15:58:31 RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents 15:58:31 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-irc 15:58:37 RRSAgent, make log public 15:58:47 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:58:47 Scribe: Art 15:58:47 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0106.html 15:58:47 Chair: Art 15:58:47 Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference 15:58:52 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:58:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 15:59:15 RRSAgent, make log Public 16:00:11 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started 16:00:19 + +44.797.663.aaaa 16:00:26 +Art_Barstow 16:00:40 zakim, aaaa is Patrick 16:00:40 +Patrick; got it 16:00:51 rbyers has joined #pointerevents 16:00:52 +[Microsoft] 16:01:12 Zakim, Microsoft is jrossi2 16:01:12 +jrossi2; got it 16:01:13 +[IPcaller] 16:01:18 hmm mic not working 16:01:37 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay 16:01:37 +Olli_Pettay; got it 16:01:50 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 16:01:50 ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay 16:02:02 hmm, bridge issues (just ringing) 16:02:07 Cathy has joined #pointerevents 16:02:11 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Jacob_Rossi, Olli_Pettay, Patrick_Lauke, Rick_Byers 16:02:11 rbyers: I had the same first 16:02:29 +Cathy 16:02:47 +rbyers 16:02:58 +Scott_Gonzalez 16:03:27 Present+ Scott_González 16:03:31 reminder that i'll have to shoot off early...probably in 40 mins or so 16:04:00 Topic: Tweak agenda 16:04:09 AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday < http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0106.html>. Since then there has been quite a bit of activity on the list. 16:04:09 +[Microsoft] 16:04:23 Present+ Asir_Vedamuthu 16:04:28 AB: the two topics started by Anne were more like "reminders" we are waiting for a reply from Anne and since Olli indicated Anne is not available today, I propose we drop these two topic today and continue discussion on the list. If necessary, we could invite Anne to attend a future call. Any objections to that? 16:04:49 +Doug_Schepers 16:05:02 Present+ Doug_Schepers 16:05:06 [ None ] 16:05:11 AB: the "Awkward wording in 5.2.3" raised by Patrick resulted in a spec update by Jacob that Patrick says is OK. As such, any objections to deleting this topic? 16:05:52 JR: this isn't a substantial change 16:06:03 … but would still appreciate people reviewing it 16:06:12 RB: I looked over it 16:06:17 JR: yes thanks 16:06:34 AB: everyone feel an obligation to review changeset 16:06:41 AB: Topic 2 (non-normative examples for event sequences) is now Bug 24783 16:06:57 AB: any other change requests? 16:07:07 Topic: Bug 24783 non-normative examples for event sequences to be added to end of 11.2 16:07:10 zakim, who is noisy? 16:07:15 AB: this bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24783 was started by Patrick on February 10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0075.html and Rick replied http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0092.html. 16:07:21 rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Art_Barstow (77%), [Microsoft] (49%) 16:07:34 zakim, mute [Microsoft] 16:07:34 [Microsoft] should now be muted 16:08:17 JR: I'm happy to make the proposed changes 16:08:23 +Matt_Brubeck 16:08:26 RB: think there is one open Q here 16:08:36 Present+ Matt_Brubeck 16:08:53 … think one clarification is needed 16:09:13 asir has joined #pointerevents 16:10:01 [ discussion about what to do if hover not supported ] 16:10:46 JR: re order and when click happens, impls do vary based on touch event model 16:11:01 … click needs to come before mouse out 16:11:40 "also listing the click event, to clarify that this is fired at the very end of sequence" 16:11:42 -Matt_Brubeck 16:11:52 PL: should we soften the above 16:12:12 +Matt_Brubeck 16:12:26 -Matt_Brubeck 16:12:43 RB: this is non-normative text i.e. examples 16:12:52 … we can add clarifications 16:13:05 touch-action: none; /* disables double-tap-zoom in IE */ 16:13:16 PL: how about removing click from the numbered list and add a not after the list 16:13:24 … that click happens at one position or another 16:13:31 … I could add that to the bug 16:13:37 … and then we can discuss 16:13:46 JR: I prefer to add click to the sequence 16:13:58 … so impls will be interoperable 16:14:13 RB: doubletap delay gives lots of probs 16:14:27 PL: so action on me to update the wording in the bug? 16:14:44 +Matt_Brubeck 16:14:46 RB: ok and move click right after mouse up 16:15:04 JR: not sure pointercapture events make sense here 16:15:29 RB: maybe omit pointercapture 16:15:42 … don't think they are essential to what we want to say here 16:16:10 ACTION: Patrick update bug 24783 with a proposal the group can review 16:16:10 Created ACTION-78 - Update bug 24783 with a proposal the group can review [on Patrick Lauke - due 2014-03-04]. 16:16:22 Topic: Bug 24696 - Line too long in example 8 16:16:29 AB: this bug is purely editorial https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24696 so I don't think there is anything to discuss, is that right Jacob and Rick? 16:17:12 RB: this line is especially bad with mobile devices 16:17:29 JR: the template for code samples uses a

 element
16:17:31  should we add overflow:auto to the pre
16:17:38  … and getting it to wrap is challenging
16:17:47  RB: can make it wrap via CSS?
