See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<patrick_h_lauke> oh, interesting zakim functionality there
AB: I posted a draft agenda
yesterday
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0138.html.
... since then there has been a lot of bug activity. My
inclination is to allocate some time for all of the bugs as a
way to get "last chance" feedback. However, Bugs 24706 and
24777 were Resolved/Fixed via patches based on agreements made
during our Feb 25 call so I propose we drop those two bug from
the call.
... any objections to dropping Bug 24706 and Bug 24777?
... yesterday Olli said Anne is still OOO so we won't discuss
his comments at this call.
... any other change requests?
RB: can we move manipulation topic earlier today
<patrick_h_lauke> ok with me
AB: that's finewith me
AB: this Issue/Q was raised by Rick on Feb 25 and he proposed some new text http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0125.html. There was some followup by Patrick and Jacob.
RB: IE has these additions
… think we need to rethink what we want to spec
… need something about click delay
… I proposed some wording that fits within the scope of the group (charter)
… this would help with compat
<patrick_h_lauke> +1 that click delay 300ms is a big pain point, and anything that can help alleviate it in a standardised way is a good thing
RB: extra impl burden I think is smallish
<patrick_h_lauke> removes special magic that UAs (particularly on mobile) do today
MB: I agree with Rick
… this is a good thing to add
… there are some impl-specific semantics
<mbrubeck> I like the proposal from Rick's mail that we spec it as "pan-x pan-y" plus (optional) implementation-specifiied behaviors.
JR: I replied to this thread; think this is valuable
… describe continuous zooming
<mbrubeck> I'm fine with specifying "continuous zooming" too.
… ok provided it doesn't hold up the spec
… well understood property
RB: you'd like some info from Mozilla re impl?
JR: yes, that would be good and what Matt said is sufficient
… think we have enuf support to add this
MB: need to double-check with Olli but we circulated this to Moz people
… I don't think we'll get any objections
AV: what do you expect Chrome to support
<rbyers> According to proposed definition of manipulation, it would be valid (and compatible) to implement it identically to 'auto'
… (directed to Rick)
RB: we are near branch point for Chrome 35
… if we get manipulation into ED I can get it in impl in time for Chrome 35
… need to get it into the spec
JR: I can add this today
RB: great
RESOLUTION: we will add manipulation to the touch-action property
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob add manipulation to the touch-action property [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/04-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-86 - Add manipulation to the touch-action property [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-11].
AB: This was created 2013-Apr-04
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21749
on behalf of Francois Remy. We discussed this during our
2014-Jan-07 call
http://www.w3.org/2014/01/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#item02
and Jacob has Action-57 to make a proposal https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/57.
... Jacob, what's the status of this?
JR: I still need to make a proposal; it's in my queue
… will get to it shortly
AB: Jacob Resolved/Fixed this bug
on Feb 28 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951
via patch https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/rev/a9862eea23f5
per the resolution on 2014-Jan-07
http://www.w3.org/2014/01/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#item03.
... We'll talk about Asir's related e-mail about this bug
separately, but first, are there any objections to Jacob's
patch?
SG: looks good to me
<patrick_h_lauke> looks good to me
RB: good to me
RESOLUTION: Jacob's fix for Bug 21951 is OK.
AB: Asir proposed in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951#c2 test assertions 5.4 and 5.5 be deleted since they "cannot be tested using the current test harness and cannot be run manually" https://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions#Test_Assertions_for_pointermove_events.
AV: as we review assertions and test coverage, we discovered these two cannot be tested
RB: not sure why 5.4 can't be tested
… can't change button state w/o changing the pointer
JR: yes, I think you are correct Rick
… a manual test here would be hard
… There is a discussion by the WebDriver group about this general problem
RB: yeah even if had a test, there is no API to check
AB: does anyone object to strking 5.4 and 5.5?
SG: we could move them to another section
… so if/when WebDriver can handle these cases, we could consider creating tests
<mbrubeck> "Awaiting harness improvements (or WebDriver)"
… if we strike them, should add a note
AV: we could add them to v2 list
AB: so do both strike and add to v2 list
<patrick_h_lauke> no objection
AB: anyone object to striking these plus adding these to v2 list?
