14:59:20 RRSAgent has joined #webevents 14:59:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-irc 14:59:27 uh, I need a minute or two 14:59:29 RRSAgent, make log Public 15:00:01 Scribe: Art 15:00:02 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:00:02 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013OctDec/0012.html 15:00:02 Chair: Art 15:00:02 Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference 15:00:12 Regrets: Scott_González 15:00:38 zakim, code? 15:00:38 the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ArtB 15:00:48 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has now started 15:00:56 + +33.1.49.08.aaaa 15:01:21 +Art_Barstow 15:01:35 +Cathy 15:01:46 Present: Art_Barstow 15:01:52 +cjolif 15:02:06 rbyers_ has joined #webevents 15:02:33 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Christophe Jolif, Rick_Byers 15:02:38 Present+ Cathy_Chan 15:02:47 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:02:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:03:09 +rbyers 15:03:47 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Christophe_Jolif, 15:03:55 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:03:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:04:13 +[IPcaller] 15:04:25 Present+ Olli_Pettay 15:04:37 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay 15:04:37 +Olli_Pettay; got it 15:04:48 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 15:04:48 ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay 15:04:49 +[IPcaller] 15:05:09 Present+ Sangwhan_Moon 15:05:17 Zakim, IPcaller is me 15:05:17 +sangwhan; got it 15:05:37 Topic: Tweak agenda 15:06:27 AB: I submitted a draft agenda on October 11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013OctDec/0012.html. Since then, IBM notified us of some work they have done re PointerEvent and TouchEvent mapping so I propose we include that when we discuss mapping. 15:06:50 AB: any objections to that? 15:06:56 RB: no, this is great 15:06:57 +Doug_Schepers 15:07:01 AB: any other change requests? 15:07:07 Present+ Doug_Schepers 15:07:46 AB: Christophe, please give a short intro 15:08:10 CJ: Sebastien is more knowledgable here but I can fill in for him since he can't make it today 15:08:16 … our context is Dojo 15:08:20 … need to map TE to PE 15:08:33 … to help standardize the way we deal with mouse, touch, pointerevnts 15:08:41 … PE isn't there today 15:08:53 … so need to make a mapping to complete our impl 15:09:06 … We noticed this group intends to work on this mapping 15:09:22 … so we hope our work can help this group 15:09:34 … The mapping is in a spreadsheet 15:09:34 +??P7 15:09:53 … We think our work will be helpful 15:10:58 Present+ Sebastien_Pereira 15:11:08 Topic: Publishing Working Group Note of TEv2 spec 15:11:17 AB: We previously agreed to publish Touch Events v2 spec as a "WG Note" which signifies work on that spec has stopped. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume that is still our `Plan of Record`. 15:11:37 AB: is that still the case? 15:11:49 RB: fine with me 15:12:00 … think we should publish something 15:12:11 DS: I think a Note is reasonable 15:12:20 AB: personally, I don't recall the compelling reasons to publish a v2 Note, that is, I'm not convinced there is a `problem` that is solved by publishing this Note. On the other hand, I don't see anything about it that is `harmful`. 15:12:54 RB: so, what if we don't publish anything? 15:12:59 … is what we have adequate? 15:13:08 … we don't want it to get implemented 15:13:21 AB: we never even published a FPWD of v2 15:14:18 … Note is clear signal the work has stopped 15:14:48 DS: if we think v2 reflects some impl, then I think a Note is probably better 15:14:56 Do we want to have certain implementations that portions of v2 as is? Shouldn't the v2 specifics be reverted if the work is officially stopped and the spec is considered scrapped? 