See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<jrossi2> hmm mic not working
<rbyers> hmm, bridge issues (just ringing)
<smaug> rbyers: I had the same first
<patrick_h_lauke> reminder that i'll have to shoot off early...probably in 40 mins or so
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.
... 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?
[ None ]
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?
JR: this isn't a substantial change
… but would still appreciate people reviewing it
RB: I looked over it
JR: yes thanks
AB: everyone feel an obligation
to review changeset
... Topic 2 (non-normative examples for event sequences) is now
Bug 24783
... any other change requests?
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.
JR: I'm happy to make the proposed changes
RB: think there is one open Q here
… think one clarification is needed
[ discussion about what to do if hover not supported ]
JR: re order and when click happens, impls do vary based on touch event model
… click needs to come before mouse out
<patrick_h_lauke> "also listing the click event, to clarify that this is fired at the very end of sequence"
PL: should we soften the above
RB: this is non-normative text i.e. examples
… we can add clarifications
<jrossi2> touch-ACTION: none; /* disables double-tap-zoom in IE */
PL: how about removing click from the numbered list and add a not after the list
… that click happens at one position or another
… I could add that to the bug
… and then we can discuss
JR: I prefer to add click to the sequence
… so impls will be interoperable
RB: doubletap delay gives lots of probs
PL: so action on me to update the wording in the bug?
RB: ok and move click right after mouse up
JR: not sure pointercapture events make sense here
RB: maybe omit pointercapture
… don't think they are essential to what we want to say here
<scribe> ACTION: Patrick update bug 24783 with a proposal the group can review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-78 - Update bug 24783 with a proposal the group can review [on Patrick Lauke - due 2014-03-04].
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?
RB: this line is especially bad with mobile devices
JR: the template for code samples uses a <pre> element
<patrick_h_lauke> should we add overflow:auto to the pre
… and getting it to wrap is challenging
RB: can make it overflow:scroll via CSS?
JR: sure
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob update the spec for Bug 24696 per discussion on 2014-Feb-25 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - Update the spec for bug 24696 per discussion on 2014-feb-25 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
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.
... Olli, is Jacob's reply sufficient?
OP: yes, I think that is ok
JR: if the two terms are confusing, I'm not "married" to those terms
OP: I think they are fine
<rbyers> 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...
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob update the spec for Bug 24706 per discussion on 2014-Feb-25 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-80 - Update the spec for bug 24706 per discussion on 2014-feb-25 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
AB: raised by Jacob Feb 21 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24772 based on feedback from "romaxa".
JR: romaxa is doing the Gecko impl
… if capture on A and then release on B with same ID does it still release pointercapture
… with IE, it does not
… and we think that's a good thing
RB: I agree
<patrick_h_lauke> agree
AB: any disagreement?
[ None ]
AB: how about Jacob you make a proposal in the bug?
JR: yes, I can do that
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob update bug 24772 with a proposed change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-81 - Update bug 24772 with a proposed change [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
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.
PL: I want to make sure the text is as unambiguous as possible
JR: the note is global in the sense mouse over/out are not prevented
PL: I got this the wrong way in my comments
<patrick_h_lauke> "mouseenter and mouseleave can only be prevented when the pointer is down, while mouseover and mouseout are never prevented."
<patrick_h_lauke> "mouseover and mouseout can only be prevented when the pointer is down, while mouseenter and mouseleave are never prevented." ?
<jrossi2> mousedown, move, up can only be prevented when the pointer down, mouseover/out/enter/leave can never be prevented
<patrick_h_lauke> PL getting confused
[ JR clarifies which events can be ignored ]
PL: I'll go ahead and close the bug (based on this conversation)
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.
PL: I prefer to have things spelled out
… mainly because developers skip this type of stuff
… but I don't feel real strongly
JR: I don't mind adding it
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob update the spec per the Patrick's comment for Bug 24777 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Update the spec per the patrick's comment for bug 24777 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
AB: Patrick raised this issue on Feb 22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0101.html
PL: since then, I was drawing the wrong conclusion for that one
… Process Q - can the Archived-at header be included in the emails
DS: I have a TBird extension
RB: if there are multiple pointers down, there can be some compat issues
JR: if we add anything, could change "will" to "may" or "might"
<shepazu> http://schepers.cc/archived-link
RB: I think there are no impls that do anything inconsistent with the "will"
PL: my last email suggests adding a note
… does that make sense?