[ None ]
JR: would be good for people in this group to provide input for WebDriver
… so they can handle our type of requirements
… we have John Jansen
RB: any one from Google?
<jrossi> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webdriver/raw-file/default/webdriver-spec.html
JR: this is the Browser Testing WG
CC: what about 5.6 and 5.7?
… does the same reasoning apply to these two assertions?
RB: yes, they are the same
AB: any different thoughts?
SG: no
AB: so we want to strike all 4 assertions?
AV: yes
AB: thanks Cathy
RESOLUTION: strike test assertions 5.{4,5,6,7} and add them to the v2 list
<scribe> ACTION: asir strike test assertions 5.{4,5,6,7} and add them to the v2 list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/04-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-87 - Strike test assertions 5.{4,5,6,7} and add them to the v2 list [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2014-03-11].
AB: Jacob Resolved/Fixed Bug
24346 on Feb 25 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24346
as discussed on Feb 25
http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#item09.
... Since then Patrick submitted some comments via the [["List
of Pointer Events" table default actions]] thread; see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0132.html
PL: think table still needs a clarification
MB: the table lists the action that will be prevented if call preventDefault
<jrossi> See Step 3 in: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html#mapping-for-devices-that-support-hover
… if call it on pointerdown all compat mouse events will be prevented
… there are some mouse events that aren't prevent-able
PL: perhaps the header of table
MB: could add a link to the text and section for canceling
JR: I can change the table headings
… think I just used headings from other DOM specs
… could add a defn and have the header link to that
PL: need to what happens when event is canceled
JR: [ reads part of the spec … ]
… could add a defn for defaultAction
<jrossi> "cancelled eventAn event whose default action was prevented by means of preventDefault(), returning false in an event handler, or other means as defined by [DOM-LEVEL-3-EVENTS] and [HTML5]."
MB: there's a diff between default action and defaultAction
<patrick_h_lauke> so currently, table column "Default Action". Text in the column is "Varies: when the pointer is primary, all default actions of the mousedown event plus firing of compatibility mouse events". How about just adding a bit of text
AB: Patrick can you take this info and create a proposal?
PL: [ makes a proposal … ]
… I can do some wordsmithing
<scribe> ACTION: Patrick make a proposal for Bug 24346 (using discussion from 2014-Mar-04 call) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/04-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-88 - Make a proposal for bug 24346 (using discussion from 2014-mar-04 call) [on Patrick Lauke - due 2014-03-11].
<patrick_h_lauke> thx
AB: Jacob proposed text in the
bug via comment #1 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24772#c1
as actioned on Feb 25
http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#item05.
... any objections to Jacob's proposal?
... looked ok to me
RB: sounds good
SG: so noop, no error?
JR: yes
RESOLUTION: group agrees with Jacob's proposal for Bug 24772
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob submit changeset for his proposed text for Bug 24772 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/04-pointerevents-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Submit changeset for his proposed text for bug 24772 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-11].
AB: after the draft agenda was
posted, Jacob Resolved/Fixed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24783
via patch https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/rev/0fc30a2b5dfe
and then Patrick had some followup.
... We'll discuss Patrick's editorial followup in a minute but
first, any objections to Jacob's patch?
JR: this is verbatim from what Patrick proposed
PL: yes; the two minor comments are editorial nits
<patrick_h_lauke> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0148.html
JR: oh, yes, I'll make those two changes
AB: any objections to the patch + the 2 editorial nits?
RB: LGTM
PL: +1
<patrick_h_lauke> oops
RB: why are pointerenter and pointerleave not in the list?
JR: that's an oversight
AB: any objections to adding pointerenter and pointerleave?
[ None ]
<patrick_h_lauke> hah mbrubeck
<patrick_h_lauke> save that for the touch events CG
RESOLUTION: group agrees with Jacob's patch for Bug 24783 + add pointerenter and pointerleave + add PL's two editorial nits
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob update the spec for bug 24783 including discussion from 2014-Mar-04 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/04-pointerevents-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Update the spec for bug 24783 including discussion from 2014-mar-04 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-11].
<patrick_h_lauke> not unlike my 100s of tests, rick http://patrickhlauke.github.io/touch/
AB: this bug had some additional
activity yesterday between Patrick and Jacob https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24784.
