15:01:27 RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents 15:01:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc 15:01:34 RRSAgent, make log public 15:01:44 zakim, aaaa is patrick_h_lauke 15:01:44 +patrick_h_lauke; got it 15:01:45 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:01:46 Scribe: Art 15:01:46 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0169.html 15:01:46 Chair: Art 15:01:46 Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference 15:01:58 +[Microsoft.a] 15:02:21 asir has joined #pointerevents 15:02:40 Present+ Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Asir_Vedamuthu, Scott_González, Patrick_Lauke 15:02:59 +Matt_Brubeck 15:03:00 rbyers has joined #pointerevents 15:03:00 Present+ Jacob_Rossi 15:03:12 Present+ Matt_Brubeck 15:03:30 +Cathy 15:03:39 hmm, skype didn't like a kernel update 15:03:45 Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon, Doug_Schepers 15:03:53 Topic: Tweak agenda 15:03:58 AB: draft agenda sent to the list yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0169.html. 15:04:03 AB: any change requests? 15:04:25 RB: we got a Q about putting touch-action in its own spec 15:04:37 … would like to understand the tradeoffs 15:04:42 … could be a diff re process 15:04:51 take to list? 15:04:55 I have no strong preference. 15:04:55 AB: we could add it or take it to the list 15:05:13 AB: let's add it if we have time 15:05:15 +[IPcaller] 15:05:15 RB: OK 15:05:26 Present+ Olli_Pettay 15:05:38 jrossi has joined #pointerevents 15:05:41 Topic: Add 'manipulation' touch-action property? 15:05:45 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 15:05:45 sorry, smaug, I do not see a party named 'Olli_Pettay' 15:05:52 AB: Jacob's proposed text is in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/rev/018f1b69c985; followups on this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/thread.html#msg158. 15:06:08 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay 15:06:08 +Olli_Pettay; got it 15:06:13 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 15:06:13 ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay 15:06:21 AB: Need to get agreement on the text and grammar. 15:06:24 zakim, who is noisy? 15:06:36 rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft.a] (61%), Art_Barstow (52%) 15:07:24 JR: I replied last night 15:07:41 [ Scribe is having a hard time hearing Jacob … ] 15:08:21 JR: Either we change the spec/IE to match MSDN docs, or we just fix the MSDN docs 15:08:26 ... don't see much value in changing IE's behavior 15:08:37 RB: I don't have a strong pref 15:08:43 … agree it's a minor point 15:08:58 … if there is no good reason to have a surprising grammar 15:09:22 … comes down to if think this is a bug in IE, we should spec it the right way 15:09:33 … but if IE is behaving as design, spec should match IE 15:09:44 JR: API could be more or less forgiving 15:09:59 … think the intent is already clear 15:10:13 +1 if it's by design, spec should match IE. otherwise, i'd have an idealistic spec with "magic" done by UAs (if that doesn't introduce compat issues down the line) 15:10:14 … but I can see how there would be confusion in some cases 15:10:31 RB: not completely clear how it should be designed 15:11:20 RB: how does this impact on IE, if you try to get computed style, does pan-x get silently dropped 15:11:47 JR: computed style should return exactly what was specified, so pan-x should be returned as well 15:11:56 np 15:12:27 JR: could make an argument either way 15:13:05 OP: have we asked CSS WG for feedback? 15:13:11 JR: good Q; no I have not 15:13:16 OP: I think we should ask 15:13:45 JR: I talked to some people and I agree we should ask 15:14:23 whatever outcome, i'd like to just make sure spec is unambiguous and does not open up door to future incompatibility 15:14:28 ACTION: Jacob ask CSS WG (www-style) re the Add 'manipulation' touch-action property issue 15:14:28 Created ACTION-93 - Ask css wg (www-style) re the add 'manipulation' touch-action property issue [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18]. 