14:59:37 RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents 14:59:37 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-irc 14:59:39 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started 14:59:47 +[Microsoft] 14:59:53 +Art_Barstow 15:00:02 RRSAgent, make log public 15:00:09 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:00:09 Scribe: Art 15:00:09 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0022.html 15:00:09 Chair: Art 15:00:09 Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference 15:00:18 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:00:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:00:19 smaug has joined #pointerevents 15:00:50 Regrets: Scott_González 15:00:59 zakim, who's here? 15:00:59 On the phone I see [Microsoft], Art_Barstow 15:01:01 On IRC I see smaug, RRSAgent, rbyers, Zakim, jrossi, scott_gonzalez, ArtB, Automate_, mbrubeck, slightlyoff, dfreedm, shepazu, sangwhan, trackbot 15:01:10 coming 15:01:24 Zakim, Microsoft is jrossi 15:01:25 +jrossi; got it 15:02:01 I'm on my way - having telco issues 15:02:22 +[Microsoft] 15:02:48 + +1.519.880.aaaa 15:02:49 asir has joined #pointerevents 15:03:03 zakim, aaaa is me 15:03:05 +rbyers; got it 15:03:12 +Doug_Schepers 15:03:46 +??P49 15:03:52 Present: Art_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu, Rick_Byers, Doug_Schepers, Olli_Pettay 15:04:06 Topic: Tweak agenda 15:04:11 AB: I posted a draft agenda on September 9 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0022.html. 15:04:13 Zakim, ??P49 is Olli_Pettay 15:04:14 +Olli_Pettay; got it 15:04:18 ... Olli suggested in IRC we include bugs 22890 and 22891 today and that seems like a good addition. I propose we take them after Implementation status and Testing. 15:04:35 ... Any objections? 15:04:36 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 15:04:37 ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay 15:04:41 [None] 15:04:45 AB: any other change requests for today's agenda? 15:05:05 Topic: CR implementation status 15:05:10 AB: the last time we discussed impl status was 30 July http://www.w3.org/2013/07/30-pointerevents-minutes.html#item02 15:05:19 ... Since the draft agenda was published, we got a short update re Polymer from Daniel Freedman and good news from Jacob. 15:05:30 ... Let's start with Jacob 15:05:58 +Matt_Brubeck 15:06:12 JR: if folks want to test but don't have access, there will be update for Win 7 but no annouced date 15:06:36 … supports PE for mouse just like Win 8.1 15:06:53 Present+ Matt_Brubeck 15:07:24 Cathy has joined #pointerevents 15:07:39 AB: Matt, Olli, what's the latest on Gecko? 15:07:46 +Cathy 15:07:59 OP: touch action part we are waiting 15:08:02 … not yet done 15:08:17 RB: there was a thread in Bugzilla re touch actions 15:08:25 … is there consensus on Mozilla side? 15:08:33 OP: we are looking at it 15:08:46 RB: we found this is the hard part 15:08:52 … at least in Blink 15:08:57 OP: agree this is hard 15:09:07 RB: does touch action apply to touch event? 15:09:12 OP: we haven't discussed that 15:09:27 RB: we need to think about compat for these two 15:09:43 … I put a link to my design in Moz bugzilla bug 15:09:50 … I propose a new CSS property 15:09:56 q+ 15:09:57 … but it hasn't been implemented 15:10:11 … but that's in scope for Web Events WG 15:10:50 … we need to implement our proposal and test before bringing to standardization 15:12:43 regarding touch action in mozilla: in particular the issue is what the performance implications are - what blocks the main thread... 15:13:16 RB: re Blink, to get touch action work need a reliable touch system 15:13:25 … the hard part is the hit testing on the off thread 15:13:38 … we had an impl but it's busted 15:13:57 … I am now getting some more resources for touch action 15:14:10 … I think we have hit testing in a good place 15:14:28 … Now we need to rearchitect gestures and then start on touch action 15:14:33 -rbyers 15:16:14 yikes 15:16:25 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:16:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:16:49 +rbyers 15:18:42 RB: there was some discussion about adding YA property to Navigator 15:19:07 … for PE v2, think we want to think about a device query system 15:19:45 JR: you mean maxTouchPoints 15:19:50 RB: yes, that's right 15:20:09 JR: agree we need a longer-term way of handling this 15:20:33 maxTouchPoints approved for shipping in blink: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-dev/ayzxdztUlOQ/rd-z_Jo3ocIJ 15:20:40 DS: can we Agenda+ this 15:20:44 AB: ok with me 15:21:06 AV: what about polymer? 