... I think what we want here is a relatively terse statement.
Jacob's proposal https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24784#c1
meets that but I'd say Patrick's counter-proposal
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24784#c3
meets the ICanLiveWithItTest.
JR: yes
AB: any objections to adding PL's proposed text for 24784?
RB: fine with me
<patrick_h_lauke> i'll follow up at later point to add my thoughts to the touch events CG wiki
RESOLUTION: group agrees with PL's proposed text for bug 24784
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob update the spec for bug 24784 per PL's proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/04-pointerevents-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Update the spec for bug 24784 per pl's proposal [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-11].
AB: Patrick has done quite a bit
of research and added several comments to this bug and so far
no one else has added any comments https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24786.
... we discussed this on Feb 25 and the group was actioned to
add their feedback to the bug
http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#item11.
... seems like we need a clear proposal we can review and
comment #5 might have such a proposal https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24786#c5.
<patrick_h_lauke> mind that the first part of https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24786#c5 is mainly for interest
RB: I don't have an objection if UAs implement something like this
… but need to separate that from designing things into the platform
… want the compatibility hacks at higher lever e.g. frameworks
<patrick_h_lauke> ...or user agent behavior
… don't want "surprising" behavior included in the platform
<patrick_h_lauke> i actually agree with rick here
… PL's proposal is good but need to separate that from platform requirements
PL: agree with you Rick
… think the end of comment #5 is the important part we want to capture
… some more text is needed
[ Scribe didn't capture comments from Rick … ]
PL: should I use this feedback to create a new proposal?
AB: sounds good
<scribe> ACTION: Patrick make a specific proposal for Bug 24786 per discussion on 2014-Mar-04 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/04-pointerevents-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Make a specific proposal for bug 24786 per discussion on 2014-mar-04 [on Patrick Lauke - due 2014-03-11].
<rbyers> my main point was to emphasize using high-level APIs (focus, blur, click, etc.) wherever possible. When you must use low-level input events, be sure to support ALL types of input devices, including keyboards.
PL: might want to block for feedback from Sangwhan
… since one of his actions is related
<patrick_h_lauke> https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/63
… Action-63
<patrick_h_lauke> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0140.html
PL: the Q is whether Action-63 is covered by my proposal
RB: yes, I think so
AB: how about after you make your proposal Patrick, we make sure Sangwhan is given a headsup and then address action-63 accordingly?
PL: sounds good
AB: after the draft agenda was posted, Jacob Resolved/Fixed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24894 via Jacob's patch https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/rev/b168701f0522.
<patrick_h_lauke> LGTM
AB: this was discussed on Feb 25
as "Slight softening of language in the note for 5.1.2"
http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#item08.
... any objections to this patch?
PL: LGTM
RB: LGTM
AB: +1
<patrick_h_lauke> :)
RESOLUTION: group agrees with Jacob's patch for Bug 24894.
<patrick_h_lauke> right, shooting off. thanks everybody
AB: any new testing news (beyond Feb 25 http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#item12)?
AB: any new implementation news (beyond Feb 25 http://www.w3.org/2014/02/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#item13)?
<mbrubeck> It is now possible to enable touch-action and pointer events in nightly builds of Firefox for Windows 8 Metro.
AB: awesome!
<asir> Very cool!!
MB: portions of that also work on some other platforms
<mbrubeck> Pointer Events (but not touch-action) can also be enabled in Firefox for desktop, and (I think) Firefox OS.
<rbyers> Woot!
RB: we are continuing to land touch-action patches
… still on track for Chrome 35
AB: Any other Business for
today?
... I might have a conflict with this time on March 11 so a
call that day is currently not likely
... down to 4 bugs + Annes comments
... anything else?
... 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) Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art_Barstow Patrick_Lauke Rick_Byers Jacob_Rossi Asir_Vedamuthu Matt_Brubeck Cathy_Chan Scott_González Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon Olli_Pettay Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0138.html Got date from IRC log name: 04 Mar 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/03/04-pointerevents-minutes.html People with action items: 4 5 5. 6 7 add asir assertions jacob manipulation patrick strike test them WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]