15:00:03 RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents 15:00:03 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-irc 15:00:13 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:00:13 Scribe: Art 15:00:13 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0138.html 15:00:13 Chair: Art 15:00:13 Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference 15:00:23 RRSAgent, make log Public 15:00:28 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:00:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:00:55 Regrets: Rick_Byers 15:01:13 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started 15:01:19 +[Microsoft] 15:01:29 +Art_Barstow 15:01:51 Art: I'm muted hang on... 15:02:23 +[Microsoft.a] 15:03:57 Present: Art_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu 15:04:11 + +1.717.578.aaaa 15:04:23 Present+ Scott_González 15:04:29 Zakim, aaaa is me 15:04:29 +scott_gonzalez; got it 15:04:41 +Matt_Brubeck 15:04:50 Present+ Matt_Brubeck 15:04:52 +Doug_Schepers 15:05:00 Present+ Doug_Schepers 15:05:21 Topic: Getting started 15:05:26 AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0138.html. 15:05:32 AB: since Rick sent regrets for today, I propose we drop item #3 in the draft ("Impact of pointer capture on pointerover/pointerout events") and replace it with a short discussion about tracking comments during Candidate Recommendation. Any objections to that? 15:06:03 [ none ] 15:06:04 AB: any other change requests? 15:06:12 [ none ] 15:06:19 Topic: Developers confuse the original MS PE submission for the current spec 15:06:28 AB: Rick Byers started this thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0118.html 15:06:34 AB: I believe Doug agreed to work with Jacob to take care of this. Is that correct Doug? 15:07:01 JR: the action is on me to provide an updated doc via Michael Champion 15:07:18 … one open question is can we update the existing Submission or not 15:07:26 … and just add a link to the group's spec 15:07:49 ACTION: jacob work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE Member Submission 15:07:49 Created ACTION-41 - Work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE Member Submission [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-05-14]. 15:08:16 Topic: Tracking Comments during Candidate Recommendation 15:08:22 AB: since the time we agreed to publish a CR, a few comments have been submitted and we should consider them CR comments. 15:08:33 AB: regardless of the state of the spec, the group is always obligated to reply all comments. 15:08:51 … and we've done a great job of that already 15:08:58 AB: during CR, I don't think we are _required_ to create a Disposition of Comments like we did for LC but we need to be diligent to address all comments, in some form. 15:09:32 JR: I think it would be helpful to be more diligent on Issues 15:09:40 asir has joined #pointerevents 15:09:46 … helpful to look at issues and Bugzilla 15:09:54 … nice to look at the issues that were raised 15:10:35 AB: so, do we want to create a bug if the spec changes as a result of a comment? 15:10:39 JR: yes 15:11:12 AV: if we create a CR target on Mozilla, it make it easy to target bugs against the CR 15:11:30 AB: do we need to create some type of label? 15:11:38 AV: there is a field for tracking docs 15:11:48 s/Mozilla/Bugzilla/ 15:11:52 … perhaps Doug know about how to do that with Mozilla? 15:12:04 DS: I haven't used it for that purpose 15:12:05 s/Mozilla/Bugzilla/ 15:12:12 JR: I think we need to add versions 15:12:31 ACTION: barstow get a "CR" version created for the Pointer Events CR 15:12:31 Created ACTION-42 - Get a "CR" version created for the Pointer Events CR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-05-14]. 15:13:12 DRAFT RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that result in spec changes 15:13:21 AB: any comments on that Draft? 15:13:27 RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that result in spec changes 15:14:00 AB: anything else re admin tasks for CR, Doug? 15:14:11 DS: no, I don't think so 15:14:32 … we need to do Impl Report and Tests and we already know about that 15:14:41 … we haven't marked anything "At Risk" 15:14:48 … we've already talked about v2 15:14:56 … so I think things our "pretty standard" 15:15:14 JR: that all sounds right 15:15:19 Topic: pointermove dispatching when button state changes 15:15:29 AB: Scott started this thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0134.html and Jacob replied http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0141.html. 15:15:56 SG: seems unclear there is no move when a button is clicked 15:16:11 JR: yeah, I think the sentence in ptrmove is ambiguous 15:16:25 … need to take care of the case where there is no up or down event 15:16:37 SG: should we just add a sentence that adds the exception? 