15:00:05 RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents 15:00:05 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-irc 15:00:12 RRSAgent, make log Public 15:00:18 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:00:21 Scribe: Art 15:00:29 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0021.html 15:00:34 Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference 15:00:34 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started 15:00:37 Chair: Art 15:00:41 +[Microsoft] 15:01:12 +scott_gonzalez 15:01:13 + +1.519.513.aaaa 15:01:23 +Cathy 15:01:32 +[Microsoft.a] 15:01:38 Zakim, aaaa is me 15:01:39 +rbyers; got it 15:01:40 jrossi21 has joined #pointerevents 15:01:50 +Art_Barstow 15:02:08 Regrets: Matt_Brubeck 15:02:46 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Scott_Gonzalez, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu, Rick_Byers 15:02:47 +Doug_Schepers 15:02:55 Present+ Doug_Schepers 15:03:26 Topic: Getting started: tweak agenda; determine scribe 15:03:31 AB: I posted the draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0021.html. 15:03:37 AB: One addition I propose is the "Constructor question and mouseEvents compat" thread started by Mozilla's Wesley Johnston http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0009.html since Matt indicated a spec change might be needed to address this comment. 15:03:59 AB: any objections to including that during the LC comment processing discussion? 15:04:06 [None] 15:04:12 AB: any other change requests? 15:04:29 ArtB: sorry, I can't as I said here few minutes ago 15:04:29 I'm in a train 15:04:45 Regrets+ Olli_Pettay 15:04:52 Cathy_ has joined #pointerevents 15:05:02 +Matt_Brubeck 15:05:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0012.html 15:05:25 Present+ Matt_Brubeck 15:05:58 DS: I think we should add Benoit's comment 15:06:00 Regrets- Matt_Brubeck 15:06:03 AB: any objections to that? 15:06:06 [ None ] 15:06:28 Topic: Last Call comment processing 15:06:33 AB: the comment tracking document is https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/dc.html. 15:06:39 AB: Jacob, I think it would be useful, especially if/when there is a CR transition call, if each issue that resulted in a change includes a link to the related changeset(s). Can you please add that? 15:06:57 ACTION: Jacob add links to changesets for LC comments that resulted in changes 15:06:57 Created ACTION-33 - Add links to changesets for LC comments that resulted in changes [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-04-16]. 15:07:07 AB: Jacob, you will also need to include changes since LC publication in the Revision History Appendix. 15:07:31 asir has joined #pointerevents 15:08:04 JR: ok, will do 15:08:13 Topic: Sergey's Comments 15:08:22 AB: Sergey's response to the group's resolution to Yanex's 5 comments is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0019.html. He replies to #1, #2, #3 and #5, presumably he is OK with our response to #4 (tiltX/tiltY). 15:08:45 AB: during the March 26 call we agreed to not make any changes although we did add #1 (#17 in LC tracking doc) and #2 (#16) to the v.next list http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/UseCasesAndRequirements. 15:09:02 AB: in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0022.html indicates he doesn't object to Sangwhan's reasoning re #2 so I think we are OK there. 15:09:29 AB: regarding the other comments, I'm not sure that much new information is being added such that people are convinced to change or move their position. This isn't an especially good situation but not uncommon either. 15:09:47 AB: I do note that Sergey has not formally Objected to the group's decision 15:09:57 AB: my gut feel here is that best way to proceed is to move to the implementation phase where we can then get feedback from not only implementers of the spec but developers too. 15:10:18 AB: let's break this up into two parts: 1) detailed comments regarding Sergey's comments; 2) more general comments on how we proceed. 15:10:39 AB: any detailed comments or thoughts on Sergey's comments? 15:11:09 RB: setPointerCapture gives us the ability to emulate touch event better 15:11:30 … so it can actually be essential with processing iframes 15:11:41 … which cannot be done with touch events 15:12:04 AB: does anyone think we need to change to our previously agreed resolutions on Yandex's comments? 