14:59:58 RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents 14:59:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-irc 15:00:09 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:00:09 Scribe: Art 15:00:09 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0164.html 15:00:09 Chair: Art 15:00:09 Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference 15:00:16 RRSAgent, make log Public 15:00:22 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:00:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:00:45 +[IPcaller] 15:01:05 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay 15:01:05 +Olli_Pettay; got it 15:01:12 Present+ Olli_Pettay 15:01:18 + +1.519.513.aaaa 15:01:21 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 15:01:21 ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay 15:01:28 Zakim, aaaa is me 15:01:28 +rbyers; got it 15:01:40 Present+ Rick_Byers 15:02:23 +[Microsoft] 15:02:43 Present+ Asir_Vedamuthu 15:04:18 +scott_gonzalez 15:04:32 Present+ Scott_Gonzalez 15:04:45 Topic: Tweak agenda 15:04:53 AB: I posted a draft agenda last Friday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0164.html. Any change requests? 15:05:31 AB: would someone please scribe today's call? I think most of the topics are going to be relatively quick. 15:05:33 asir has joined #pointerevents 15:05:48 Topic: Bug 21951 15:06:13 AB: Bug 21951 is labeled "CR" and titled "pointermove dispatching when button state changes"; https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951 15:06:21 AB: based on the text of the bug, it appears this will require a short clarification so probably nothing we need to discus but wanted to verify that. 15:06:48 RB: yes, I think it is just a minor clarification 15:06:54 … that Jacob can handle 15:07:01 AV: yes, agree it is a clarification 15:07:14 Topic: Answers to questions in new points.js polyfill 15:07:24 AB: we have a thread about points.js and some other related libs and polyfills http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0148.html. It's good to see the interest 15:07:33 AB: is there anything we need to discuss today or any followup actions? 15:08:00 RB: I think I owe Rich a reply 15:08:09 … we had a good discussion re tradeoffs 15:08:26 … I think we have consensus on how to tradeoff performance on in/out semantics 15:08:35 … preventDefault will be tricky, though 15:08:46 … I need to think and experiment on that 15:09:01 … I've had some other discussions about how we can test this 15:09:13 … and trying to have one polyfill we can recommend 15:09:22 … we should have design discussions on the list 15:09:33 … I think implementers are ready to start hacking on this 15:09:43 AV: yes, need to continue discussions 15:09:55 … not sure if there are any issues that need WG attention 15:10:01 … I don't think so 15:10:08 RB: agree no WG attention needed 15:10:24 … we need to get a high fidelity polyfilll 15:10:33 … but I don't think we need any spec changes 15:10:52 AV: ok, good; I haven't seen any issues that require spec changes 15:11:05 RB: we could add some non-normative notes to the spec 15:11:19 … it is good for the group to participate in the tradeoffs 15:11:28 … and we should continue those on the list 15:11:37 SG: jQuery is working on a polyfill 15:11:43 … we'd rather not have to do so 15:11:53 … but something is needed e.g. old IE 15:12:26 … we have been working with MS Open Tech 15:12:41 (it can't be really polyfill, given that old IEs don't even have DOM events) 15:13:03 … of all the events to polyfill, this is one of the hardest 15:13:13 … hope we don't get random inconsistencies 15:13:30 RB: shouldn't need jQuery specific parts for the polyfill 15:13:42 SG: would prefer to just recommend something else 15:13:47 … (and not create our own) 15:13:57 … If we write our own, it will be jQuery specific 15:14:12 RB: may be possible to work with other polyfills 15:14:18 … e.g. Polymer 15:14:30 … the Polymer pollyfill is separable 15:14:45 … not aware of any technical issues why it couldn't support old IE 15:15:07 … I'm sure they would appreciate help, if it doesn't create any perf issues 15:15:16 … I could talke to Daniel Freedman 15:15:24 SG: we've talked to him 15:15:41 … the discussion kinda' died 15:15:56 RB: I can help here, talking to Daniel 15:16:14 … tough to invest when testing is hard 15:16:37 AV: Scott, how did it go when you talked to MS Open Tech people 15:16:52 SG: the conclusion was to create jQuery specific 15:16:59 … ? hand.js ? 