IRC log of pointerevents on 2013-06-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
14:59:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-irc
15:00:09 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
15:00:09 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
15:00:09 [ArtB]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0164.html
15:00:09 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
15:00:09 [ArtB]
Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:00:16 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
15:00:22 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:00:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
15:00:45 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:01:05 [smaug]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
15:01:05 [Zakim]
+Olli_Pettay; got it
15:01:12 [ArtB]
Present+ Olli_Pettay
15:01:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.519.513.aaaa
15:01:21 [smaug]
Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
15:01:21 [Zakim]
ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
15:01:28 [rbyers]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:01:28 [Zakim]
+rbyers; got it
15:01:40 [ArtB]
Present+ Rick_Byers
15:02:23 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
15:02:43 [ArtB]
Present+ Asir_Vedamuthu
15:04:18 [Zakim]
+scott_gonzalez
15:04:32 [ArtB]
Present+ Scott_Gonzalez
15:04:45 [ArtB]
Topic: Tweak agenda
15:04:53 [ArtB]
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 [ArtB]
AB: would someone please scribe today's call? I think most of the topics are going to be relatively quick.
15:05:33 [asir]
asir has joined #pointerevents
15:05:48 [ArtB]
Topic: Bug 21951
15:06:13 [ArtB]
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 [ArtB]
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 [ArtB]
RB: yes, I think it is just a minor clarification
15:06:54 [ArtB]
… that Jacob can handle
15:07:01 [ArtB]
AV: yes, agree it is a clarification
15:07:14 [ArtB]
Topic: Answers to questions in new points.js polyfill
15:07:24 [ArtB]
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 [ArtB]
AB: is there anything we need to discuss today or any followup actions?
15:08:00 [ArtB]
RB: I think I owe Rich a reply
15:08:09 [ArtB]
… we had a good discussion re tradeoffs
15:08:26 [ArtB]
… I think we have consensus on how to tradeoff performance on in/out semantics
15:08:35 [ArtB]
… preventDefault will be tricky, though
15:08:46 [ArtB]
… I need to think and experiment on that
15:09:01 [ArtB]
… I've had some other discussions about how we can test this
15:09:13 [ArtB]
… and trying to have one polyfill we can recommend
15:09:22 [ArtB]
… we should have design discussions on the list
15:09:33 [ArtB]
… I think implementers are ready to start hacking on this
15:09:43 [ArtB]
AV: yes, need to continue discussions
15:09:55 [ArtB]
… not sure if there are any issues that need WG attention
15:10:01 [ArtB]
… I don't think so
15:10:08 [ArtB]
RB: agree no WG attention needed
15:10:24 [ArtB]
… we need to get a high fidelity polyfilll
15:10:33 [ArtB]
… but I don't think we need any spec changes
15:10:52 [ArtB]
AV: ok, good; I haven't seen any issues that require spec changes
15:11:05 [ArtB]
RB: we could add some non-normative notes to the spec
15:11:19 [ArtB]
… it is good for the group to participate in the tradeoffs
15:11:28 [ArtB]
… and we should continue those on the list
15:11:37 [ArtB]
SG: jQuery is working on a polyfill
15:11:43 [ArtB]
… we'd rather not have to do so
15:11:53 [ArtB]
… but something is needed e.g. old IE
15:12:26 [ArtB]
… we have been working with MS Open Tech
15:12:41 [smaug]
(it can't be really polyfill, given that old IEs don't even have DOM events)
15:13:03 [ArtB]
… of all the events to polyfill, this is one of the hardest
15:13:13 [ArtB]
… hope we don't get random inconsistencies
15:13:30 [ArtB]
RB: shouldn't need jQuery specific parts for the polyfill
15:13:42 [ArtB]
SG: would prefer to just recommend something else
15:13:47 [ArtB]
… (and not create our own)
15:13:57 [ArtB]
… If we write our own, it will be jQuery specific
15:14:12 [ArtB]
RB: may be possible to work with other polyfills
15:14:18 [ArtB]
… e.g. Polymer
15:14:30 [ArtB]
… the Polymer pollyfill is separable
15:14:45 [ArtB]
… not aware of any technical issues why it couldn't support old IE
15:15:07 [ArtB]
… I'm sure they would appreciate help, if it doesn't create any perf issues
15:15:16 [ArtB]
… I could talke to Daniel Freedman
15:15:24 [ArtB]
SG: we've talked to him
15:15:41 [ArtB]
… the discussion kinda' died
15:15:56 [ArtB]
RB: I can help here, talking to Daniel
15:16:14 [ArtB]
… tough to invest when testing is hard
15:16:37 [ArtB]
AV: Scott, how did it go when you talked to MS Open Tech people
15:16:52 [ArtB]
SG: the conclusion was to create jQuery specific
15:16:59 [ArtB]
… ? hand.js ?
