rbyers]
... setCapture makes this easier
15:23:21 [rbyers]
... latest comment saying this makes it problematic for component author:
15:23:26 [rbyers]
... don't really buy this for 2 reasons:
15:23:38 [rbyers]
... 1) there are got/lost events that will let them know when this happens
15:23:56 [rbyers]
... 2) there are a million other scenarios where it could be effected
15:24:08 [rbyers]
... multi-touch is the primary place this is useful
15:24:51 [rbyers]
RB: I'd like to run this API by our folks working on Web components
15:24:58 [rbyers]
... any encapsulation issues here
15:25:03 [rbyers]
JR: Agree we want to make sure it plays well there
15:25:35 [rbyers]
RB: sounds like worst case and we decided we wanted to think about this a little longer, it's not a big deal if we wanted to pull from v1
15:26:08 [rbyers]
JR: main concern is that it could affect someone's review of the spec - that it would reset things in the last call process
15:26:40 [rbyers]
AB: If we decided we didn't want to include section 9 then we would have to go back to last call
15:27:25 [rbyers]
ACTION: rbyers to follow-up on web component implications of pointer capture
15:27:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-28 - Follow-up on web component implications of pointer capture [on Rick Byers - due 2013-04-02].
15:28:01 [rbyers]
JR: for folks wanting a more straight forward migration from touch events, this is simpler
15:28:12 [rbyers]
... lets you emulate implicit capture model of touch events
15:28:15 [rbyers]
RB: agree
15:29:04 [rbyers]
... but not sure how important this is in practice - often implicit capture causes problems
15:29:26 [rbyers]
OP: why does the API take pointerId and not a PointerEvent as it's parameter?
15:29:49 [rbyers]
JR: not necessary to pass the entire object - just need to identify the pointer
15:29:59 [rbyers]
OP: is the ability to capture a random number a problem?
15:30:25 [rbyers]
JR: if it's a valid pointer id then it will get captured (can setcapture outside of a pointer event_
15:30:35 [rbyers]
... if it's not valid then it throws an exception
15:31:17 [rbyers]
AB: any other feedback? If Rick doesn't come up with any large issues with leaving it defined, then we'll leave it in.
15:31:21 [rbyers]
OP: agree
15:31:37 [rbyers]
OP: this is kind of related to pointer lock, but only designed for mouse events
15:31:45 [rbyers]
... assume we'd want support for pointer events at some point
15:31:59 [smaug]
15:32:05 [rbyers]
JR: pointer lock is a lot different than just capture, it also hides the cursor, gives you deltas, etc.
15:32:18 [rbyers]
OP: yes it does more, but at some point we need to think about pointer lock for pointer events
15:32:38 [rbyers]
JR: agree, that's probably pointerlock v2. There's nothing in PointerEvent spec preventing a 'pointersLock"
15:32:52 [jrossi2]
also, there are some sites already using pointer capture APIs I believe
15:33:02 [ArtB]
AB: "Why should the mouse have pointerId == 1? There is no need for this, since we have a pointerType for detecting input device type, and it makes it impossible to use two mouse devices simultaneously."
15:33:16 [rbyers]
jrossi2: If you could provide a specific example of a site using it, that might be helpful...
15:33:38 [rbyers]
JR: we've talked about this before
15:33:46 [rbyers]
... generally mouse is persistent
15:34:06 [rbyers]
... felt it simplest to reserve a pointer id for the mouse
15:34:32 [rbyers]
... multi-mouse is possible with the spec, but it's not a scenario most implementers are going after
15:34:39 [rbyers]
... don't see this becoming an important thing
15:35:49 [rbyers]
RB: does code special-casing 1 protect us or hurt us if we add multi-mouse in the future?
15:36:28 [rbyers]
SG: seems strange to say write for multiple pointers for touch, but there can only ever be one mouse
15:37:05 [rbyers]
RB: also strange to say that pointer Id is an opaque integer, don't interpret it in any way ... unless it has the value 1
15:37:29 [rbyers]
JR: for multi-mouse we'd have to define which pointer fires mouse events
15:37:47 [rbyers]
AB: seems like this may not be the perfect model, but meets the "I can live with it" test
15:38:31 [rbyers]
RB: Alex Russel brought this up
15:38:57 [asir]
the WG discussed on Mar 3 and Mar 12
15:40:22 [rbyers]
RESOLUTION: supporting multi-mouse is out of scope for v1, will tackle in v2. The primary mouse having id 1 won't prevent this.
15:41:09 [rbyers]
AB: Last comment on the thread ...
15:41:25 [rbyers]
JR: Multi-touch handling and the convenience of having a touch list
15:42:28 [rbyers]
RB: there's good reason to encourage more thought on the right way to do a pointer list API
15:42:37 [rbyers]
... has security implications (IE originally had one and it was removed)
15:42:45 [AutomatedTester]
AutomatedTester has joined #pointerevents
15:43:01 [rbyers]
AB: let's add this comment to the thread
15:43:14 [rbyers]
JR: have get pointer list API on v2 list
15:43:46 [rbyers]
RESOLUTION: an API to return active pointers is out of scope for v1, but will be tackled in v2
15:45:14 [AutomatedTester]
AutomatedTester has joined #pointerevents
15:45:54 [ArtB]
Topic: Distinguishing input from multiple users
15:46:00 [ArtB]
AB: Sangwhan Moon submitted this comment on March 24
15:46:08 [ArtB]
AB: first, there is a bit of procedural issue here. Since the LC comment period ended March 19 and Sangwhan's input was submitted on March 24, strictly speaking we _could_ say this isn't a LC comment.
15:46:29 [ArtB]
AB: however, I recommend against that i.e. I think we should consider Sangwhan's comment as a LC comment.