15:14:49 RB: I think we should just pick something now 15:14:54 AV: yes I agree 15:15:27 JR: agree we should just pick something 15:16:02 … I'll propose mutual exclusive solution 15:16:17 +1 15:16:18 RB: that sounds fine with me 15:16:22 … and PL agreed 15:16:36 JR: this is a good example where we don't really need a test case 15:16:42 +1 15:16:48 … since it isn't likely to impact developers 15:17:20 AB: if we agree on a solution, do we still need to ask CSSWG? 15:17:47 OP: yes, I think we should ask them 15:17:55 … I'll take that action 15:18:09 AB: thanks Olli 15:18:56 zakim, who is noisy? 15:18:59 zakim, who is noisy? 15:19:03 RESOLUTION: re manipulation touch-action property, we will update the spec and consult with CSS WG 15:19:09 smaug, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft.a] (11%), Art_Barstow (31%) 15:19:20 patrick_h_lauke, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft.a] (10%), Scott_Gonzalez (4%), Art_Barstow (70%) 15:19:20 Topic: Bug 21749: Setting a capture on an offshore element 15:19:34 AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21749. Jacob made a proposal in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21749#c2. 15:19:45 AB: any comments, or is more time needed to review the proposal? 15:19:59 AB: we need to ask Francois Remy for feedback before closing the bug but we can record a resolution on the proposal. 15:20:33 SG: what if pointercap set and then removed from the DOM 15:21:27 JR: in IE when leaves the DOM, looses capture 15:21:39 SG: common to pull elements out of DOM and put them back in 15:22:04 JR: this touches on another issue on the agenda 15:22:35 [ Scribe not getting all of Jacob's comments … ] 15:23:05 nor me 15:24:29 OP: not clear what is the next possible target 15:24:44 … target could have moved to another document 15:25:03 … one option is to fire an event on the document 15:25:10 JR: I'd be OK with that 15:25:36 RB: what's the objection to firing lostcapture on the element removed from the DOM 15:26:16 JR: can be problems with state machines keeping track 15:26:44 (some odd background noise ) 15:26:52 RB: ok, firing lostpointercapture at the doc is ok 15:27:26 SG: what about firing it on the element and then firing on the document? 15:27:55 JR: we do something like that in some other scenarios 15:28:23 RB: what about lostcap is fired before the remove 15:28:33 OP: that is what mutation events do 15:28:44 … that's a reason for getting rid of them 15:29:35 RB: for this bug, I think we all agree there is a failure 15:29:54 … when a target is not in the document 15:30:09 JR: yes, agree; we are discussing a separate bug too 15:30:55 zakim, who is noisy? 15:31:05 smaug, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Art_Barstow (69%) 15:31:27 AB: do we want to create a new bug? 15:31:35 RB: easier to generalize this bug 15:32:07 ACTION: Jacob Bug 21749: update the bug to reflect discussion on 2014-Mar-11 15:32:07 Created ACTION-94 - Bug 21749: update the bug to reflect discussion on 2014-mar-11 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18]. 15:32:37 RESOLUTION: Bug 21749 group agree with Jacob's comment #2 15:32:43 Topic: Bug 24786: Propose a non-normative note re the keyboard compat issue 15:32:55 AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24786. Patrick's proposal is in comment #6 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24786#c6. 15:33:02 AB: Rick and Jacob expressed support for Patrick's comment (although Rick suggested a minor tweek). 15:33:10 AB: any comments or objections to the proposal, including Rick's clarification request? 15:33:20 happy with RB's tweak, good catch 15:33:41 RESOLUTION: Bug 24786: group agrees with PL's proposal + RB's clarification 15:33:46 ACTION: Jacob Bug 24796: implement agreement discussed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug 15:33:46 Created ACTION-95 - Bug 24796: implement agreement discussed on 2014-mar-11 and then resolve/fix the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18]. 