15:21:18 RB: Daniel posted some info 15:21:29 … we need to get status from jQuery 15:21:42 … we continue to use Polymfer in our projects 15:21:51 … a big question is how to handle IE6 15:22:02 … Scott and others said they would submit patches 15:22:08 … but they haven't done that yet 15:22:13 scott_gonzalez has joined #pointerevents 15:22:19 AV: when do you expect touch action to be done Rick? 15:22:34 RB: not sure; depends on "land" 15:22:46 … need to go thru reviewers, etc. 15:22:53 … at least a month away 15:23:12 Topic: Test Suite status 15:23:17 AB: yesterday Jacob committed some tests https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324 mirrored to http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/submissions/324/pointerevents/ and he updated the Assertion table http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions 15:23:45 ... Thanks Jacob! 15:24:00 AB: who can commit to reviewing Microsoft's tests? 15:24:12 Present+ Cathy_Chan 15:24:29 … should we split them up? 15:24:34 DS: that makes sense 15:24:56 AB: about 20 or so files 15:25:06 JR: we will submit a few more files 15:25:33 MB: I can review some 15:25:40 OP: I can't commit now 15:25:46 CC: I can do some 15:25:50 RB: I can review some too 15:25:54 AB: and I'll take some 15:26:45 ACTION: matt Divide up Msft's tests for review by Rick, Cathy, Art and Matt 15:26:45 Created ACTION-45 - Divide up msft's tests for review by rick, cathy, art and matt [on Matt Brubeck - due 2013-09-17]. 15:26:53 AV: are there other PRs? 15:27:17 JR: is there an easy way to know the set of PRs for pointer events 15:27:40 ACTION: barstow followup with Tobie re getting notifications for PE tests 15:27:40 Created ACTION-46 - Followup with tobie re getting notifications for pe tests [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-09-17]. 15:27:54 AV: I can review tests submitted by others 15:28:11 AB: ok 15:28:19 AB: Scott can now go through the TTWF tests with Dave http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0022.html aka Action-44 https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/44. 15:28:34 AB: after Scott has completed his action/analysis, we should have a reasonable idea of the coverage and holes 15:29:24 AV: there are 2 gaps 15:29:40 … assertions with no TAs 15:29:45 … features with no tests 15:31:16 AB: anything else on testing for today? 15:31:37 AV: re the TA wiki, some are marked as "X has written" but there is no link 15:32:09 ACTION: barstow followup on the TA assertions to determine why there are some missing links to PRs/Submissions 15:32:09 Created ACTION-47 - Followup on the ta assertions to determine why there are some missing links to prs/submissions [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-09-17]. 15:32:25 Topic: Bug 22890 - It is not clear why navigator.pointerEnabled is needed 15:32:34 AB: 22890 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22890 was submitted by Olli on August 6. 15:33:02 OP: I think the bug report is clear re the issue 15:33:22 RB: yeah, this comes back to what I said earlier re using Navigator 15:34:13 … I may not get approval to add this if window.PointerEvent can be used 15:34:47 … with v8, can't dynamically add properties 15:35:02 Any particular usecase that makes the navigator member useful? 15:35:08 … why was pointerEnabled added? 15:35:32 JR: our original plan was to only support PE on Win 8+ 15:35:55 … so this was created to determine if PE would fire on a particular platform 15:36:09 … later we added PE to Win 7 15:36:20 … so the reasoning is a bit moot at this point 15:36:47 … With our compat research, we have found pointerEnabled being used 15:36:57 … so if removed, would break some sites 15:37:23 … I agree with not putting stuff on Navigator but think it can be useful in the scenario I mentioned earlier 15:37:44 RB: Chrome's PE plan is to always support them 15:38:13 … perhaps we will need to disable in some cases 15:38:25 JR: on XP, follow the same pattern we use 15:39:01 Chromecast or other TV/STBs comes to mind as one usecase that may not want to fire PE 15:39:15 RB: at some point Chrome will switch to use PE on Win8 15:40:01 … so for Blink, I will probably have a hard time selling Navigator.pointerEnabled 15:40:12 … probably need separate flags 15:40:35 … and see which sites break 15:40:44 … suspect it will be hard to add 15:41:03 OP: it will be hard to get added to Gecko 15:41:46 AB: it appears we don't have consensus on what to do 15:41:51 … do we leave it open? 15:42:15 RB: browsers could leave it out and only add it if really needed 15:42:28 … and we tell devs to use window.PointerEvent 15:42:38 JR: the timing now is problematic 15:42:50 … think it will be difficult to remove given some sites depend on it 15:43:07 … if the WG agrees to remove it, we could adjust our guidance 15:43:17 … but it will remain in our platform 15:43:33 RB: it's too bad we didn't catch this earlier 15:43:34 Considering how fast library/framework devs react to spec changes I'm not sure if this is really going to be a problem, if there are open libraries that don't change reaching out doesn't take too much time.. 15:44:19 OP: we should make sure documentation says to use window.PointerEvent (and not Navigator.pointerEnabled 15:44:47 RB: I don't think we will be able to add it until we can show/prove compat 15:45:19 AB: is there a test for this now? 15:45:34 I think Flipboard.com is an example that breaks without pointerEnabled 15:45:35 JR: not in our submission, perhaps TTWF submissions 15:46:10 AB: think this will be a problem re testing the CR 15:46:54 OP: should we add something to the spec re this "at risk"? 