15:59:04 RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents 15:59:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc 15:59:10 RRSAgent, make log public 15:59:19 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:59:19 Scribe: Art 15:59:19 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0056.html 15:59:19 Chair: Art 15:59:19 Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference 15:59:25 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:59:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:59:48 jrossi2 has joined #pointerevents 16:00:25 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started 16:00:32 +Art_Barstow 16:02:07 + +1.770.402.aaaa 16:02:23 zakim, aaaa is Jacob 16:02:23 +Jacob; got it 16:02:30 +[Microsoft] 16:02:31 +Cathy 16:03:06 Present+ Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu 16:03:18 Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon 16:03:21 +rbyers 16:03:30 Present+ Rick_Byers 16:04:01 Topic: Tweak agenda 16:04:07 AB: any change requests for the proposed agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0056.html? 16:04:13 AB: Since Sangwhan sent regrets, perhaps we should not cover the "Compatibility Events" topic and defer discussion to the list or add it to the next call if there is no "conclusion" on the list. 16:04:15 Asir has joined #pointerevents 16:04:28 AB: any objections to dropping Compatibility Events? 16:04:36 [ none ] 16:04:47 AB: ok, we'll drop that and please followup on the list 16:04:54 AB: any other change requests? 16:05:34 JR: bug 22891 was from Sangwhan 16:05:41 … perhaps we should drop that too 16:05:44 RB: agree 16:05:52 AB: any objections to JR's proposal? 16:05:55 [ none ] 16:06:14 Topic: How should touch-action apply to multiple fingers? 16:06:26 AB: Rick raised this question on November 6 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0050.html 16:06:45 RB: I was initially assuming this was out of scope 16:07:00 … but since panning is potentially more than one finger 16:07:11 … then I think we should talk about how that works with touch-action 16:07:23 scott_gonzalez has joined #pointerevents 16:07:26 … Spec seems to assume touch-action will only have one touch point 16:07:36 … need to think about multiple touch points too 16:07:50 … Would like to understand IE's behaviour 16:08:08 JR: for IE, behavior depends on other gestures 16:08:28 +Scott_Gonzalez 16:08:54 … if add pinch/zoom, can support multiple fingers 16:08:58 … f.ex. if panning 16:09:08 … don't think of panning and zooming as separate gestures 16:09:20 … whether or not there are multiple fingers is an artifact 16:09:34 … Not sure how to be more specific for action model 16:09:40 … Tried to be gesture-agnostic 16:09:56 RB: what about touch-action auto and none 16:10:12 … if have auto on a and none on b 16:10:17 zakim, who is noisy? 16:10:18 … and then touch both a and be elements 16:10:28 rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Art_Barstow (4%), Jacob (95%), [Microsoft] (29%) 16:10:29 .. .what is done 16:11:03 RB: in Rick's case, depends on which gestures the UA supports 16:11:15 … the gestures that are triggered depend on the UA 16:11:23 RB: what if 1 finger is pan x 16:11:29 … and another finger is pan y 16:11:44 … saying only panning is allowed 16:12:04 JR: so want to say only pan x 16:12:19 RB: if browser implements nothing more than what we supply 16:12:28 … can the UA just support what the spec states 16:12:50 JR: not sure how to do that without compromising other things in the spec 16:12:59 … could have diff combos of fingers 16:13:41 RB: re scope, could say t-a model looks at all possible intersection and says that's the way it works 16:14:23 s/RB: in Rick's/JR: in Rick's/ 16:14:27 Would it be in scope, for example, if we wanted to say that the touch-action processing model was as follows: 16:14:47 look at the touch-action under each active touch point and use the intersection to determine what action is permitted 16:14:50 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:14:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:15:02 i.e. we're not really comparing pointers at all, just using multiple touch-action values 16:15:23 JR: I think we could describe something like that 16:15:33 … but not sure if it solves the fundamental problem 16:15:42 … of not understanding IE's behavior 16:15:45 -Cathy 16:15:54 … If have one element that has a rule to pan-x 16:16:03 … now if have 2 fingers 16:16:15 … is pan in x direction allowed 16:16:35 … for some browsers, 2 finger pan-x works 16:16:49 +Cathy 16:17:04 RB: I think we'll have different behavior for same gestures 16:17:43 … for the purposes of this group, are we saying that anything with more than 1 finger is out of scope? 16:18:06 JR: if I take a broad understanding of the group's scope, then yes, I agree 16:18:08 http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/ 16:18:16 … (anything beyond one finger is out of scope) 16:18:17 "Gestures. Examples of out-of-scope gesture functionality and APIs include, but are not limited to, the following: Comparisons between pointers to determine an action (e.g., panning for scrollable regions, pinch for zooming, press-and-hold for a mouse right-click)." 