15:12:31 JR: no, I don't think there is any new evidence to reopen our previous decisions 15:12:54 RB: I agree but want to add that pointerCapture is something that is worth debating 15:13:18 … I hope we can continue to encourage discussion and get feedback from devs 15:13:29 … especially wrt composition 15:13:54 JR: yes, I agree we need more feedback, especially from framework people 15:14:16 … and that's true for lots of other APIs in the platform e.g. Web Components 15:14:34 … It could be that Web Components helps with the capture issues 15:14:48 hmm, does the spec say how pointer events work with (i)frames 15:14:59 RB: this is a bit diff for propagation 15:15:13 RB: stopImmediatePropagation 15:15:22 q+ 15:15:24 AutomatedTester has joined #pointerevents 15:15:35 … we need to watch for composition scenarios that may be problematic 15:15:42 … e.g. embedded maps 15:16:03 … This is a subtle and important class of problems that we need to get right 15:16:18 JR: for single canvas element should be able to set capture to itself 15:16:28 … and then if lost can be determined 15:16:37 … think we have some tools 15:17:05 SG: nested widgets means inner widget needs to be able to say I'll handle this 15:17:12 … and now there is no way to do that 15:17:21 … i.e. say "I handled this event" 15:17:56 … with jQuery have to handle bubbling differences with special property 15:18:12 … but there are problems when adding new libs 15:18:23 … The innermost thing that wants to handle should handle it 15:19:11 DS: concerned our rationale is being discussed among ourselves 15:19:40 … and not directly to Sergey 15:19:50 … I think we should invite him to a telco 15:20:05 … It could help smooth out some differences 15:20:28 MB: we should also consider that most devs won't make the effort that Sergey did 15:20:39 … i.e. they won't read the spec and send comments 15:21:14 … they will get something that doesn't work and then just back to iOS 15:21:24 (most devs use script libraries which probably get things right) 15:21:40 … so agree we need to do more outreach to devs 15:21:56 DS: yes, could put some doc in webplatform.org, MDN, etc. 15:22:01 … need some tutorial info 15:22:31 … think talking directly could help with the dialogue 15:22:57 DS: do people agree with a call 15:23:00 +1 on inviting Sergey to participate in the telcon 15:23:08 JR: he certainly represents a class of scenarios 15:23:18 … and we need to reach out to them 15:23:25 … not sure if a telco will help 15:23:42 … but think documenting/marketing these scenarios is justified 15:24:23 AB: I don't object to it, but I don't think we should necessarily block on such a call 15:24:25 DS: sure 15:24:49 ACTION: shepazu invite Sergey to a call 15:24:49 Created ACTION-34 - Invite Sergey to a call [on Doug Schepers - due 2013-04-16]. 15:25:30 AB: so it seems like we could record a resolution like: RESOLUTION: the group's previous decisions on Yandex's comments stands (see https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/default/dc.html for details) 15:25:44 AB: any objections to such a resolution? 15:25:46 [ None ] 15:25:47 RESOLUTION: the group's previous decisions on Yandex's comments stands (see https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/default/dc.html for details) 15:25:57 Topic: Mose Bottacini's comments 15:26:02 AB: Asir asked Mose to reply to his response by April 8. It appears we still have no response from him http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0171.html 15:26:12 AB: I believe re already recorded a Resolution that the group agrees with Asir's reply so I think the comment tracking should reflect that we contacted him, we got no response and that we won't block on this. 15:26:28 AB: does anyone object to not blocking on this comment? 15:26:35 [ None ] 15:26:40 RESOLUTION: the group's previous decision on Mose's comment stands (no change to the spec) 15:26:51 Topic: Constructor question and mouseEvents compat 15:26:59 AB: Wesley's comment is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0009.html. There were replies by Jacob http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0017.html and Matt http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0034.html. 15:27:09 AB: Jacob already checked in a non-substantive fix for comment #1. What, if anything, do we want to do here re comment #2? 15:27:44 MB: issue #2 had 2 parts 15:27:59 … some confusing wording re primary pointers 15:28:26 … second issues is spec does not make it clear whether more than one simul pointer creates compat events 15:28:33 … I haven't tested this yet on IE 15:29:00 JR: the behavior here is that multiple pointers are fighting for the mouse cursor 15:29:17 … we think our behavior is compatible 15:29:30 … we looked at more arbitration scenarios 15:29:41 … they get pretty complex 15:29:58 … Some form factors may benefit from diff arbitration rules 15:30:35 MB: from the user perspective, then just use one mouse 15:30:45 … (if don't like jumping around) 15:30:57 … Perhaps the sec 8 algorithms can be then be left as is 15:31:05 … and arbitration is done at a separate level 15:31:18 … and we can just change the text to make it more clear 15:31:22 … re primary pointer 15:31:53 JR: yes, adding some clarity would be fine 15:32:20 MB: if you search for primary pointer there are a couple of other places that need clarification 15:32:25 JR: can you do that Matt? 15:32:27 MB: yes 15:32:33 RB: thanks Matt 15:32:57 ACTION: Matt update the spec to reflect primary pointer clarification 15:32:57 Created ACTION-35 - Update the spec to reflect primary pointer clarification [on Matt Brubeck - due 2013-04-16]. 15:33:25 Topic: Boris Zbarsky comments on April 5 . 15:33:30 AB: Boris submitted some comments on April 5 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0016.html. For those that don't know Boris, he works for Mozilla. 