15:47:59 RB: we could advocate checking window.PointerEvent and then also check for pointerEnabled 15:48:27 JR: think we need make a call and then update the guidance 15:48:44 MB: do these sites already support the unprefixed version? 15:49:00 JR: yes, there are already some sites using pointerEnabled 15:49:31 Do we have data on which sites? 15:50:56 MB: these sites using prefixed will need to change anyway 15:52:13 sangwhan: Jacob mentions flipboard.com and indeed I see that in their code 15:52:26 ACTION: barstow add a link to bug 22890 that points to the 10-Sep-2013 discussion 15:52:27 Created ACTION-48 - Add a link to bug 22890 that points to the 10-sep-2013 discussion [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-09-17]. 15:52:32 Topic: Bug 22891 - Mechanism to differentiate pointer input from multiple users/devices missing 15:52:40 AB: 22891 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22891 was submitted by Sangwhan on August 6. 15:53:05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0223.html\ 15:53:09 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0223.html 15:53:10 RB: we talked about this a couple of times 15:53:17 … this is the wii remote case 15:53:36 … we agreed we need a solution for this some day 15:53:48 … i.e. something we do in v2 15:54:02 JR: I just dropped in links to previous discussions 15:54:10 … think this is broader than just PE 15:54:25 … perhaps we need a new spec of diff spec like UI Events 15:54:38 The root problem should probably be handled in the scope of UIEvents 15:55:13 AB: is there an action for sangwhan to move this bug to UI Events spec? 15:55:24 No, but I can do it 15:55:34 Give me a action, I'll contact Travis 15:55:50 AB: any objections for that resolution? i.e. Sanwhan move 22891 to UI Events? 15:55:52 I'd like to include scenarios like "is there a physical keyboard attached" - I think it's the same sort of 'input device query' API... 15:55:54 [ None ] 15:56:04 ACTION: moon move 22891 to UI Events 15:56:04 Created ACTION-49 - Move 22891 to ui events [on Sangwhan Moon - due 2013-09-17]. 15:56:20 (queries are somewhat privacy sensitive) 15:56:29 RB: I think we have a related entry in our v2 list 15:57:01 here http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/UseCasesAndRequirements 15:57:18 RB: yeah, that's it 15:57:47 ACTION: barstow add a link to the v2 doc to the PE main page 15:57:47 Created ACTION-50 - Add a link to the v2 doc to the pe main page [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-09-17]. 15:58:18 AB: Sangwhan, when you move 22891 to UI Events, please include a link to the v2 UC doc 15:58:39 Art, will do. 15:59:11 Topic: detecting browser capabilities 15:59:22 DS: so this is not a new problem 15:59:33 … we anticipated this early on (DOM specs) 15:59:46 … the solution at the time was "hasFeature" 15:59:56 … I understand it got misused 16:00:03 … and there were big probs 16:00:12 … one couldn't count on using it (reliably) 16:00:40 … if there was even a "little bit" of support for a feature, it would return "true" 16:00:56 … lots of impls said yes when there was no support at all 16:01:09 … For D3E, we worked out a proposal to use strings 16:01:28 … that can be namespaced and based on support for features 16:02:26 … F.ex. to check for attr X, could use dot notation and check True/False 16:02:47 … Is there any way this can really be done in a reliable and compatable way? 16:03:19 RB: agree we need a general mechanism for feature detection 16:03:28 … for the most part, I think what we have today works 16:03:36 … can be problems with events 16:03:50 … Not clear we want to add a bunch of complexity 16:04:06 … there will always be a way to check if an object exists or not 16:04:25 … not convinced the benefit of adding a second system is worth the cost 16:04:46 DS: there are problems with just checking an object 16:05:09 RB: well in Bink, we don't object an object unless it is complete 16:05:20 DS: browsers need to be more strict 16:05:30 … Some things are tricky to test for 16:05:59 … f.ex. modenizer creates objects just to see a feature exists 16:06:13 … some features are hard to detect 16:06:29 … Has "hasFeature" been deprecated at this point? 