15:16:41 JR: yes 15:16:58 SG: if move cause down, need to clarify 15:17:04 JR: yes, I can make that change 15:17:22 AB: so, you'll create a bug for this Jacob? 15:17:26 JR: yes, I'll do that 15:17:38 Topic: MSPointer implementation only dispatches mousemove when hovering 15:17:43 AB: Scott started this thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0135.html 15:18:07 AB: it appears to identify a bug in IE 15:18:14 JR: yes, it's a bug 15:18:41 … we still fire the hover event 15:18:47 … expect to align with the spec 15:18:55 SG: agree, we don't need to discuss here 15:19:01 zakim, [microsoft] is me 15:19:01 +asir; got it 15:19:12 AB: any need for spec tightening? 15:19:16 SG: no, I don't think so 15:19:41 … I was looking for clarification (they have a hover event which is not in the spec) 15:19:53 Topic: Testing 15:20:00 AB: CfC to move tests to GitHub https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/pointerevents passed. 15:20:30 SG: I have a question about the GH repo 15:20:45 … there is a PR from Nokia 15:20:46 regarding pointermove and property changes: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951 15:20:53 … not sure about the status of that 15:21:16 … What is the process for review, merge, etc.? 15:21:23 … Not sure how this PR is handled? 15:21:51 AB: those are all good questions Scott 15:21:59 … we need to define our workflow 15:22:06 … including, who is going to do what 15:22:34 … would like to hear from Matt 15:22:42 MB: I need to do some homework 15:22:47 … re W3C's GH repo 15:22:55 … I can read up on that 15:23:04 q+ 15:23:04 … I expect submissions are PRs 15:23:18 … comments can be made on the list or in the PRs 15:23:30 JR: work with MikeSmith and Robin re permissions 15:23:44 … I think you want to get setup with perms 15:23:51 MB: yes, I'll do that 15:24:00 SG: with Hg, there was submissions 15:24:13 … and with GH, that doesn't appear to be used 15:24:25 JR: with GH, branches are used instead of submissions 15:24:43 SG: so, there is no submissions directory on GH 15:24:56 JR: yes, I think so but Matt can help us figure this out 15:25:14 AV: after someone submits, there should be some review but approval 15:25:31 … need to separate WG's workflow from GH's workflow 15:25:41 SG: I agree, PRs can serve as submissions 15:25:44 +1 15:26:16 where PR = Pull Request 15:27:40 AB: need to figure out how to watch for just pointerevents changes 15:27:49 SG: don't think that can be done directly with GH 15:28:04 … will get notifications for all PRs to webplatform-tests 15:28:54 AB: here is Rebecca's doc http://testthewebforward.org/resources/github_test_submission.html 15:29:12 … WebApps and HTML WGs will use as a guide 15:29:27 … and we should use it too unless we really have some specific constraints or reqs 15:30:11 AB: Asir mentioned we want to agree on review and approval process 15:30:44 AV: this doc has a section on Submit that mentions specific WG processes 15:31:12 JR: this doc doesn't really address how the WG does its reviews and approvals 15:31:20 … that is left to the WG to define 15:31:33 AV: yes, that is correct 15:31:57 JR: the undefined steps are accepting the PR and merging into the master 15:32:03 … we can define that ourselves 15:32:16 … but we should learn from what other groups are doing 15:32:23 AB: that makes perfect sense to me 15:32:37 JR: Matt, can you take an action on this? 15:33:05 ACTION: matt make a proposal re how to accept Pull Requests and merge them to the master 15:33:05 Created ACTION-43 - Make a proposal re how to accept Pull Requests and merge them to the master [on Matt Brubeck - due 2013-05-14]. 15:33:35 AB: one thing I wanted to mention is ATT tests http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-testtwf/2013May/0000.html 15:33:52 … and I think DaveM from jQuery has done some work too 15:34:16 AB: Scott will you submit a PR for your HG submission? 15:34:20 SG: yes, I'll do that 15:34:37 … and I'll work with DaveM to get his PR to pointerevents repo 15:34:56 AB: anything else on testing? 