15:46:45 [ArtB]
AB: I say this for a couple of reasons but mainly because we have what I will call a "social contract" with the Public. We should always welcome feedback at any time in the process and then on a case-by-case basis decide what, if anything, to do about the feedback.
15:47:12 [ArtB]
AB: any comments on the process-related aspects (separately, we will talk about the technical nature of Sangwhan's comments)?
15:47:20 [asir]
Agree this should be a Last Call comment
15:47:40 [rbyers]
JR: no objections, I have one of my own...
15:47:49 [rbyers]
RB: agree
15:48:22 [rbyers]
JR: want a way to associate pointers with a particular device (or 'user')
15:48:41 [rbyers]
... eg. multiple users interacting with the same content [via multiple input devices]
15:48:50 [rbyers]
... one example is the Wii browser
15:49:10 [rbyers]
... specific proposal: add a deviceId member to PointerEvent
15:49:27 [rbyers]
... is the issue clear to everyone?
15:49:29 [rbyers]
AB: I think so
15:49:58 [rbyers]
JR: it's not clear to me that pointer events are the only type of input you want to differentiate
15:50:11 [rbyers]
... don't have anything wrong with the approach in principle
15:50:24 [rbyers]
... but probably belongs on UIEvent, not on PointerEvent. Eg. to support multiple keyboards.
15:51:19 [rbyers]
... Secondly, we want to make sure we're not exposing a unique identifier for users (something that persists across pages). needs to be generic, reset for each page, no guarantees that you get the same ID for each device after a navigation
15:51:28 [rbyers]
... prefer this would be in the scope of the UI Events spec
15:51:31 [rbyers]
OP: Fully agree
15:52:20 [rbyers]
AB: should we propose to WebApps working group that this get added there?
15:52:23 [rbyers]
RB: seems reasonable
15:52:38 [rbyers]
JR: I can reply on the thread and see what Sangwhan thinks
15:54:04 [ArtB]
ACTION: Barstow reply to Yandex comments (Chaals) and include link to 26-Mar-2013 minutes
15:54:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-29 - Reply to Yandex comments (Chaals) and include link to 26-Mar-2013 minutes [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-04-02].
15:54:44 [jrossi2]
action: jrossi2 to reply to Sangwhan on the list
15:54:45 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-30 - Reply to Sangwhan on the list [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-04-02].
15:55:55 [jrossi2]
action: jacob to reply to 3D pointer thread
15:55:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-31 - Reply to 3D pointer thread [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-04-02].
15:56:50 [rbyers]
Topic: extensions to the element interface
15:57:16 [rbyers]
JR: a glaring omission from the spec here
15:57:40 [rbyers]
... section 6 defines extensions to the Element interface, but they should also be on Window and Document
15:58:02 [rbyers]
... wish we would have caught this earlier, don't expect objections
15:58:10 [rbyers]
... pretty obvious that's what the model should have been
15:58:23 [rbyers]
... but think it's something we'd want to fix
15:58:29 [asir]
sort of like a documentation issue
15:58:36 [rbyers]
RB: agree, I was assuming that too
15:59:03 [rbyers]
AB: consider this a bug in the IDL personally
15:59:18 [rbyers]
OP: Definitely they should be on document and window too
15:59:54 [rbyers]
RESOLUTION: Update spec to add all Element extensions to Document and Window as well
16:00:05 [ArtB]
Topic: Testing: status, plans
16:00:21 [rbyers]
AB: Matt agreed to be test facilitator, but he's not here today
16:00:28 [rbyers]
... Cathy has done preliminary work on assertions
16:00:31 [ArtB]
16:01:14 [ArtB]
Topic: Any other Business
16:01:15 [rbyers]
... standing action for the group to review and contribute to these assertions
16:01:22 [ArtB]
AB: does anyone have any new implementation status to share?
16:01:47 [rbyers]
RB: no change on Google side to report this week
16:02:17 [rbyers]
AB: Jacob, do you have last call tracking doc?
16:02:31 [rbyers]
JR: Yes, I'll add to it for this week and will check it in
16:03:45 [rbyers]
JR: see change for element extensions as not a substantial change, right?
16:03:51 [rbyers]
AB: Yes, non-substantive
16:03:56 [rbyers]
... just a bug in the IDL
16:04:29 [rbyers]
AB: None of the changes we've discussed so far result in substantive changes
16:04:40 [rbyers]
... everyone agree?
16:04:52 [asir]
16:05:01 [rbyers]
AB: We will have a call next week
16:05:22 [rbyers]
RB: I also agree, no substantive changes
16:05:23 [jrossi2]
16:05:29 [jrossi2]
no substantive changes
16:05:40 [Zakim]
16:05:41 [Zakim]
16:05:41 [Zakim]
16:05:46 [Zakim]
16:05:56 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has left #pointerevents
16:06:10 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:06:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:06:21 [Zakim]
16:06:33 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
16:07:00 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:07:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:09:34 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log public
16:09:41 [ArtB]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:09:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:11:22 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, asir, in RWC_PEWG()11:00AM
16:11:24 [Zakim]
RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
16:11:24 [Zakim]
Attendees were Art_Barstow, rbyers, scott_gonzalez, Olli_Pettay, asir
16:30:23 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #pointerevents
17:11:03 [chaals1]
chaals1 has joined #pointerevents
17:11:13 [chaals1]
rrsagent, make log public
17:11:39 [chaals1]
worky ArtB
17:13:03 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in :
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: rbyers to follow-up on web component implications of pointer capture [1]
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Barstow reply to Yandex comments (Chaals) and include link to 26-Mar-2013 minutes [2]
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jrossi2 to reply to Sangwhan on the list [3]
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jacob to reply to 3D pointer thread [4]
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:13:09 [ArtB]
thanks chaals1