W3C

- DRAFT -

Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

22 Oct 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Scott_González, Asir_Vedamuthu, Matt_Brubeck, Olli_Pettay
Regrets
Doug_Schepers, Jacob_Rossi
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art

Contents


<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<smaug> uhuh

<smaug> totally missed the fact that we have call

Tweak agenda

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 ]

CR implementation updates

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

Review status of PR-324

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

maxTouchPoints on platforms that have less granular information

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

Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec;

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].

AoB

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...

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: barstow invite IBM to join Pointer Events WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] 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]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/10/22 15:39:06 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]