15:15:01 … it gives us a chance to add some context and rationale 15:15:15 … publishing a Note is light weight 15:15:25 … so I feel more comfortable with publishing a Note 15:15:40 RB: Olli, does v2 match FF impl? 15:15:47 OP: not sure; we need to talk to Matt 15:15:54 For the sake of interop I'm not sure having certain implementations provide subsets of features of v2 is a good idea 15:15:56 … I don't care if Note or ED 15:16:05 … Both say "don't implement it" 15:16:20 RB: the only part of v2 we implement is the radius stuff 15:16:27 … having those mentioned somewhere is important 15:16:50 … but if FF enters touch{enter,leave} that would be important 15:16:53 OP: but we don't 15:17:02 RB: think it is in the MDN docs 15:17:57 AB: without Matt, not comfortable reversing our PoR 15:18:04 … so that is what we will do 15:18:28 AB: so what changes are High Prio? 15:18:39 RB: remove section 5.7 and 5.8 15:18:57 … assuming no one has implemented those 15:19:01 AB: Sangwhan? 15:19:07 SM: no, we don't implement those 15:19:22 RB: some additional props on the Touch object 15:19:39 … want to leave the radius props 15:20:12 AB: we also need to update some of the Web IDL that was buggy before Boris noted those errors 15:20:21 AB: any other changes? 15:21:10 RB: instead of publishing everything as is, we could just publish those additional pieces 15:21:15 … i.e. 3.1 15:21:22 … would be a lot less work 15:21:32 DS: seems reasonable to me 15:22:04 OP: no one will look at the Note so I don't think it matters much 15:22:19 … I recommend minimum amount of work 15:22:33 SM: do we have some boilerplate for the top? 15:22:41 DS: there is some precedence e.g. Web Storage 15:23:19 AB: good Q; we need a propoasl for the obsolecence text 15:23:27 RB: think we should listen to Matt 15:23:48 AB: I think that's a good idea 15:24:13 http://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ is pretty clear about its status 15:24:20 ACTION: barstow followup with Matt re if TEv2 Note should be `full spec` or just the `extra pieces` that have been implemented 15:24:20 Created ACTION-105 - Followup with matt re if tev2 note should be `full spec` or just the `extra pieces` that have been implemented [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-22]. 15:24:31 Topic: Touch Events / Pointer Events mapping 15:24:41 AB: we agreed a while ago to create a TE and PE mapping document. The following e-mail I sent last week summarizes this topic http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013OctDec/0011.html. 15:25:01 AB: we also now have a related input from IBM https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvdBn9Kvx22qdGRnRXNPb0ZBTUl3SEkwdUdtaW9pWWc&usp=sharing#gid=2 15:25:18 AB: before digging into any details, perhaps it would be helpful if we stepped back a bit to talk about the `Problem Statement` here, f.ex. what is the problem we want to address, who is the audience, what is the scope, etc. 15:25:55 AB: Rick, your thoughts? 15:26:04 RB: we know there is some tricky interaction here 15:26:18 … want to reduce pain for the Web developers 15:26:36 … want browser authors to have some info about how to handle these interaction 15:26:48 … how does css touch action property work 15:27:05 … how is default handled 15:27:36 … there are some other diffs between PE and TE that need to be documented 15:27:48 … f.ex. with mouse interaction 15:28:08 … it's unclear how browsers should handle the various cases 15:28:17 … when the browser supports both TE and PE 15:28:49 … The various polyfills need answers to these Qs 15:28:58 … (Dojo, Polymer, etc.) 15:29:25 … When sites bits of a page that support one or the other, things are complex 15:29:47 SM: also want to know about PE and ? browsing 15:30:04 s/? browsing/caret browsing/ 15:30:27 … there are some places where caret browsing doesn't work 15:31:09 RB: it's going to be even worse for browser that support both of these events 15:31:53 AB: Sebastien, please give us a summary of your work 15:32:15 SP: we started with some common user tasks 15:32:19 … first was click 15:32:24 … 2nd was swipe 15:32:38 … from each action, we observed the behaviour from various browsers 15:32:40 -Cathy 15:32:56 … some browsers support only TE, some only PE 15:33:10 … We noted the sequence of Touch events and Pointer events 15:33:24 … need to map the sequence of TEs to PEs 15:34:00 … The second step was to identify patterns of TEs to PEs 15:34:16 … Every browser has a different sequence of events 15:34:31 … but we found a way to generate consistent Pointer events 15:34:46 … Not sure if this is what you were looking for 15:35:12 AB: what do people think? 