16:17:53  JR: sure
16:18:18  ACTION: Jacob update the spec for Bug 24696 per discussion on 2014-Feb-25
16:18:18  Created ACTION-79 - Update the spec for bug 24696 per discussion on 2014-feb-25 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
16:18:22  s/wrap/overflow:scroll
16:18:28  Topic: Bug 24706 - Clarify when setPointerCapture is supposed to work
16:18:38  AB: Olli raised this bug on Feb 17 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24706 and Jacob proposes text in comment #5 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24706#c5.
16:18:57  AB: Olli, is Jacob's reply sufficient?
16:19:49  OP: yes, I think that is ok
16:20:07  JR: if the two terms are confusing, I'm not "married" to those terms
16:20:13  OP: I think they are fine
16:20:25  jrossi2: FYI your 'hacked' version looks fine on chrome android now.  overflow: auto is probably better than overflow: scroll.  But if it's tricky I'm happy to leave as is with the extra line breaks...
16:20:28  ACTION: Jacob update the spec for Bug 24706 per discussion on 2014-Feb-25
16:20:28  Created ACTION-80 - Update the spec for bug 24706 per discussion on 2014-feb-25 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
16:20:39  Topic: Bug 24772 - releasePointerCapture() should fail if called from a node that doesn't currently capture the pointer
16:20:50  AB: raised by Jacob Feb 21 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24772 based on feedback from "romaxa".
16:21:16  JR: romaxa is doing the Gecko impl
16:21:37  … if capture on A and then release on B with same ID does it still release pointercapture
16:21:42  … with IE, it does not
16:21:48  … and we think that's a good thing
16:21:54  RB: I agree
16:22:06  agree
16:22:15  AB: any disagreement?
16:22:17  [ None ]
16:22:46  AB: how about Jacob you make a proposal in the bug?
16:22:50  JR: yes, I can do that
16:23:07  ACTION: Jacob update bug 24772 with a proposed change
16:23:08  Created ACTION-81 - Update bug 24772 with a proposed change [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
16:23:19  Topic: Bug 24776 - mouseenter/mouseleave in 11.1/11.2 note
16:23:35  AB: this bug was raised by Patrick Feb 22 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24776. Jacob made a spec change and closed the bug and then Patrick reopened it with new proposed text.
16:24:04  PL: I want to make sure the text is as unambiguous as possible
16:24:20  JR: the note is global in the sense mouse over/out are not prevented
16:24:58  PL: I got this the wrong way in my comments
16:25:24  "mouseenter and mouseleave can only be prevented when the pointer is down, while mouseover and mouseout are never prevented."
16:25:50  "mouseover and mouseout can only be prevented when the pointer is down, while mouseenter and mouseleave are never prevented." ?
16:26:05  mousedown, move, up can only be prevented when the pointer down, mouseover/out/enter/leave can never be prevented
16:26:12  PL getting confused
16:26:13  [ JR clarifies which events can be ignored ]
16:26:51  PL: I'll go ahead and close the bug (based on this conversation)
16:27:16  Topic: Bug 24777 - Add tiny note to 11.2 - list item nr 2 (mousemove) to clarify the reason for it
16:27:22  AB: this bug was raised by Patrick Feb 22 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24777. Jacob thinks the text in 11.2's intro is sufficient.
16:28:14  PL: I prefer to have things spelled out
16:28:26  … mainly because developers skip this type of stuff
16:28:33  … but I don't feel real strongly
16:28:48  JR: I don't mind adding it
16:29:26  ACTION: Jacob update the spec per the Patrick's comment for Bug 24777
16:29:27  Created ACTION-82 - Update the spec per the patrick's comment for bug 24777 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
16:29:44  Topic: Slight softening of language in the note for 5.1.2
16:29:53  AB: Patrick raised this issue on Feb 22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0101.html
16:30:09  PL: since then, I was drawing the wrong conclusion for that one
16:30:56  -Matt_Brubeck
16:31:22  … Process Q - can the Archived-at header be included in the emails
16:31:33  DS: I have a TBird extension
16:31:56  RB: if there are multiple pointers down, there can be some compat issues
16:32:20  JR: if we add anything, could change "will" to "may" or "might"
16:32:28  http://schepers.cc/archived-link
16:32:46  +Matt_Brubeck
16:33:06  RB: I think there are no impls that do anything inconsistent with the "will"
16:33:41  -Matt_Brubeck
16:34:22  PL: my last email suggests adding a note
16:34:34  … does that make sense?
16:34:40  RB: yes, I think so
16:34:51  +Matt_Brubeck
16:35:30  … not sure we want to add too many requirements
16:36:02  PL: I can file a bug and we can discuss it
16:36:11  RB: I think a note would be ok
16:36:16  "first to become active" would be tricky because a mouse device's pointer is always active
16:36:22  PL: I'll create a bug
16:36:50  ACTION: Patrick file a bug re the "slight softening of lang in the note for 5.1." issue
16:36:50  Created ACTION-83 - File a bug re the "slight softening of lang in the note for 5.1." issue [on Patrick Lauke - due 2014-03-04].