15:33:43 AB: the good news is that he didn't identify any WebIDL issues. However, he made two other comments and no one has replied to them yet. I think we should treat his comments like LC comment. 15:34:09 JR: I didn't reply yet 15:34:11 do we need to record a resolution for the previous issue? 15:34:20 … but I did make a slight change re his first comment 15:34:52 okay - thank you 15:35:21 RESOLUTION: to address Wesley's comment, Matt will update the spec with some non-substantive changes 15:35:41 JR: the events are already marked as async in the table 15:35:49 … I need to update some text too 15:35:58 … I'll reply to that 1st comment 15:36:05 … Re the 2nd comment 15:36:25 … there is some performance implications with blocks 15:36:38 … want to be able to do the processing off thread 15:36:45 … inline elements are more challenging 15:37:09 … Based on the scenarios we looked at, most are block level elements 15:37:27 … for canvas and svg where you may have an interactive game, those are also block level 15:37:41 … In practice, we have not seen scenarios for inline elements 15:37:56 … I think if it was supported, the UX would be poor 15:38:09 … So mostly this way for performance reasons 15:38:19 DS: is the rationale documented? 15:38:23 JR: not in the spe 15:38:31 s/the spe/the spec/ 15:38:38 DS: think it would be useful 15:38:50 JR: I can propose something in my reply to Boris 15:39:21 DS: to overcome this perceived limitation, an author can make it block level with CSS, just in time 15:39:41 RB: there are some UCs where you wouldn't want to do that 15:39:50 … [ missed the scenario ] 15:40:02 … But I agree with Jacob - let's keep it simple for now 15:40:09 … and if that changes, we revisit 15:40:28 JR: at this point, I think it would go counter to our performance goals 15:40:47 RB: I don't think this is important enough to delay implementations 15:41:01 ACTION: jacob reply to Boris 15:41:01 Created ACTION-36 - Reply to Boris [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-04-16]. 15:41:49 AB: is there consensus to address this by non-normative text? 15:41:56 DS: we need to include rationale 15:42:05 JR: yes, and that would be non-normative 15:42:18 DS: we need to add it 15:42:29 The scenario I described was an inline image inside of text (maybe even a button) which wants to have special touch handling. I said an inline image carousel, but more realistic is probably an inline button (eg. footnote) which wants to have some special touch behavior (eg. swipe to open) without changing scrolling behavior on the text... 15:43:08 AB: proposed RESOLUTION: re Boris' comment, we will add non-normative rationale to the spec 15:43:23 RESOLUTION: re Boris' comment, we will add non-normative rationale to the spec 15:43:45 Topic: Benoit's comment 15:44:05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0012.html 15:44:28 DS: Jacob replied 15:44:37 … I would characterize them as v2 15:44:41 … is that fair? 15:44:52 JR: yes, we have previously discussed these and agreed v2 15:45:00 DS: have he received a reply yet? 15:45:02 JR: no 15:45:10 DS: he is writing a framework 15:45:15 … this is good input 15:45:32 … we should have a roadmap to deal with things like pointer lists 15:45:50 JR: pointer lists is on the v2 list 15:46:31 JR: once we start to spec this, there could be broader device query API needed 15:46:46 DS: yeah, we had related comments with D3E 15:47:08 … OK, I'm satisfied 15:47:29 AB: is there consensus to not change the spec and these features are for v2? 15:47:44 JR: yes 15:47:48 sounds right to me 15:47:53 … sustaining previous resolutions 15:48:19 RESOUTION: re Benoit's comments, we consider those feature requests as part of v2 15:48:50 ACTION: jacob reply to Benoit re the group's 9-Apr-2013 decision 15:48:50 Created ACTION-37 - Reply to Benoit re the group's 9-Apr-2013 decision [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-04-16]. 15:49:22 RB: I think there is also a bit of confusion re "same time" for events 15:49:50 … it could be worthwhile to say we think there is no real problem for this but we can look into it for v2 15:50:05 … but it would be good to make sure his concerns are clear 15:50:32 ACTION: rick reply to Benoit re clarity for his concerns 15:50:32 Created ACTION-38 - Reply to Benoit re clarity for his concerns [on Rick Byers - due 2013-04-16]. 15:51:26 [ I missed your comment Scott - sorry about that! Please add them here ] 15:52:08 JR: there are devices that give effectively parallel input 15:52:25 … moves can happen within 1/100 of a second 15:52:36 … and they can be "simultaneous" moves 15:52:46 Cathy has joined #pointerevents 15:52:55 RB: and pinch may not necessarily be two touches at the same time 15:53:56 JR: if Rick is going to reply to Benoit, then I don't have to 15:54:02 RB: ok, that's fiine 15:54:09 Topic: Moving Pointer Events spec to Candidate Recommendation 15:54:20 AB: we still have a few things to do before we can determine if we have consensus to publish a CR. 15:54:41 AB: the main open actions followups 15:55:00 AB: if we can get closure on comments real soon, we should be a position to have a CfC during our next call on April 16. 