15:17:22 [ArtB]
AV: I can followup too
15:17:57 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make Minutes
15:17:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
15:18:05 [asir]
You got the name right
15:19:38 [ArtB]
RB: is there a good addEventListener for old IE?
15:19:43 [ArtB]
SG: I'm not aware of any
15:20:00 [ArtB]
… not aware of a good polyfill for addEvListener for old IE
15:20:21 [ArtB]
AV: what version is "old IE"
15:20:28 [ArtB]
SG: jQuery UI is IE 7
15:21:07 [ArtB]
RB: so that could add significant complexity to polymer to go way back with IE
15:21:57 [ArtB]
… wondering about how far back the polyfills need to go
15:22:11 [ArtB]
SG: want to eventually stop using mouse events completely
15:22:30 [ArtB]
RB: in the short term, there will be some tradeoffs
15:22:44 [ArtB]
… going to be hard to polyfill everything and get good performance
15:23:04 [ArtB]
SG: two sides: people trying to use PE directly; people that are still using mouse events
15:23:15 [ArtB]
… want to get people to stop writing to mouse events
15:23:34 [ArtB]
RB: polyfill could have a switch re use PE or not
15:23:45 [rbyers]
s/use PE/use touch events/
15:24:44 [ArtB]
SG: things like preventDefault and touch-action will be tricky
15:24:56 [ArtB]
RB: ok, I'll reach out to the Polymer guys
15:25:15 [ArtB]
… worst case is we must have a separate IE6 polyfill
15:25:32 [ArtB]
… if we need that, we should work with MS Open Tech
15:25:35 [ArtB]
AV: yes, agree
15:25:48 [ArtB]
Topic: An update on the Chrome team's stance on implementing pointer events in Chrome
15:25:59 [ArtB]
AB: Rick provided an update re Chrome's PE implementation
15:25:59 [ArtB]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0155.html
15:26:06 [ArtB]
AB: there is also the video Rick and Boris Smus gave at G-IO <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DujfpXOKUp8>.
15:26:55 [ArtB]
RB: we will need touch-action or something like
15:27:05 [ArtB]
… it is probably the hardest part of PE
15:27:18 [ArtB]
… want to get it working with TouchEvents (TE)
15:27:28 [ArtB]
… would make polyfills easier
15:27:38 [ArtB]
… I have a design doc for Chrome
15:27:58 [ArtB]
… ATM, I see this as experimental
15:28:12 [ArtB]
… May need a new property for compatibility with TE
15:28:38 [ArtB]
… I landed one CL and another is in progress (touch-action)
15:28:52 [ArtB]
… I think we have a couple of months ahead
15:29:01 [ArtB]
… before we can turn this on by default
15:29:22 [ArtB]
… I talked to Matt about our design and he thinks it is reasonable and applicable for FireFox
15:29:46 [ArtB]
… I reached out to Safari people and have to followup with them
15:29:58 [ArtB]
… Talking to Scott at MS Open Tech
15:30:09 [ArtB]
… Slow progress but it's moving forward
15:30:55 [ArtB]
Topic: Justification for the touch-action processing model
15:31:01 [ArtB]
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 [ArtB]
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 [rbyers]
By the way, to follow Chrome's touch-action support, follow crbug.com/241964
15:31:48 [ArtB]
AB: do we discuss now or keep discussions on the list?
15:31:56 [ArtB]
RB: I think using the list is fine
15:32:16 [ArtB]
… I've been getting Qs and I'm passing them on to the list
15:32:25 [ArtB]
AV: I think Jacob replied
15:32:32 [ArtB]
RB: he did and then I had a followup
15:32:52 [ArtB]
… I'm not arguing for a change but more trying to understand the "Whys" of the processing model
15:33:33 [ArtB]
… 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 [rbyers]
... 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 [ArtB]
AB: please continue the discussion on the list [Art notes Jacob wasn't on the call]
15:34:27 [ArtB]
Topic: Testing: status and plans;
15:34:36 [ArtB]
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 [ArtB]
… quite a bit of followup on the list
15:35:02 [ArtB]
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 [ArtB]
… and that's good
15:35:20 [ArtB]
AB: there a few sub-issues here ...
15:35:28 [ArtB]
AB: one is, do we create our own repo or re-use the .../w3c/web-platform-tests/?