15:35:18 RB: I just saw this yesterday 15:35:30 … this is great data of existing behavior 15:35:51 … I've been working on a doc re behavior and noting differences 15:35:59 … IBM's doc is more thorough 15:36:33 rbyers_ has joined #webevents 15:36:37 SP: want to get consistent behavior across browsers 15:36:58 … wondering if this could be standardized 15:37:08 … to get consistent behavior 15:37:24 RB: re Col F, do you think that is consistent with the PE spec? 15:37:54 SP: I think what we have is consistent with the PE spec 15:38:29 … we are also implementing some stuff that is not specified 15:38:38 … f.ex. how click will behave 15:39:20 … preventdefault is implemented differently depending on the gesture 15:39:29 … still is ongoing work 15:39:38 … but I think it is close to the PE spec 15:39:54 RB: when you find things that disagree with PE spec, please let us know 15:40:12 … agree no info re single and double click for PE is not documented 15:40:40 … there are some IP reasons why behavior like that is not specified in W3C 15:41:10 OP: need to define order of touch and pointer events 15:41:18 RB: yes, and how one cancels the other 15:41:57 OP: what about FF on mobile? 15:42:09 SP: we didn't include it yet but it could be added 15:42:32 RB: one conclusion, there is a lot of detail that needs to be documented 15:42:40 … for browsers and polyfills 15:42:45 … must get consistency 15:42:51 … I think this doc is helpful 15:42:57 … but this is just one piece 15:43:09 … Must also define the interleaving of PEs and TEs 15:43:33 SP: yes, the goal is for the dev to only have to care about Pointer Events 15:43:45 RB: so, interleaving isn't an issue in that case 15:43:48 SP: correct 15:44:00 … although there will of course be cases like that 15:44:15 … but that isn't a primary task for us 15:44:32 RB: would like you to help with our mapping doc 15:44:41 SP: yes, we can do that 15:45:00 RB: please feel free to reach out to me re Chrome's behavior 15:45:27 Here's my doc on touch event details across browsers: 15:45:28 https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/12k_LL_Ot9GjF8zGWP9eI_3IMbSizD72susba0frg44Y/edit 15:45:43 https://docs.google.com/document/d/12-HPlSIF7-ISY8TQHtuQ3IqDi-isZVI0Yzv5zwl90VU/edit 15:46:00 AB: ooops; sorry 15:46:02 Sorry, this is it: https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/document/d/12k_LL_Ot9GjF8zGWP9eI_3IMbSizD72susba0frg44Y/edit 15:46:40 SP: we will check this 15:46:48 RB: so, how do we move forward 15:48:23 AB: I'd like to get this work done by mid November 15:48:31 q+ 15:48:50 RB: I think a lot of the details that are important can't be documented until we get more experience 15:49:21 … we could always shorten our scope 15:49:39 … don't think we'll understand interleave and other subtel issues for a while 15:49:48 … need to get PE out and deployed 15:52:43 AB: if we used something like a wiki for the mapping, we could close the group and still let the mapping doc evolve 15:52:55 DS: I see some conflicting requirements here 15:53:07 … I think we need to keep moving toward closing this group 15:53:21 … I don't see IBM's doc something that maps directly to a W3C spec 15:54:09 … If the doc is more prescriptive i.e. "we expect browsers to do X in scenarios Y/Z" 15:55:15 … We can also revisit defining the mapping in the PE Working Group but we must be very careful with that approach 15:55:55 DS: if it's an informative doc, we can use a wiki or WebPlatform.org 15:56:04 What if it is both? 15:56:13 … but if it is more prescriptive for browsers, it should be Note 15:56:26 (as in, reference for implementors but also helpful for web developers) 15:56:29 … I suspect we can get an extension 15:56:45 RB: I think we want a doc that is advice for browser implementers 15:56:55 DS: but that is not what IBM has 15:56:59 RB: yes, agree 15:57:12 SP: agree too; we can also do some more work 15:57:28 DS: do we think we can define the "desired behavior"? 