IRC log of pointerevents on 2013-04-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

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