RB: yes, I think so
… not sure we want to add too many requirements
PL: I can file a bug and we can discuss it
RB: I think a note would be ok
<mbrubeck> "first to become active" would be tricky because a mouse device's pointer is always active
PL: I'll create a bug
<scribe> ACTION: Patrick file a bug re the "slight softening of lang in the note for 5.1." issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> 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].
RB: I don't think the impls need to change
… each pointer type should have one primary pointer
MB: think the note there is a bit confusing
PL: I'll look at that note and take discussion to the list
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.
JR: I made this change last night
… it's a good change
… I only made some minor changes
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob close/resolved bug 24346 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Close/resolved bug 24346 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-04].
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.
... 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.
PL: I put a lot of text in my proposal
… I'm not so married to the text but the overall sense is very important
… developers need some help here
… f.ex. the main points of divergence
… If we can deal with the bulk of this on the CG side, that would be fine with me
… either way is OK with me
JR: I think a lightweight note that points to CG work would be fine
… and let the CG specifiy the details
RB: we can use the CG's wiki for that
MB: it is also possible for the spec to include extension points to other docs
DS: there is a diff b/w documentation and specifications
<mbrubeck> I'm referring to e.g. http://annevankesteren.nl/2014/02/monkey-patch
… in the Audio work, we are experimenting with annotations
… that could be something for us to consider
… thus instead of "go to this wiki" the spec can have an annotation to other info
AB: I support trying to use annotations in the longer term but agree with Rick about using the wiki
PL: should I put the text in the bug in the wiki?
… and then have a link in the spec to the wiki?
AB: that sounds reasonable to me
JR: yes, a link in the spec to the wiki is OK with me too
<scribe> ACTION: Patrick move text in Bug 24784 to the Touch Event CG wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-85 - Move text in bug 24784 to the touch event cg wiki [on Patrick Lauke - due 2014-03-04].
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.
JR: I need to read it and then I'll comment in the bug
RB: I think some text like this is fine
… pointers need a coordinate system
RB: I'll add some comments to the bug
AB: if anyone else has comments re Patrick's proposed text in bug 24786, please add it to the bug
<patrick_h_lauke> side note: voiceover/iOS allows sequential navigation AND fires touch events. will test what x/y coords are passed on in that situation
AB: any new news re testing?
JR: we will have some testing updates within the next week
… some internal changes we are doing will facilitate updates to GH
DS: excellent
AB: any new news re Implementations?
RB: we are continuing to land patches
… still planning Chrome 35
OP: we are also landing patches in Gecko
AV: what is the timeline for Chrome 35?
<mbrubeck> http://www.chromium.org/developers/calendar
RB: 35 will lock down at the end of March
… by end of march, touch-action will be on be default
AV: are there open bugs?
RB: we have fixed some bugs and have some new ones
OP: we aren't bug free in in spec
RB: Jacob, you still have some actions re touch-action elements?
JR: yes
... I think the only element is <svg>
RB: think there are some other block elements
… need to check css2.1 spec
JR: I have that action; agree we need to get on the same page
AV: how close is Gecko to accepting the patches?
OP: we are landing them when they are ready
… think branching by end of March is possible
… and then it takes about 3 months to get it into a release
AB: anything else for today?
JR: Microsoft is joining the Touch Events CG
RB: that's great
DS: yes agree
AB: excellent
DS: re the CG, it can be nice to have a Chair
RB: I'll need to think about the time commitment
AB: meeting adjourned
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) Succeeded: s/wrap/overflow:scroll/ Succeeded: s/Gecko/in spec/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Default Present: +44.797.663.aaaa, Art_Barstow, Patrick, jrossi2, Olli_Pettay, Cathy, rbyers, Scott_Gonzalez, [Microsoft], Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck Present: Art_Barstow Cathy_Chan Jacob_Rossi Olli_Pettay Patrick_Lauke Rick_Byers Scott_González Asir_Vedamuthu Doug_Schepers Matt_Brubeck Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0106.html Got date from IRC log name: 25 Feb 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html People with action items: jacob patrick WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]