15:35:53 [ArtB]
SG: my comments were more about W3C policy
15:36:04 [ArtB]
… I think we should just follow the W3C policy
15:36:21 [ArtB]
… my comments were those driving W3C testing effort
15:36:28 [ArtB]
AB: ok, thanks for that clarification
15:37:37 [ArtB]
AB: another is how to manage the "notification hell"
15:37:58 [ArtB]
… and since, Tobie replied and is gathering requirements on how to address that
15:38:38 [ArtB]
AB: we definitely need a solution to that issue
15:38:54 [ArtB]
AV: do we need a separate mailing list for testing?
15:38:57 [ArtB]
AB: good Q
15:39:23 [ArtB]
… my feel now is not yet
15:39:40 [ArtB]
AV: I would expect the set of tests to not be as large as other groups
15:39:53 [ArtB]
AB: I agree with your expectation
15:40:22 [ArtB]
AB: any comments on Matt's proposal?
15:40:29 [ArtB]
AV: I want to thank Matt!
15:40:54 [ArtB]
… Matt asked about using the list to signal reviews
15:41:07 [ArtB]
… I like the idea to make that email mandatory
15:41:19 [ArtB]
… Re fixing/updating tests, how is that done?
15:41:26 [ArtB]
… I would expect a PR to be made
15:41:34 [ArtB]
… just like a submission
15:41:46 [ArtB]
OP: yes, agree
15:42:05 [ArtB]
AV: so need to be clear that test updates need to go through the same process
15:42:20 [ArtB]
… there front page is missing some information
15:42:33 [ArtB]
… e.g. copyrights, obligations, etc.
15:43:15 [ArtB]
AB: agree the update process should use the same mechanics as submissions
15:43:34 [ArtB]
… and if there is some missing documentation in the home page, then yes, we need to fix that
15:44:55 [ArtB]
… if have general OWP questions, issues, feedback, send to public-infr-test
15:45:09 [ArtB]
AV: I want to talk to my team about Matt's proposal
15:45:13 [ArtB]
AB: ok, sounds good
15:45:25 [ArtB]
AV: I think we all need to make a commitment to review the tests
15:45:33 [ArtB]
AB: yes, I definitely agree with that
15:45:48 [ArtB]
… and it's up to us to define the review and approval process
15:46:14 [ArtB]
AV: Matt suggested #2 be mandatory i.e. to notify the group of all submissions and ask for reviews
15:46:51 [ArtB]
AB: I agree we should use the list for explicit "call for reviews" of test cases
15:47:26 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on testing for today?
15:47:55 [ArtB]
AB: Scott, did you volunteer to help Matt manage the PE tests?
15:47:59 [ArtB]
SG: sure
15:48:06 [ArtB]
AB: OK, thanks Scott
15:48:13 [ArtB]
Topic: Any other Business
15:48:20 [ArtB]
AB: any new Implementation status to share?
15:48:32 [chaals]
chaals has joined #pointerevents
15:48:57 [ArtB]
OP: I need to talk to @@@ to get implementation status
15:49:13 [smaug]
s/@@@/romaxa/
15:50:05 [ArtB]
RB: Olli - if romaxa has feedback on my design doc, that would be great
15:50:27 [ArtB]
… could make sense for FF to implement touch-action first, independent of PE spec
15:50:45 [ArtB]
… that could facilitate a pollyfill experience
15:53:11 [ArtB]
AB: anything else for today?
15:54:08 [ArtB]
AB: so we'll have the next call when we have sufficient topics
15:54:17 [ArtB]
… If you see a need for a call let me know
15:54:35 [Zakim]
-Olli_Pettay
15:54:37 [Zakim]
-Art_Barstow
15:54:38 [Zakim]
-rbyers
15:54:40 [ArtB]
AB: meeting adjourned
15:54:40 [Zakim]
-scott_gonzalez
15:54:46 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:54:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
15:55:07 [ArtB]
Present+ Art_Barstow
15:55:12 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:55:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
16:05:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, [Microsoft], in RWC_PEWG()11:00AM
16:05:02 [Zakim]
RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
16:05:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, +1.519.513.aaaa, rbyers, [Microsoft], scott_gonzalez
16:23:16 [mbrubeck]
d'oh, sorry I missed the call. :(
16:26:00 [mbrubeck]
reading the minutes...
16:26:14 [mbrubeck]
Thanks for the offer of help scott_gonzalez and sorry for my slow reaction time.
16:33:32 [scott_gonzalez]
mbrubeck: no problem
16:34:41 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
16:34:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pointerevents
16:34:45 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
16:34:45 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items