15:00:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:00:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/25-pointerevents-irc
15:00:38 <Zakim> RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:45 <Zakim> +Scott_Gonzalez
15:00:49 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
15:01:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:01:15 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
15:01:17 <smaug> Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
15:01:17 <Zakim> +Olli_Pettay; got it
15:01:26 <smaug> Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
15:01:26 <Zakim> ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
15:01:35 <rbyers> rbyers has joined #pointerevents
15:01:39 <Zakim> +Asir_Vedamuthu
15:01:46 <Cathy> Cathy has joined #pointerevents
15:01:54 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
15:01:54 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
15:01:54 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0194.html
15:01:54 <ArtB> Chair: Art
15:01:54 <ArtB> Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:01:54 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:02:09 <Zakim> +rbyers
15:02:16 <ArtB> Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon, Patrick_Lauke
15:02:21 <jrossi> Zakim, Microsoft is jrossi
15:02:21 <Zakim> +jrossi; got it
15:02:24 <asir> asir has joined #pointerevents
15:02:41 <Zakim> +Cathy
15:03:20 <ArtB> Present: Arthur_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu, Scott_Gonzalez, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Olli_Pettay
15:03:57 <ArtB> Topic: Tweak Agenda
15:04:02 <ArtB> AB: any change requests to the draft agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0194.html?
15:04:23 <ArtB> Topic: Bug 24923: What should happen to the mouse events if pointer event listener removes the target ...
15:04:30 <ArtB> AB: we discussed but 24923 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24923> on March 11 <http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#item07> and didn't reach consensus on what to do (or not do). There has been no followup in the bug or on the list since that call.
15:05:12 <ArtB> OP: think we should follow IE
15:05:20 <ArtB> … and put that behavior in the spec
15:05:27 <ArtB> RB: would be good to get details from Jacob
15:05:30 <ArtB> … and he did that
15:05:31 <Zakim> +Matt_Brubeck
15:05:34 <ArtB> … now we need to spec it
15:05:39 <ArtB> JR: agree we want that in the spec
15:06:08 <ArtB> … not sure how I would insert this into the spec
15:06:24 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
15:06:28 <ArtB> … could be better for me to create a changeset and for people to discuss that
15:06:33 <ArtB> JR: sounds good
15:06:43 <rbyers> s/JR/RB/
15:07:04 <ArtB> ACTION: jacob create a changeset for bug 24923 and sent it to the list for review
15:07:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-98 - Create a changeset for bug 24923 and sent it to the list for review [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-04-01].
15:07:09 <ArtB> AB: ok, thanks Jacob
15:07:18 <ArtB> Topic: Bug 24971: Should got/lostpointercapture be dispatched asynchronously or synchronously
15:07:32 <ArtB> AB: we discussed bug 24971 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24971> on March 11 <http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#item08> and didn't reach consensus on what to do (or not do). There has been no followup in the bug or on the list since that call.
15:07:50 <ArtB> JR: I can add some info to the bug
15:08:12 <ArtB> … Olli had a related Q re the order
15:08:33 <ArtB> … in our imp when calll setptrcapture, we set a pending capture node
15:09:09 <ArtB> [ Jacob gives details of IE impl … ]
15:09:22 <ArtB> … So this is similar to what Olli says in comment #2
15:10:29 <ArtB> [ Jacob gives details about Olli's comment #4 ]
15:10:43 <ArtB> OP: that gives a surprising result
15:10:56 <Zakim> -Asir_Vedamuthu
15:11:43 <ArtB> [ Olli gives a scenario that could result in surprising results ]
15:12:25 <ArtB> JR: if get gotcapture, we guarantee you get a lostptrcapture
15:12:56 <ArtB> … I agree we need to update the spec
15:13:00 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:13:24 <ArtB> … Similar to one of Anne's comments
15:13:55 <ArtB> … Need to make the spec clearer but need to make sure we all agree on the behavior for these scenarios
15:14:09 <ArtB> OP: wonder if this is just a bit too complicated and just fire synch events
15:14:32 <ArtB> … synch handling would make the algorithm simpler