15:17:22 AV: I can followup too 15:17:57 RRSAgent, make Minutes 15:17:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:18:05 You got the name right 15:19:38 RB: is there a good addEventListener for old IE? 15:19:43 SG: I'm not aware of any 15:20:00 … not aware of a good polyfill for addEvListener for old IE 15:20:21 AV: what version is "old IE" 15:20:28 SG: jQuery UI is IE 7 15:21:07 RB: so that could add significant complexity to polymer to go way back with IE 15:21:57 … wondering about how far back the polyfills need to go 15:22:11 SG: want to eventually stop using mouse events completely 15:22:30 RB: in the short term, there will be some tradeoffs 15:22:44 … going to be hard to polyfill everything and get good performance 15:23:04 SG: two sides: people trying to use PE directly; people that are still using mouse events 15:23:15 … want to get people to stop writing to mouse events 15:23:34 RB: polyfill could have a switch re use PE or not 15:23:45 s/use PE/use touch events/ 15:24:44 SG: things like preventDefault and touch-action will be tricky 15:24:56 RB: ok, I'll reach out to the Polymer guys 15:25:15 … worst case is we must have a separate IE6 polyfill 15:25:32 … if we need that, we should work with MS Open Tech 15:25:35 AV: yes, agree 15:25:48 Topic: An update on the Chrome team's stance on implementing pointer events in Chrome 15:25:59 AB: Rick provided an update re Chrome's PE implementation 15:25:59 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0155.html 15:26:06 AB: there is also the video Rick and Boris Smus gave at G-IO . 15:26:55 RB: we will need touch-action or something like 15:27:05 … it is probably the hardest part of PE 15:27:18 … want to get it working with TouchEvents (TE) 15:27:28 … would make polyfills easier 15:27:38 … I have a design doc for Chrome 15:27:58 … ATM, I see this as experimental 15:28:12 … May need a new property for compatibility with TE 15:28:38 … I landed one CL and another is in progress (touch-action) 15:28:52 … I think we have a couple of months ahead 15:29:01 … before we can turn this on by default 15:29:22 … I talked to Matt about our design and he thinks it is reasonable and applicable for FireFox 15:29:46 … I reached out to Safari people and have to followup with them 15:29:58 … Talking to Scott at MS Open Tech 15:30:09 … Slow progress but it's moving forward 15:30:55 Topic: Justification for the touch-action processing model 15:31:01 AB: this topic has a couple of threads, one is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0163.html. 15:31:08 AB: there is also a thread titled "Is touch-action implicitly applied to any elements?" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0156.html 15:31:31 By the way, to follow Chrome's touch-action support, follow crbug.com/241964 15:31:48 AB: do we discuss now or keep discussions on the list? 15:31:56 RB: I think using the list is fine 15:32:16 … I've been getting Qs and I'm passing them on to the list 15:32:25 AV: I think Jacob replied 15:32:32 RB: he did and then I had a followup 15:32:52 … I'm not arguing for a change but more trying to understand the "Whys" of the processing model 15:33:33 … If/when I get a Q like "why is this so different than everything else?", I'd like to have some background and context to reply 15:34:11 ... In particular, making sure my reasons for why I like the design as it is are consistent with the original design goals... 