15:57:40 … if so, we should be able to define that fairly quickly 15:57:52 RB: Column F is mostly prescriptive 15:58:34 … the larger problem is interleaving and touch-actions 15:58:42 … think we are going to need a new CSS property 15:58:52 … need to allow opt in 15:59:06 … not sure how to get that specified (e.g. which group) 15:59:20 DS: yes, CSS WG is one option 15:59:42 … although, other groups can do so if the work is done jointly 16:00:39 DS: perhaps we can revisit the mapping document decision within the PEWG 16:01:19 … if we need a specification, one possibility is DOM4 16:01:30 … now part of the HTMLWG 16:02:31 RB: the PEWG's charter doesn't explicitly state that interaction with Touch events is out of scope 16:02:59 ACTION: doug ask PEWG to revisit the decision to document the PE and TE mapping 16:02:59 Created ACTION-106 - Ask pewg to revisit the decision to document the pe and te mapping [on Doug Schepers - due 2013-10-22]. 16:03:11 sangwhan: htmlwg perhaps? 16:03:21 smaug: :D 16:03:31 DS: think it would be helpful if we had a very specific proposal for the PEWG 16:03:51 … f.ex. be able to say "this is the sequence of events …." 16:04:10 RB: still need more impl and deployment experience 16:04:19 OP: we need at least 2 impls 16:05:31 … that will take some time 16:05:39 -rbyers 16:06:37 AB: what about moving the mapping to a CG 16:06:44 RB: that's OK with me 16:06:52 DS: yeah, that's worth pursuing 16:07:22 … understand we can't do detailed work on the mapping without more impl experience 16:07:40 … perhaps the CG is the right approach 16:08:41 AB: let's work on a proposal for moving mapping to a CG or PEWG 16:08:50 DS: ok; not clear which one is better 16:09:17 ACTION: barstow work with Doug on where to define the PE/TE mapping (CG, PEWG, etc.) 16:09:17 Created ACTION-107 - Work with doug on where to define the pe/te mapping (cg, pewg, etc.) [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-22]. 16:09:36 SM: webkit bug for PE hasn't been progressing 16:09:44 … stuck since the Blink fork 16:10:17 AB: thanks Sebastien and Christophe for joining our call 16:10:23 DS: yes, thanks very much 16:11:37 Topic: AoB 16:11:44 AB: anything else for today? 16:11:53 AB: meeting adjourned 16:12:03 -Olli_Pettay 16:12:04 - +33.1.49.08.aaaa 16:12:04 -sangwhan 16:12:05 -Art_Barstow 16:12:07 -??P7 16:12:09 -Doug_Schepers 16:12:10 RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has ended 16:12:10 Attendees were +33.1.49.08.aaaa, Art_Barstow, Cathy, rbyers, Olli_Pettay, sangwhan, Doug_Schepers 16:12:11 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:12:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html ArtB 17:02:23 trackbot has joined #webevents 17:30:47 zakim, bye 17:30:47 Zakim has left #webevents 17:30:51 rrsagent, bye 17:30:51 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-actions.rdf : 17:30:51 ACTION: barstow followup with Matt re if TEv2 Note should be `full spec` or just the `extra pieces` that have been implemented [1] 17:30:51 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-irc#T15-24-20 17:30:51 ACTION: doug ask PEWG to revisit the decision to document the PE and TE mapping [2] 17:30:51 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-irc#T16-02-59 17:30:51 ACTION: barstow work with Doug on where to define the PE/TE mapping (CG, PEWG, etc.) [3] 17:30:51 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-irc#T16-09-17