16:07:02 JR: not sure if hasFeature is being used for pointer events 16:07:42 RB: we are debating if we need an additional mechanism for detecting PE or not 16:07:57 … if so, do we use Navigator, do we use hasFeature, etc. 16:08:09 … I hope we can just use window.PointerEvents 16:10:02 AB: is there a conclusion or followup for someone? 16:10:06 DS: don't think so 16:10:24 RB: think we still are at the question about is pointerEnabled needed or not 16:10:58 DS: the original design was each spec would define the string for their feature(s) 16:11:28 … but I think we need to decide pointerEnable or not 16:11:42 … and then if we need it, consider some more general solution 16:12:14 Topic: AoB 16:12:39 DS: W3C has changed its policy re normative references 16:12:57 … we have a more pragmatic approach 16:13:09 s/approach/approach now/ 16:14:10 … rather than looking at a spec in totality, it is now possible to view the references in parts 16:14:46 … A consequence is this means Web Events can move to REC 16:15:43 AV: we are wondering about a f2f meeting 16:15:52 … f.ex. to review tests, add tests 16:15:59 … what do you think 16:16:04 … can people think about that 16:17:31 RB: I am a fan of f2f meeting but we need to think about the timing 16:17:48 … might make more sense to meet after we have more than one impl avail 16:17:53 AB: those are good points 16:18:06 AB: It will be difficult for me to meet before TPAC 16:18:15 DS: same for me re logistics 16:18:29 … agree f2f meetings for thinks Asir mentioned makes sense 16:18:52 MB: October is hard for us too 16:19:18 RB: if we have `done` impls, would it make sense to get together then? 16:19:22 MB: yes, I think so 16:19:32 … but now we have unlanded patches 16:19:54 AV: well the 8 week notice does cause a problem 16:20:29 DS: anyone going to TPAC? 16:20:33 AB: I plan to go 16:20:47 I'll be at HTML5DevConf :-) 16:21:05 RB: there could be a conference when we could co-locate 16:21:15 I don't know yet 16:21:18 DS: HTML5DevConf could be a rallying point 16:21:23 … even if informal 16:21:41 JR: yes, I could meet in that timeframe, even if informal 16:22:14 RB: we could demo the polymer pollyfill 16:22:20 … but that week won't work for me 16:22:35 … Blink conf is another possibility 16:22:44 AB: when is Blink conf? 16:22:52 RB: Sept 24-25 16:23:20 AV: so my summary is that we need more than 8 weeks 16:23:33 … would be good to try to co-locate with some conf 16:24:12 DS: if we do meet, I would like to have an open meeting for people outside the meeting 16:24:33 jrossi: nope, it's this: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/blink-dev/blinkon/blink-dev/vKAVn47Cn-k/4mPyBAXsrKsJ 16:24:40 pretty small scale 16:24:57 -[Microsoft] 16:24:58 -Olli_Pettay 16:25:00 -jrossi 16:25:01 -rbyers 16:25:02 -Cathy 16:25:05 AB: so next meeting will be when we have sufficient topics 16:25:10 … Meeting adjourned 16:25:16 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:25:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:25:17 -Matt_Brubeck 16:25:21 zakim, who's here? 16:25:21 On the phone I see Art_Barstow, Doug_Schepers 16:25:22 On IRC I see Cathy, asir, smaug, RRSAgent, rbyers, Zakim, jrossi, ArtB, mbrubeck, slightlyoff, dfreedm, shepazu, sangwhan, trackbot 16:32:44 jrossi has left #pointerevents 16:34:22 -Art_Barstow 16:34:23 -Doug_Schepers 16:34:24 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended 16:34:24 Attendees were Art_Barstow, jrossi, [Microsoft], +1.519.880.aaaa, rbyers, Doug_Schepers, Olli_Pettay, Matt_Brubeck, Cathy 16:36:53 zakim, bye 16:36:53 Zakim has left #pointerevents 16:37:25 Present+ Sanghwhan_Moon(IRC-ony) 16:37:31 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:37:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:45:08 rrsagent, bye 16:45:08 I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-actions.rdf : 16:45:08 ACTION: matt Divide up Msft's tests for review by Rick, Cathy, Art and Matt [1] 16:45:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-irc#T15-26-45 16:45:08 ACTION: barstow followup with Tobie re getting notifications for PE tests [2] 16:45:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-irc#T15-27-40 16:45:08 ACTION: barstow followup on the TA assertions to determine why there are some missing links to PRs/Submissions [3] 16:45:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-irc#T15-32-09 16:45:08 ACTION: barstow add a link to bug 22890 that points to the 10-Sep-2013 discussion [4] 16:45:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-irc#T15-52-26 16:45:08 ACTION: moon move 22891 to UI Events [5] 16:45:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-irc#T15-56-04 16:45:08 ACTION: barstow add a link to the v2 doc to the PE main page [6] 16:45:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-irc#T15-57-47