16:18:26 RB: ok, I can understand that 16:18:38 … I do need to think more about what this means 16:18:46 … f.ex. need to gather some data 16:19:00 JR: think most content will be for auto 16:19:24 … think we'll get good interop without being more specific 16:19:43 … The more advanced cases will require a broader scope 16:19:51 RB: pinch is a common scenario 16:19:58 … everyone will need to do it 16:21:37 AB: yes, we do need to consider the scope (and there could be some IP concerns) 16:22:30 Topic: touch-action hit testing 16:22:35 AB: Rick started this thread on November 14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0055.html 16:22:49 RB: the algorithm as written today is misleading 16:23:01 … t-a proc model needs to be more specific 16:23:12 … especially as hit testing is related to CSS 16:23:24 JR: there is no spec that defines hit testing 16:23:33 … thus the general definition 16:23:47 … There have been some efforts to define it 16:24:05 RB: CSS Object Model touches on this 16:24:12 JR: but that just defines the IDL 16:24:26 RB: without defining how it works, can we say @@ 16:24:46 JR: think we can add some text about block elements 16:24:58 RB: yes, think we need some clarifications re block elements 16:25:07 JR: think that can be done as an informative note 16:25:13 RB: that would be fine with me 16:25:36 … need to define "touched element" or at least clarify it 16:25:47 … f.ex. has the following properties ... 16:25:54 … Don't want surprises 16:26:01 JR: agree need some clarifications 16:26:09 … and eventually define 'hit testing' 16:26:15 ArtB: I raised https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23825 re hit testing in CSSOM 16:26:18 RB: I can propose some text 16:26:26 JR: I can propose some text via the list 16:26:58 RB: some of testing led to this topic getting released 16:27:56 AB: RESOLUTION: multi-finger: we will not define additional behavior for multiple fingers because of scope concerns 16:28:03 AB: any objections? 16:28:09 RESOLUTION: multi-finger: we will not define additional behavior for multiple fingers because of scope concerns 16:29:28 AB: RESOLUTION: hit testing: Jacob will draft proposed Note to clarify details of hit testing is out of scope, we will clarify properties UA's must adhere to for hit testing 16:29:52 RB: change "we" to "and" 16:30:02 RESOLUTION: hit testing: Jacob will draft proposed Note to clarify details of hit testing is out of scope, and we will clarify properties UA's must adhere to for hit testing 16:30:26 Topic: Bug 22890 16:30:33 AB: bug 22890 was filed by Olli on Augus6 6 "It is not clear why navigator.pointerEnabled is needed" https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22890 16:30:57 JR: we talked about this issue before 16:31:08 … not necessary from a technical view 16:31:39 … concerned about removing this for compat reasons 16:32:00 … If we want to mark this "At Risk", we would have to go back to LC->CR 16:32:12 zakim, who is noisy? 16:32:14 … we wouldn't remove it from our impl 16:32:20 … at least not initially 16:32:22 rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Art_Barstow (9%), Jacob (89%), Asir (16%), rbyers (4%) 16:32:31 … we could remove it from our docs 16:32:41 … A question is what the group wants to do about it 16:33:04 … I think this would be the only substantive change to the spec 16:33:38 RB: if we were going to make this change, then we should consider other substantive changes like hit testing 16:34:00 JR: I think the hit testing change could be done with out a substantive normative change 16:34:13 … but the new text would need to be testable 16:34:21 RB: I don't have a strong opinion 16:34:40 … if left in the spec and FF and Blink don't implement it, what are consequences 16:34:57 … If no one else implements it, we can't get out of CR 16:35:08 JR: I'm comfortable with making this change 16:35:43 … if we need to go back to LC/CR, we could try to scope the review to just changes since the last LC/CR 16:35:57 … that helps preventing a bunch of new comments 16:36:02 RB: makes sense 16:36:09 zakim, who is noisy? 16:36:20 rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jacob (40%), Asir (25%) 16:36:32 Zakim, mute Asir 16:36:32 Asir should now be muted 16:36:38 Zakim, unmute Asir 16:36:38 Asir should no longer be muted 16:36:45 sorry, trying to address the noise 16:38:18 AB: if we make any substantive changes, we will need to go back to LC/CR 16:39:40 -Jacob 16:39:42 … my recommendation is to first complete the test suite and get 2 impls before going to LC/CR 16:42:24 AB: another option is to get the Impl Report done before LC#2 16:42:46 … and then we can skip CR and go right to Proposed Recommendation after the 3-week LC review period is complete 16:42:57 AV: what is the minimum LC review period? 16:43:01 AB: 3 weeks 16:43:33 AB: do we have a resolution for bug 22890 that we want to fix this bug? 16:43:48 RB: yes, I think we need to do this to get 2 impls to pass the tests 16:43:57 AV: yeah, I agree 16:44:09 RB: if we remove it, think we will get to REC faster 16:44:15 AV: yes, I think that is true 16:45:01 note that the impls may still someday add this API for compat with IE, but only if substantial compat testing showed it was necessary - so if we wanted to count on that it would probably delay getting to REC... 16:45:02 … think we should focus on Testing and Impl and the process steps will then follow 16:45:24 AB: RESOLUTION: agree that navigator.pointerEnable should be removed from the spec 16:45:29 AB: any objections? 