15:33:54 Topic: Bug 24921: Clarification of "Default Action" for pointerdown wrt compat mouse 15:34:04 AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24921. Patrick created this bug to address action-88 and it contains proposed text to review. 15:34:15 AB: Jacob said he is fine with the proposal. Any other comments? 15:34:16 yeah i'll contribute from IRC 15:34:39 RB: I like it 15:34:45 JR: ok with me 15:34:53 RESOLUTION: Bug 24921: group agrees with PL's proposed text 15:34:57 :) 15:35:00 ACTION: Jacob Bug 24921: implement PL's proposed text as agreed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug 15:35:00 Created ACTION-96 - Bug 24921: implement pl's proposed text as agreed on 2014-mar-11 and then resolve/fix the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18]. 15:35:12 Topic: Bug 24922: Tweak to 11. Compatibility Mapping with Mouse Events 15:35:20 AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24922. New bug by Patrick including proposed text changes. 15:35:26 AB: Jacob said he is fine with the proposal. Any other comments? 15:35:50 RB: LGTM 15:36:00 AB LGTM2 15:36:07 RESOLUTION: Bug 24922: group agrees with PL's proposed text 15:36:11 ACTION: Jacob Bug 24922: implement PL's proposed text as agreed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug 15:36:11 Created ACTION-97 - Bug 24922: implement pl's proposed text as agreed on 2014-mar-11 and then resolve/fix the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18]. 15:36:21 Topic: Bug 24923: What should happen to the mouse events if pointer event listener removes the target ... 15:36:33 AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24923. New bug by Olli  and comments from Scott, Rick, Jacob and a proposal by Patrick in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24923#c12. 15:37:01 i have no strong opinions on this bug btw 15:37:23 looking at this purely from a noob perspective, not knowing what the "PROPER" behavior as per DOM etc should be 15:37:45 so more my naive "i know basic JS, enough to be dangerous" view on it 15:37:48 JR: want some more time to think about this 15:37:59 … we might need some more defns 15:38:04 If we go with something like the proposal, perhaps we should use "an ancestor" instead of "the parent" 15:38:11 RB: agree this is non-trivial if we want to specify this 15:38:29 JR: need to investigate IE behavior 15:38:44 AB: we agree then to continue discussion on the list 15:39:16 http://dev-test.nemikor.com/behavior/mouseover-when-element-is-shown.html 15:39:18 SG: re my comment, and "mouse spec", need to be be clear about what changes in the DOM 15:39:31 SG: if put mouse into green box, it will turn red 15:39:42 … a new element is created under the mouse and it will be red 15:39:52 … it will be pink if hovering 15:40:21 JR: I agree this is not in scope for PE 15:40:30 Note this is considered (by some at least) a bug in blink: http://crbug.com/246304 15:40:42 SG: this is a manifestiation of mouse events in general 15:40:50 … think FF does the best 15:41:02 RB: we need to fix this in Blink to make it work like FF 15:41:30 SG: we see issues with autocomplete scenarios and hover 15:41:56 jrossi1 has joined #pointerevents 15:42:00 RB: agree it is out of scope for this group 15:42:15 … we need to figure this out though in the appropariate place/group 15:42:24 OP: yes I agree 15:43:39 SG: there are three scenarios and we need to agree on behavior for all 3 15:43:49 … remove from doc and stays out 15:44:22 [ Scribe didn't get Scott's 3 scenarios ] 15:44:57 s/remove from doc/1) remove from doc/ 15:45:40 JR: we don't want to have to do hit testing again 15:45:56 RB: agree; that creates issues 15:46:45 AB: please continue discussion in the bug 15:46:56 Topic: Bug 24971: Should got/lostpointercapture be dispatched asynchronously or synchronously 15:47:12 AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24971. New bug by Olli; needs feedback. 15:47:20 AB: Jacob said he needs to do some investigation. Any other feedback? 