See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<jrossi2> Art: I'm muted hang on...
AB: I posted a draft agenda
yesterday
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0138.html.
... 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?
[ none ]
AB: any other change requests?
[ none ]
AB: Rick Byers started this
thread
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0118.html
... I believe Doug agreed to work with Jacob to take care of
this. Is that correct Doug?
JR: the action is on me to provide an updated doc via Michael Champion
… one open question is can we update the existing Submission or not
… and just add a link to the group's spec
<scribe> ACTION: jacob work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE Member Submission [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE Member Submission [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-05-14].
AB: since the time we agreed to
publish a CR, a few comments have been submitted and we should
consider them CR comments.
... regardless of the state of the spec, the group is always
obligated to reply all comments.
… and we've done a great job of that already
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.
JR: I think it would be helpful to be more diligent on Issues
… helpful to look at issues and Bugzilla
… nice to look at the issues that were raised
AB: so, do we want to create a bug if the spec changes as a result of a comment?
JR: yes
AV: if we create a CR target on Bugzilla, it make it easy to target bugs against the CR
AB: do we need to create some type of label?
AV: there is a field for tracking docs
… perhaps Doug know about how to do that with Bugzilla?
DS: I haven't used it for that purpose
JR: I think we need to add versions
<scribe> ACTION: barstow get a "CR" version created for the Pointer Events CR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Get a "CR" version created for the Pointer Events CR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-05-14].
DRAFT RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that result in spec changes
AB: any comments on that Draft?
RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that result in spec changes
AB: anything else re admin tasks for CR, Doug?
DS: no, I don't think so
… we need to do Impl Report and Tests and we already know about that
… we haven't marked anything "At Risk"
… we've already talked about v2
… so I think things our "pretty standard"
JR: that all sounds right
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.
SG: seems unclear there is no move when a button is clicked
JR: yeah, I think the sentence in ptrmove is ambiguous
… need to take care of the case where there is no up or down event
SG: should we just add a sentence that adds the exception?
JR: yes
SG: if move cause down, need to clarify
JR: yes, I can make that change
AB: so, you'll create a bug for this Jacob?
JR: yes, I'll do that
AB: Scott started this thread
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0135.html
... it appears to identify a bug in IE
JR: yes, it's a bug
… we still fire the hover event
… expect to align with the spec
SG: agree, we don't need to discuss here
AB: any need for spec tightening?
SG: no, I don't think so
… I was looking for clarification (they have a hover event which is not in the spec)
AB: CfC to move tests to GitHub https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/pointerevents passed.
SG: I have a question about the GH repo
… there is a PR from Nokia
<jrossi2> regarding pointermove and property changes: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951
… not sure about the status of that
… What is the process for review, merge, etc.?
… Not sure how this PR is handled?
AB: those are all good questions Scott
… we need to define our workflow
… including, who is going to do what
… would like to hear from Matt
MB: I need to do some homework
… re W3C's GH repo
… I can read up on that
… I expect submissions are PRs
… comments can be made on the list or in the PRs
JR: work with MikeSmith and Robin re permissions
… I think you want to get setup with perms
MB: yes, I'll do that
SG: with Hg, there was submissions
… and with GH, that doesn't appear to be used
JR: with GH, branches are used instead of submissions
SG: so, there is no submissions directory on GH
JR: yes, I think so but Matt can help us figure this out
AV: after someone submits, there should be some review but approval
… need to separate WG's workflow from GH's workflow
SG: I agree, PRs can serve as submissions
<mbrubeck> +1
<asir> where PR = Pull Request
AB: need to figure out how to watch for just pointerevents changes
SG: don't think that can be done directly with GH
… will get notifications for all PRs to webplatform-tests
AB: here is Rebecca's doc http://testthewebforward.org/resources/github_test_submission.html
… WebApps and HTML WGs will use as a guide
… and we should use it too unless we really have some specific constraints or reqs
AB: Asir mentioned we want to agree on review and approval process
AV: this doc has a section on Submit that mentions specific WG processes
JR: this doc doesn't really address how the WG does its reviews and approvals
… that is left to the WG to define
AV: yes, that is correct
JR: the undefined steps are accepting the PR and merging into the master
… we can define that ourselves
… but we should learn from what other groups are doing
AB: that makes perfect sense to me
JR: Matt, can you take an action on this?
<scribe> ACTION: matt make a proposal re how to accept Pull Requests and merge them to the master [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: one thing I wanted to mention is ATT tests http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-testtwf/2013May/0000.html
… and I think DaveM from jQuery has done some work too
AB: Scott will you submit a PR for your HG submission?
SG: yes, I'll do that
… and I'll work with DaveM to get his PR to pointerevents repo
AB: anything else on testing?
JR: I don't see AT&T listed as a WG member
… do they need to be a member of the group to submit tests?
DS: there are various ways to handle this
… indeed being a WG member is easiest
… but anyone can submit a test
JR: oh, yeah, there is form for that right?
DS: yes
JR: I recall TTWF participants had to sign that form
AB: ok, so we should be fine then
JR: yes, I think so
AB: Director approved the publication of a Pointer Events Candidate Recommendation and that CR should be published on May 9
<asir> Congratulations to the WG!!
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.?
AV: if we were to meet, what would we do?
… re the agenda and goal?
AB: good question
AV: I think it would be good to meet
… but not sure we want to wait until November
… e.g. get together for interop and testing work
DS: we could meet in China e.g. to discuss things about v2
AB: I don't feel strongly either way
AV: so if this is about securing a spot, maybe we can think about this as tentative
DS: yes, there is a bit of that
AB: based on what I know now, I don't think we will have a need to meet
DS: if we think we will need to talk to other groups, then meeting at TPAC can be useful
… and do we anticipate that need 6 months from now?
… groups that we depend on or groups that depend on us
… There is some serendipity that happens too at TPAC
… The Web Events is one group
… but we can contact them other ways
… The Indie UI WG is another potential group
… and I don't know about the usefulness of meeting with them
… Another reason to meet is if we can discuss topics with people f2f
… e.g. manufactures of touch devices
DS: so I leave it up to the group
AV: are such mfgs members of W3C?
DS: not sure but some type of "expo day" could be useful
… and we could do that via a presentation e.g. @ TPAC slot
AB: I propose we don't meet and take advantage of the TP meeting to do a demo about the PE spec
MB: sounds good to me
AV: sounds good to me too
JR: sounds reasonable; it's just too far in advance
SG: it's hard to say if there will be a good reason to meet
… but six months out is too far away
JR: and as Doug said, if we find a need to meet earlier, we can do so
AV: yes, good idea
RESOLUTION: the Pointer Events WG will not meet f2f at the TPAC 2013
AB: any implementation news or status?
<jrossi2> New polyfill: http://rich-harris.github.io/Points/
AB: re next meeting, we'll have a call when there are sufficient topics
… Meeting Adjourned
, bye
shepazu - yt? RRSAgent is updating the minutes
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Mozilla/Bugzilla/ Succeeded: s/Mozilla/Bugzilla/ Succeeded: s/new or/news or/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Default Present: Art_Barstow, +1.717.578.aaaa, scott_gonzalez, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, asir Present: Art_Barstow Jacob_Rossi Asir_Vedamuthu Scott_González Matt_Brubeck Doug_Schepers Regrets: Rick_Byers Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0138.html Got date from IRC log name: 07 May 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html People with action items: barstow jacob matt WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]