15:14:47 <ArtB> JR: we had probs with apps when we had synch firing of the events
15:14:59 <ArtB> … we could say that's bad app behavior
15:15:11 <ArtB> … i.e. tight loops of setting capture
15:15:36 <ArtB> RB: would like to understand what the apps were trying to do in those cases
15:16:04 <ArtB> JR: that would require some investigation (been a few years)
15:17:14 <ArtB> SG: are storage events synch (like localStorage)
15:17:30 <ArtB> JR: if there are no other synch events, we probably don't want to address this
15:18:02 <ArtB> … if people have to deal with synch with click, then doing something like that could be ok
15:18:32 <ArtB> OP: if multiple clicks on same target, don't have to handle all
15:18:38 <ArtB> JR: so similar problem then
15:18:49 <jrossi> s/JR/RB
15:19:00 <Zakim> -Matt_Brubeck
15:19:17 <ArtB> … we could say calling setptrcapt from within the context of gotptrcapt handle isn't legal
15:19:30 <smaug> just a sec
15:19:48 <ArtB> … If I understand Olli, with click, the spec prevents that (to stop recursive issues)
15:19:59 <ArtB> JR: not sure which is better
15:20:04 <smaug> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#run-synthetic-click-activation-steps
15:20:57 <Zakim> +Matt_Brubeck
15:21:05 <ArtB> Present+ Matt_Brubeck
15:21:54 <ArtB> OP: I kind of like this behavior because it prevents endless loops
15:22:16 <ArtB> RB: would be  nice if we could say we have the same prob as click event
15:22:32 <ArtB> JR: I can look into this
15:22:45 <ArtB> … Seems sensible to make it behave like click
15:23:00 <ArtB> … I can look up the motivation for asynch and add to the bug
15:23:11 <ArtB> JR: would be good to have a site that uses asynch
15:23:19 <ArtB> s/JR:/RB:/
15:23:29 <ArtB> s/JR/RB/
15:24:12 <ArtB> JR: I'll check on the IE bugs that caused this behavior and add information to our bug
15:24:56 <ArtB> ACTION: Jacob investigate IE behavior re bug 24971 and add that info to the bug
15:24:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Investigate ie behavior re bug 24971 and add that info to the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-04-01].
15:25:15 <ArtB> Topic: Sub-pixel coordinate granularity
15:25:24 <ArtB> AB: Rick's March 18 e-mail  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0190.html> was a followup to a thread he started in December 2013 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0074.html.
15:25:43 <ArtB> AB: we discussed Rick's December e-mail during our January 7 call http://www.w3.org/2014/01/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#item06 and Jacob agreed to add a related non-normative note https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/62.
15:26:01 <ArtB> AB: however, it appears Rick's March 18 e-mail could be touching on different but related issues.
15:26:33 <ArtB> RB: the Q about when fractional coords can be returned is an open Q
15:26:43 <ArtB> … MSDN has some doc about this
15:26:57 <ArtB> JR: we are consistent
15:27:04 <ArtB> RB: do you do that for mouse events too?
15:27:13 <ArtB> JR: yes, I believe so
15:27:25 <ArtB> RB: is that causing any issues?
15:27:41 <ArtB> JR: not positive (we have a CSSOM switch)
15:28:03 <Zakim> -asir
15:29:03 <ArtB> RB: we are going to try to change blink to use float
15:29:09 <ArtB> … and see what sites break
15:29:17 <ArtB> JR: please let us know the results
15:29:36 <ArtB> AB: so where are we then?
15:29:58 <Zakim> +Asir_Vedamuthu
15:30:07 <ArtB> RB: I would like to hear more about IE but I don't think our spec needs to change
15:30:23 <ArtB> JR: yes, I agree no PE spec change needed but I can get some more info
15:30:32 <asir>  /me my connection keeps dropping today :)
15:31:01 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the group agrees there is no need to change the spec re the "Sub-pixel coordinate granularity" topic
15:31:16 <ArtB> Topic: Touch-action to SVG elements
15:31:23 <ArtB> AB: Jacob's March 21 e-mail <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0191.html> was a followup to an e-mail in January from Samsung. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/att-0016/00-part>.
15:31:38 <ArtB> AB: Jacob included a proposal in his e-mail. If we agree with Jacob's proposal one way forward would be to action Jacob to create a bug, submit a changeset and then Resolve/Fix the bug; if anyone objects, they can re-open the bug.
15:32:08 <ArtB> JR: thanks Jacob for the details
15:32:17 <ArtB> … your proposal sounds great to me
15:32:23 <ArtB> s/JR/RB/
15:32:33 <ArtB> JR: you know Chrome doesn't match it, right?
