See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<smaug> uhuh
<smaug> totally missed the fact that we have call
AB: I posted a draft agenda
yesterday
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0014.html.
... since then, Sanghwan posted "Compatibility Events"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0018.html.
Given this is a bit late for today's meeting, perhaps we should
discuss this on the list and not add it to today's
agenda.
... any objections to that?
[ None ]
AB: so please followup Sangwhan's
email on the list
... any change requests for agenda?
RB: re Vivek's comment, I replied and don't think we need to discuss it
AV: I agree
AB: any objections to deleting that proposed agenda topic?
[ None ]
AB: any new information re implementations?
OP: no updates from me
RB: nothing new to talk about; still active
AV: do you want to talk about maxTouchPoints?
RB: we have a patch for Navigator.maxTouchPoints
… good to get this
… added to Blink
… the patch came from MS Open Tech
AV: you are still working on touch-action?
RB: yes
… and some polyfill work needs to be done
… We are actively moving it forward
… Can't give a specific `done date`
SG: update re Polymer and jQuery
… polyfill can run in `old IE`
… some things aren't quite to spec
… f.ex. writing properties
… setting pointer capture in old IE is problematic
… so works on IE 6, 7, 8
RB: anyone from IBM here?
AB: no
SG: yeah, I want to talk to DoJo people
RB: yes, that would be good
SG: I will followup
… with DoJo
RB: could argue that 2 separate production quality polyfills is good
… provided they give the same behaviour
<scribe> ACTION: barstow invite IBM to join Pointer Events WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Invite ibm to join pointer events wg [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-29].
AV: re Mozilla, there is a public build avialable that includes most of PE
… the touch-action is a WIP by other engineers
OP: yes, there are some patches
… that need review
… nothing is shipping yet
MB: an engineer has a private build
OP: we want to get touch-action implemented before landing the patch
… afaik, it is moving slowly
RB: this requires fundamental changes to the event model thus everyone is being slow and careful
AB: I think about 2/3 of PR324
has been reviewed so we need people to commit to reviewing the
remaining 8 files
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0019.html.
... need volunteers
RB: I can do review of my files by next week
<mbrubeck> http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45
<mbrubeck> has the initial division
AB: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0019.html
RB: I'll take 1-5
SG: I'll take 6-8 (pointerLeave)
AB: can you do your review by next week Scott?
SG: yes
AV: we have been reviewing comments
… and will start working on them this week or next
AB: great
AV: thanks for the comments
AB: great, thanks everyone
... anything else on testing?
AV: we are still working on touch-action
… tests
… Hope to send them to the group soon
… We are also looking at Cathy's Test Assertion table
… vis-a-vis the gaps
… Want to encourage everyone to review the table
… and look for gaps
… and supply missing tests
AB Rick submitted this comment on 10-Oct-2013 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0010.html
RB: during our Android impl of PE, we ran into this problem
… get 1 of 5 states
… so basically buckets of touch points
… Can get ballpark type results like "at most 2" or "at most 4" touch points
RB: need some reliability
… f.ex. "definitely have at least 2 touch points"
… We might need a note if the platform cannot give specific results
MB: agree we need to do something
… don't think maxTouchPoints is a good name for this
AV: seems more like a platform impl detail
… rather than something we want to include in the spec
RB: but authors need to know about this
<sangwhan> But applications need to know how many touch points they can use
RB: think the spec needs some clarify for these scenarios
AV: I need to talk with Jacob about this
<sangwhan> Otherwise every developer has to assume the worst case scenario
AB: agree getting more input is good
… do we capture an issue now?
AV: think we should discuss on the list first
AB: any objections to continue discussion on list and postpone creating a formal CR Issue?
RB: no, I think that's fine
AV: this is some non-normative text we want to add?
RB: yes, I think so
… [ Rick describes a scenario where this is problematic … ]
MB: we could acknowledge this is a range
… and then define a lower bound
… and keeping maxTouchPoints defined as is
<rbyers> The main question is does maxTouchPoints return the guaranteed maximum across all digitizers and platform-specific ranges
<rbyers> I.e. can it be used by apps as an upper bound on the size of data structures, etc.
AB: so, everyone, please provide feedback on Rick's initial thread via the mail list
<rbyers> OR should it be used by apps to indicate when additional UI (eg. zoom controls) are necessary
AB: Steve Hickman submitted this
comment on 30-Sep-2013
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0050.html
... we deferred discussion during the last meeting. I think I
am the only one to have replied and I added it the post CR
comment and issue tracking doc
http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/CR-pointerevents-20130509
... any comments, feedback?
OP: I think EMMA spec should be changed
… it is missing touch
… don't think PE spec needs to be changed
RB: not sure how important this is
<sangwhan> Do any browser implementations actually implement anything related to EMMA/MMI?
OP: I agree
AV: agree this isn't a high prio and think Art's response was good
<sangwhan> I haven't seen one so far, so I personally think the point is fubar
… if there is no real interop problem, not sure we have to do anything
OP: the MMI architecture is very different than what we are doing
… don't we should care much about this
RB: we have implementations of PE already shipping
… so I think that trumps the EMMA work in progress
AB: draft Resolution: we do not
consider PE and EMMA interop a substantial issue until there is
clear data to show otherwise
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: we do not consider PE and EMMA interop a substantial issue until there is clear data to show otherwise
<scribe> ACTION: barstow update PE CR tracking doc re EMMA comment to reflect 22-Oct-2013 Resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Update pe cr tracking doc re emma comment to reflect 22-oct-2013 resolution [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-29].
AB: anything else for
today?
... we'll have our next meeting when we have a sufficient
agenda for a call.
<sangwhan> How about a plenary meeting for the CG during tpac?
AB: meeting adjourned
<rbyers> Sorry sangwhan - we just hung up. Last we talked, not too many of us were planning on being at TPAC I think...
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) Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Default Present: Matt_Brubeck, Scott_Gonzalez, Art_Barstow, Cathy, rbyers_, asir, Olli_Pettay Present: Art_Barstow Cathy_Chan Rick_Byers Scott_González Asir_Vedamuthu Matt_Brubeck Olli_Pettay Regrets: Doug_Schepers Jacob_Rossi Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0014.html Got date from IRC log name: 22 Oct 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html People with action items: barstow ibm invite WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]