16:37:21  RB: I don't think the impls need to change
16:37:40  … each pointer type should have one primary pointer
16:37:58  MB: think the note there is a bit confusing
16:38:23  PL: I'll look at that note and take discussion to the list
16:38:35  Topic: Bug 24346 - Clarifications on Pointer Events Types section ?
16:38:47  AB: Patrick submitted some input http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0103.html for this bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24346. Rick agreed with Patrick's proposed changes but no one else has commented on the bug.
16:39:11  JR: I made this change last night
16:39:15  … it's a good change
16:39:26  … I only made some minor changes
16:39:55  ACTION: Jacob close/resolved bug 24346
16:39:55  Created ACTION-84 - Close/resolved bug 24346 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
16:40:06  Topic: Bug 24784: ACTION-69: Create a proposal re informative note re pointerevent and touchevent compatibility
16:40:16  AB: the bug is https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24784 and includes a relatively lengthy proposal to change text in the intro re compatibility f.ex. with TouchEvents.
16:40:37  AB: one issue is how much to explicitly say about TouchEvents versus linking to some other document f.ex. a document by the Touch Events Community Group.
16:41:11  PL: I put a lot of text in my proposal
16:41:27  … I'm not so married to the text but the overall sense is very important
16:41:38  … developers need some help here
16:41:46  … f.ex. the main points of divergence
16:42:12  … If we can deal with the bulk of this on the CG side, that would be fine with me
16:42:23  … either way is OK with me
16:42:44  JR: I think a lightweight note that points to CG work would be fine
16:43:02  … and let the CG specifiy the details
16:43:15  RB: we can use the CG's wiki for that
16:43:42  MB: it is also possible for the spec to include extension points to other docs
16:44:07  DS: there is a diff b/w documentation and specifications
16:44:31  I'm referring to e.g. http://annevankesteren.nl/2014/02/monkey-patch
16:44:46  … in the Audio work, we are experimenting with annotations
16:45:08  … that could be something for us to consider
16:45:34  … thus instead of "go to this wiki" the spec can have an annotation to other info
16:47:04  AB: I support trying to use annotations in the longer term but agree with Rick about using the wiki
16:47:16  PL: should I put the text in the bug in the wiki?
16:47:26  … and then have a link in the spec to the wiki?
16:47:42  AB: that sounds reasonable to me
16:47:51  JR: yes, a link in the spec to the wiki is OK with me too
16:48:15  ACTION: Patrick move text in Bug 24784 to the Touch Event CG wiki
16:48:15  Created ACTION-85 - Move text in bug 24784 to the touch event cg wiki [on Patrick Lauke - due 2014-03-04].
16:48:37  Topic: Bug 24786: ACTION-64: Propose a non-normative note re the keyboard compat issue
16:48:53  AB: the bug is https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24786 and Patrick included proposed addition to the Introduction re keyboards and PointerEvents.
16:49:36  JR: I need to read it and then I'll comment in the bug
16:49:57  RB: I think some text like this is fine
16:50:46  … pointers need a coordinate system
16:51:21  RB: I'll add some comments to the bug
16:51:29  -Patrick
16:51:56  AB: if anyone else has comments re Patrick's proposed text in bug 24786, please add it to the bug
16:52:09  Topic: Testing status
16:52:13  side note: voiceover/iOS allows sequential navigation AND fires touch events. will test what x/y  coords are passed on in that situation
16:52:16  AB: any new news re testing?
16:52:24  patrick_h_lauke has left #pointerevents
16:52:38  JR: we will have some testing updates within the next week
16:53:16  … some internal changes we are doing will facilitate updates to GH
16:53:21  DS: excellent
16:53:50  Topic: CR implementation updates
16:53:55  AutomatedTester has joined #pointerevents
16:53:56  AB: any new news re Implementations?
16:54:12  RB: we are continuing to land patches
16:54:20  … still planning Chrome 35
16:54:34  OP: we are also landing patches in Gecko
16:54:47  zakim, unmute [Microsoft[
16:54:47  sorry, rbyers, I do not know which phone connection belongs to [Microsoft[
16:54:48  zakim, unmute [Microsoft]
16:54:49  [Microsoft] should no longer be muted
16:55:07  AV: what is the timeline for Chrome 35?
16:55:22  http://www.chromium.org/developers/calendar
16:55:23  RB: 35 will lock down at the end of March
16:55:45  … by end of march, touch-action will be on be default
16:56:15  AV: are there open bugs?
16:56:29  RB: we have fixed some bugs and have some new ones
16:56:39  OP: we aren't bug free in Gecko
16:56:56  RB: Jacob, you still have some actions re touch-action elements?
16:56:58  JR: yes
16:57:05  s/Gecko/in spec/
16:57:17  JR: I think the only element is