15:35:09 JR: I don't see AT&T listed as a WG member 15:35:23 … do they need to be a member of the group to submit tests? 15:35:34 DS: there are various ways to handle this 15:35:42 … indeed being a WG member is easiest 15:35:48 … but anyone can submit a test 15:35:59 JR: oh, yeah, there is form for that right? 15:36:01 DS: yes 15:36:18 JR: I recall TTWF participants had to sign that form 15:36:27 AB: ok, so we should be fine then 15:36:30 JR: yes, I think so 15:36:47 Topic: Any other Business 15:36:52 AB: Director approved the publication of a Pointer Events Candidate Recommendation  and that CR should be published on May 9 15:37:37 Congratulations to the WG!! 15:38:38 AB: F2F meeting @ TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, China Nov 11-15? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0128.html. I've heard some support. Any comments, feedback, concerns, etc.? 15:39:44 mbrubeck has joined #pointerevents 15:40:42 AV: if we were to meet, what would we do? 15:40:53 … re the agenda and goal? 15:40:59 AB: good question 15:41:29 AV: I think it would be good to meet 15:41:37 … but not sure we want to wait until November 15:41:49 … e.g. get together for interop and testing work 15:42:02 DS: we could meet in China e.g. to discuss things about v2 15:43:14 AB: I don't feel strongly either way 15:43:34 AV: so if this is about securing a spot, maybe we can think about this as tentative 15:43:55 DS: yes, there is a bit of that 15:44:21 AB: based on what I know now, I don't think we will have a need to meet 15:44:44 DS: if we think we will need to talk to other groups, then meeting at TPAC can be useful 15:45:01 … and do we anticipate that need 6 months from now? 15:45:15 … groups that we depend on or groups that depend on us 15:45:30 … There is some serendipity that happens too at TPAC 15:45:40 … The Web Events is one group 15:45:46 … but we can contact them other ways 15:45:56 … The Indie UI WG is another potential group 15:46:10 … and I don't know about the usefulness of meeting with them 15:47:02 … Another reason to meet is if we can discuss topics with people f2f 15:47:12 … e.g. manufactures of touch devices 15:47:37 DS: so I leave it up to the group 15:47:47 AV: are such mfgs members of W3C? 15:48:04 DS: not sure but some type of "expo day" could be useful 15:48:15 … and we could do that via a presentation e.g. @ TPAC slot 15:49:26 AB: I propose we don't meet and take advantage of the TP meeting to do a demo about the PE spec 15:49:30 MB: sounds good to me 15:49:37 AV: sounds good to me too 15:49:59 JR: sounds reasonable; it's just too far in advance 15:50:15 SG: it's hard to say if there will be a good reason to meet 15:50:27 … but six months out is too far away 15:50:43 JR: and as Doug said, if we find a need to meet earlier, we can do so 15:50:49 AV: yes, good idea 15:51:11 RESOLUTION: the Pointer Events WG will not meet f2f at the TPAC 2013 15:51:26 AB: any implementation new or status? 15:51:46 s/new or/news or/ 15:52:01 New polyfill: http://rich-harris.github.io/Points/ 15:53:30 -Art_Barstow 15:53:31 -[Microsoft.a] 15:53:31 -Doug_Schepers 15:53:33 -asir 15:53:44 -Matt_Brubeck 15:53:46 -scott_gonzalez 15:53:47 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended 15:53:47 Attendees were Art_Barstow, +1.717.578.aaaa, scott_gonzalez, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, asir 16:06:14 AB: re next meeting, we'll have a call when there are sufficient topics 16:06:22 … Meeting Adjourned 16:06:27 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:06:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:09:52 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:09:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:10:49 , bye 16:11:20 zakim, bye 16:11:20 Zakim has left #pointerevents 16:12:19 shepazu - yt? RRSAgent is updating the minutes 16:13:07 RRSAgent, make log Public 16:13:12 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:13:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:34:24 abarsto has joined #pointerevents 16:35:54 RRSAgent, log? 16:35:54 I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'log' 16:36:03 RRSAgent, help 16:36:37 rrsagent, bookmark 16:36:37 See http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-irc#T16-36-37 16:36:56 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:36:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 17:45:16 chaals has joined #pointerevents