16:45:32 [ None ] 16:45:39 RESOLUTION: agree that navigator.pointerEnable should be removed from the spec 16:45:53 Topic: Status of PR324 updates 16:46:01 AB: what's the status of processing PR324 comments? https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324 16:46:08 AV: we are reviewing comments 16:46:12 … I don't have a ETA 16:46:17 … but we are working on them 16:46:42 RB: if you want to give me feedback on my comments, please let me know 16:46:57 … not clear how much value there is for comments during the test case review 16:47:08 AV: if we have any issues, we'll let you know 16:47:14 … comments are always welcome 16:47:17 Topic: Need touch-action tests 16:47:27 AB: since the draft agenda was posted, Jacob announced Microsoft added some touch-action tests to PR324 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0059.html. The new commit is https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/commit/886568a445cded3b5aa01f0c8befb48e0534fed6 16:47:51 AB: it appears there are several new tests 16:47:55 … this is excellent 16:47:59 RB: yes, this is good 16:48:06 AV: you should be able to use them Rick 16:48:14 … if you have feedback, please let me know 16:48:19 RB: I can review them 16:48:38 AB: if anyone else wants to review them, that would be great 16:48:48 CC: I'll review them 16:48:51 AB: great 16:49:16 RB: as I'm working on our impl of touch-action, I will do testing 16:49:33 … would like to share them with the group 16:49:54 … but probably need to keep the blink tests separated 16:50:03 AV: I'll assign actions to Rick and Cathy 16:50:24 ACTION: Rick review touch-action tests 16:50:25 Created ACTION-54 - Review touch-action tests [on Rick Byers - due 2013-11-26]. 16:50:34 ACTION: Cathy review touch-action tests 16:50:34 Created ACTION-55 - Review touch-action tests [on Cathy Chan - due 2013-11-26]. 16:50:45 Topic: Gaps in coverage 16:50:52 AB: we still have some gaps in http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions 16:50:54 eg. if anyone is curious, here's a simple touch-action test case I'm landing in blink: www.rbyers.net/touch-action-simple.html 16:51:11 AV: not sure if Jacob update the wiki yet 16:51:29 ACTION: Jacob update the TestAssertion wiki re touch-action tests 16:51:29 Created ACTION-56 - Update the testassertion wiki re touch-action tests [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-11-26]. 16:51:52 AV: there are 17 test assertions without tests 16:51:58 … we are working on them 16:52:14 … some time soon expect to contribute our tests 16:52:30 … We have 3-4 that need some discussions 16:52:48 AB: ok, that sounds great 16:53:13 … are some assertions not clear? 16:53:25 AV: for some, it's not clear how to test the assertion 16:53:35 AB: please do followup on the list 16:53:46 Topic: CR implementation updates 16:53:54 AB: any new progress on implementations? 16:54:10 RB: I've been making progress on touch-action 16:54:25 Implement simple touch-action support in blinki on the main thread: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=316735 16:55:13 … Driving for basic touch-action impl behind a flag by mid-December 16:55:24 … this work uncovered some design issues 16:55:57 AB: IE11 is now available on Win 7 and up? 16:55:59 AV: yes 16:56:19 … re FireFox, we reported a while ago about a FF patch 16:56:36 … Rick has been part of the discussion thread 16:56:46 … I don't have a firm ETA 16:56:53 … other than there is some progress 16:57:19 Topic: AoB 16:57:25 AB: are there any other topics for today? 16:57:40 AV: when will we meet again? 16:57:43 AB: good Q 16:58:09 … I'll ping Sangwhan 16:58:18 AV: we need to make progress on the test suite 16:58:20 AB: I agree 16:58:38 … we may have next week, depending on topics and availability 16:58:48 AV: Rick is out next week and me too 16:58:57 AB: no meeting on Nov 26 16:59:10 … so next potential meeting is Dec 3 16:59:19 AB: meeting adjourned 16:59:32 -Art_Barstow 16:59:33 -rbyers 16:59:36 -Asir 16:59:37 -Cathy 16:59:37 -Scott_Gonzalez 16:59:38 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended 16:59:38 Attendees were Art_Barstow, +1.770.402.aaaa, Jacob, Cathy, rbyers, Scott_Gonzalez, Asir 16:59:40 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:59:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 17:02:40 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu 17:03:01 Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon, Scott_González, Doug_Schepers 17:03:10 RRSAgent, make minutes 17:03:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 17:03:14 zakim, bye 17:03:14 Zakim has left #pointerevents 17:18:07 rrsagent, bye 17:18:07 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-actions.rdf : 17:18:07 ACTION: Rick review touch-action tests [1] 17:18:07 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc#T16-50-24 17:18:07 ACTION: Cathy review touch-action tests [2] 17:18:07 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc#T16-50-34 17:18:07 ACTION: Jacob update the TestAssertion wiki re touch-action tests [3] 17:18:07 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc#T16-51-29