15:34:17 AB: please continue the discussion on the list [Art notes Jacob wasn't on the call] 15:34:27 Topic: Testing: status and plans; 15:34:36 AB: yesterday, Matt proposed a submission and approval process http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0167.html and there has been quit 15:34:57 … quite a bit of followup on the list 15:35:02 AB: he also indicated he is willing to move tests from hg into the GitHub PE directory https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/pointerevents 15:35:15 … and that's good 15:35:20 AB: there a few sub-issues here ... 15:35:28 AB: one is, do we create our own repo or re-use the .../w3c/web-platform-tests/? 15:35:53 SG: my comments were more about W3C policy 15:36:04 … I think we should just follow the W3C policy 15:36:21 … my comments were those driving W3C testing effort 15:36:28 AB: ok, thanks for that clarification 15:37:37 AB: another is how to manage the "notification hell" 15:37:58 … and since, Tobie replied and is gathering requirements on how to address that 15:38:38 AB: we definitely need a solution to that issue 15:38:54 AV: do we need a separate mailing list for testing? 15:38:57 AB: good Q 15:39:23 … my feel now is not yet 15:39:40 AV: I would expect the set of tests to not be as large as other groups 15:39:53 AB: I agree with your expectation 15:40:22 AB: any comments on Matt's proposal? 15:40:29 AV: I want to thank Matt! 15:40:54 … Matt asked about using the list to signal reviews 15:41:07 … I like the idea to make that email mandatory 15:41:19 … Re fixing/updating tests, how is that done? 15:41:26 … I would expect a PR to be made 15:41:34 … just like a submission 15:41:46 OP: yes, agree 15:42:05 AV: so need to be clear that test updates need to go through the same process 15:42:20 … there front page is missing some information 15:42:33 … e.g. copyrights, obligations, etc. 15:43:15 AB: agree the update process should use the same mechanics as submissions 15:43:34 … and if there is some missing documentation in the home page, then yes, we need to fix that 15:44:55 … if have general OWP questions, issues, feedback, send to public-infr-test 15:45:09 AV: I want to talk to my team about Matt's proposal 15:45:13 AB: ok, sounds good 15:45:25 AV: I think we all need to make a commitment to review the tests 15:45:33 AB: yes, I definitely agree with that 15:45:48 … and it's up to us to define the review and approval process 15:46:14 AV: Matt suggested #2 be mandatory i.e. to notify the group of all submissions and ask for reviews 15:46:51 AB: I agree we should use the list for explicit "call for reviews" of test cases 15:47:26 AB: anything else on testing for today? 15:47:55 AB: Scott, did you volunteer to help Matt manage the PE tests? 15:47:59 SG: sure 15:48:06 AB: OK, thanks Scott 15:48:13 Topic: Any other Business 15:48:20 AB: any new Implementation status to share? 15:48:32 chaals has joined #pointerevents 15:48:57 OP: I need to talk to @@@ to get implementation status 15:49:13 s/@@@/romaxa/ 15:50:05 RB: Olli - if romaxa has feedback on my design doc, that would be great 15:50:27 … could make sense for FF to implement touch-action first, independent of PE spec 15:50:45 … that could facilitate a pollyfill experience 15:53:11 AB: anything else for today? 15:54:08 AB: so we'll have the next call when we have sufficient topics 15:54:17 … If you see a need for a call let me know 15:54:35 -Olli_Pettay 15:54:37 -Art_Barstow 15:54:38 -rbyers 15:54:40 AB: meeting adjourned 15:54:40 -scott_gonzalez 15:54:46 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:54:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:55:07 Present+ Art_Barstow 15:55:12 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:55:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:05:01 disconnecting the lone participant, [Microsoft], in RWC_PEWG()11:00AM 16:05:02 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended 16:05:02 Attendees were Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, +1.519.513.aaaa, rbyers, [Microsoft], scott_gonzalez 16:23:16 d'oh, sorry I missed the call. :( 16:26:00 reading the minutes... 16:26:14 Thanks for the offer of help scott_gonzalez and sorry for my slow reaction time. 16:33:32 mbrubeck: no problem 16:34:41 zakim, bye 16:34:41 Zakim has left #pointerevents 16:34:45 rrsagent, bye 16:34:45 I see no action items