15:55:09 For tracking "framed" touches, you can use requestAnimationFrame() or similar and manually track the events that occur between frames. 15:55:16 AB: does that sound about right? 15:55:23 JR: yes 15:55:43 AB: I think it is time to agree to something like "We're done with LC comments. All new comments will be considered during CR." 15:55:54 JR: yes, I agree 15:55:57 RB: yes 15:56:13 AB: proposed RESOLUTION: the group agreed that any new comments for Pointer Events v1 will be consider CR comments 15:56:33 AB: any objections? 15:57:27 Closing Last Call issues list makes sense 15:57:32 action: jrossi to update comment doc to reflect these last comments 15:57:32 Created ACTION-39 - Update comment doc to reflect these last comments [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-04-16]. 15:57:39 [ None ] 15:57:42 RESOLUTION: the group agreed that any new comments for Pointer Events v1 will be consider CR comments 15:57:52 Topic: Testing: status, need volunteers for test submissions; 15:57:57 AB: Cathy did a lot of work on the Test Assertions since our last meeting, so thanks Cathy for that! http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions. 15:58:02 AB: Scott checked in some tests yesterday, so thanks Scott! https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/file/default/tests/pointerevents-v1/submissions/jQuery. 15:58:10 AB: there are still lots of holes so please review the TA tables and pick some. 15:58:45 JR: there is the TTF event by Microsoft and Adobe on Friday and Saturday 15:58:50 … please come if you can 15:58:56 … Matt and I will be there 15:59:03 Not sure if I'm coming yet, but will try 15:59:03 SG: someone from jQ will be there 15:59:08 AB: that's excellent! 15:59:36 JR: some groups have a separate list for tests? 15:59:51 AB: I don't think that's necessary 15:59:53 I agree it's not needed for this group. 16:00:02 … and if we have probs, we can revisit 16:00:08 Topic: Any other Business: implementation status 16:00:14 AB: any new implementation status to share? 16:00:41 RB: re the WebKit/Blink fork 16:01:00 Wes Johnston at Mozilla is in early stages of implementation work. 16:01:00 … If anyone has Qs or concerns, I'm happy to talk about that 16:01:24 MB: on Gecko side, Wes Johnston has started some implementation work 16:01:42 … it's a bit of a side project but hopefully more people will get involved 16:01:56 DS: are you aware of any PE issues wrt Blink? 16:02:49 RB: at Google I/O I am giving a talk and hope to report some progress 16:04:45 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:04:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:05:09 RRSAgent, make log Public 16:05:16 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:05:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:09:33 q+ 16:11:49 I think you cannot hear me for some reason 16:12:15 AB: next call is April 16. 16:13:33 AB: meeting adjourned 16:13:39 -Art_Barstow 16:13:41 -rbyers 16:13:42 -scott_gonzalez 16:13:42 -Doug_Schepers 16:13:44 -Cathy 16:13:53 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:13:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:14:07 -Matt_Brubeck 16:15:17 -asir 16:17:52 -[Microsoft.a] 16:17:53 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended 16:17:53 Attendees were scott_gonzalez, +1.519.513.aaaa, Cathy, rbyers, Art_Barstow, Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck, asir 16:51:28 smaug has joined #pointerevents 17:23:17 jrossi2 has joined #pointerevents 17:23:39 jrossi2 has left #pointerevents 18:17:22 zakim, who is there? 18:17:22 I don't understand your question, ArtB. 18:17:29 zakim, who's here? 18:17:29 apparently RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended, ArtB 18:17:30 On IRC I see smaug, asir, jrossi21, RRSAgent, Zakim, ArtB, scott_gonzalez, shepazu, mbrubeck, sangwhan, rbyers, ArtB_, slightlyoff, dfreedm, trackbot 18:17:36 zakim, bye 18:17:37 Zakim has left #pointerevents 18:17:40 rrsagent, bye 18:17:40 I see 7 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-actions.rdf : 18:17:40 ACTION: Jacob add links to changesets for LC comments that resulted in changes [1] 18:17:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-irc#T15-06-57 18:17:40 ACTION: shepazu invite Sergey to a call [2] 18:17:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-irc#T15-24-49 18:17:40 ACTION: Matt update the spec to reflect primary pointer clarification [3] 18:17:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-irc#T15-32-57 18:17:40 ACTION: jacob reply to Boris [4] 18:17:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-irc#T15-41-01 18:17:40 ACTION: jacob reply to Benoit re the group's 9-Apr-2013 decision [5] 18:17:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-irc#T15-48-50 18:17:40 ACTION: rick reply to Benoit re clarity for his concerns [6] 18:17:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-irc#T15-50-32 18:17:40 ACTION: jrossi to update comment doc to reflect these last comments [7] 18:17:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-pointerevents-irc#T15-57-32