15:47:58 OP: why would ever want then to be dispatched asynchronously 15:48:29 RB: Jacob mentioned stack overflow potential 15:49:15 RB: this could be a web compat issue 15:49:42 OP: this came up as I reviewed a patch for Gecko 15:49:50 JR: I need to look at our code 15:50:16 AB: there's agreement to keep this bug open and for everyone to noodle on it 15:50:24 Topic: Open Actions for Jacob re spec updates 15:50:37 AB: This topic is just a reminder that Jacob has a few actions to update the spec  (Action-51, Action-62, Action-63, Action-65, Action-70). I wasn't expecting to discuss these today unless someone has something specific to say. 15:51:01 JR: I'll get to them ;) 15:51:13 MB: I also have an open action re an issue AvK raised 15:51:25 Topic: Testing status 15:51:30 AB: any new info re testing? 15:53:15 AB: status is we are waiting for updates from Jacob/Asir 15:53:28 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0172.html 15:54:41 AB: how about we defer discssion to the list for now if no resolution, we'll add it to a meeting agenda 15:54:51 Topic: CR implementation updates 15:54:57 AB: any new info re implementations? 15:55:04 yup sorry, let's continue on list for this (i'll make a bug). just that it popped into my head 15:55:14 (http://mozilla.pettay.fi/moztests/events/event_loop.html is my old event dispatching loop test for recursion depth) 15:55:18 RB: I sent out an Intent to Ship for touch-action 15:55:29 … I don't expect any major issues 15:55:53 OP: we have some issues to fix 15:56:00 blink touch-action "Intent to ship" thread: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/blink-dev/CSS$20touch-action/blink-dev/sc5lHnlcLvM/ntJWuKKHUqYJ 15:56:18 OP: the issues I filed are blocking Gecko 15:56:45 AB: that's good info. We need to make those bugs high prio 15:57:08 AV: what about auto-loading the pollyfill Rick? 15:57:24 RB: we have some things to do first but that's still in plan 15:57:32 … we need to some research 15:57:52 AV: a Chrome extension to load the polyfill? 15:57:56 RB: yes 15:58:01 AV: ok, thanks 15:58:16 Topic: AoB 15:58:22 AB: anything else for today? 15:58:50 Topic: moving touch-action to a separate spec 15:59:07 JR: need to think about this 15:59:19 RB: I understand it might not be worth the effort 15:59:30 … but I need to provide an answer 15:59:43 JR: think splitting it out raises too many issues 16:00:02 RB: sounds good; I'll report that and we can go from there 16:00:15 JR: think there is too much info that would need to be moved 16:00:56 AB: we have a `temporary` resolution to not split out touch-action into a separate spec 16:01:06 AB: meeting adjourned 16:01:09 -rbyers 16:01:11 -Olli_Pettay 16:01:11 -patrick_h_lauke 16:01:12 -[Microsoft] 16:01:13 -[Microsoft.a] 16:01:14 -Scott_Gonzalez 16:01:18 -Cathy 16:01:21 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:01:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:01:44 -Matt_Brubeck 16:01:46 RRSAgent, make log public 16:02:26 zakim, bye 16:02:26 leaving. As of this point the attendees were rbyers, Scott_Gonzalez, Art_Barstow, +44.797.663.aaaa, [Microsoft], patrick_h_lauke, Matt_Brubeck, Cathy, Olli_Pettay 16:02:26 Zakim has left #pointerevents 16:02:44 rrsagent, bye 16:02:44 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-actions.rdf : 16:02:44 ACTION: Jacob ask CSS WG (www-style) re the Add 'manipulation' touch-action property issue [1] 16:02:44 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-14-28 16:02:44 ACTION: Jacob Bug 21749: update the bug to reflect discussion on 2014-Mar-11 [2] 16:02:44 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-32-07 16:02:44 ACTION: Jacob Bug 24796: implement agreement discussed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug [3] 16:02:44 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-33-46 16:02:44 ACTION: Jacob Bug 24921: implement PL's proposed text as agreed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug [4] 16:02:44 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-35-00 16:02:44 ACTION: Jacob Bug 24922: implement PL's proposed text as agreed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug [5] 16:02:44 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-36-11