15:32:43 <ArtB> RB: yes, and I'll file a bug to get that fixed
15:33:06 <ArtB> … (probably won't get fixed for 35 but will get a fix for 36)
15:33:16 <ArtB> JR: Olli, same for FF
15:33:20 <ArtB> OP: yes
15:33:37 <ArtB> RB: would be nice to have an ED with this fix
15:33:41 <ArtB> JR: I can do that today
15:34:05 <ArtB> RB: if have a web site that is broken, that'd be helpful
15:34:27 <ArtB> AB: so you'll update the spec then Jacob?
15:34:30 <ArtB> JR: yes, will do
15:34:58 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: the group agrees Jacob's proposal for "Touch-action to SVG elements "topic is OK
15:35:13 <ArtB> Topic: Exception usage
15:35:20 <ArtB> AB: Anne's March 16 followup <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0185.html> and the original thread starts at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0067.html>. Matt has action-73 to followup with Anne https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/73.
15:36:04 <ArtB> JR: this is a compat problem for IE
15:36:31 <ArtB> … I also am not convinced what we are doing is really a compat issue
15:36:44 <ArtB> AB: what about Chrome and FF?
15:36:49 <ArtB> RB: not sure offhand
15:37:00 <ArtB> … I'd be surprised if this was a problem for us
15:37:03 <asir_> asir_ has joined #pointerevents
15:37:17 <ArtB> OP: I don't think this is an issue for us
15:37:57 <ArtB> AB: it appears we support the current value
15:38:04 <ArtB> … and we don't want to change it
15:38:33 <ArtB> JR: if there was strong consensus to change that's one thing but I don't think there is
15:38:54 <ArtB> … I feel like we are chasing a moving target
15:39:09 <ArtB> … and only change if there is clear and convincing evidence we should change
15:39:19 <ArtB> … Thus I prefer to leave the spec as is
15:39:35 <ArtB> JR: I agree there doesn't appear to be strong consistency argument
15:39:42 <ArtB> … so I am ok with leaving spec as is
15:39:47 <rbyers> s/JR/RB/
15:40:02 <Zakim> -Asir_Vedamuthu
15:41:00 <ArtB> AB: DRAFT RESOLUTION: group agrees to keep the spec as is re "Exception Usage"  topic
15:41:02 <Zakim> + +1.571.426.aaaa
15:41:15 <ArtB> OP: we could ask Anne about the stability of the decision he is pushing
15:41:42 <ArtB> AB: how about Matt?
15:41:52 <ArtB> MB: that action-73 is something different
15:42:25 <mbrubeck_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0082.html
15:42:31 <ArtB> AB: so Matt, Olli do we want to continue to discuss this or adopt the Draft Resolution?
15:42:49 <smaug> smaug	annevk: who stable is this DOMException/Error handling stuff http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0185.html
15:42:51 <ArtB> MB: Anne pointed to an es_discuss thread that didn't appear to have a solid conclusion
15:42:55 <smaug> annevk	smaug: it isn't
15:43:10 <ArtB> … we could see if anything else has been done there in DOM and/or WebIDL
15:43:26 <ArtB> … if there is no mature decision about this, I'm OK with leaving the spec as is
15:43:50 <ArtB> AB: would you please followup with Anne then Matt?
15:43:55 <ArtB> MB: yes, I can do that
15:44:25 <ArtB> ACTION: Brubeck followup with Anne re the Exception thread
15:44:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Followup with anne re the exception thread [on Matt Brubeck - due 2014-04-01].
15:44:56 <ArtB> SG: for Node, everything is done with codes
15:45:13 <ArtB> JR: within WebApps, consensus codes is bad
15:45:22 <ArtB> … because it requires centralizing
15:45:42 <ArtB> … and names/strings were supposed to be better in avoiding collisions
15:46:12 <smaug> annevk	smaug: I feel somewhat strongly that new APIs should not mint new DOMException names and preferably just throw TypeError if there's no branching needs, per Allen's preference.  and that if people disagree with that, they have a discussion with him
15:46:56 <ArtB> AB: thanks smaug
15:47:19 <ArtB> … one question is if PE is "new" API or not given there are sites that are using it
15:47:54 <ArtB> JR: if there is another UC, that would be helpful
15:48:36 <jrossi> Issue-65 has been updated (touch-action applies to:) https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html#the-touch-action-css-property
15:48:46 <ArtB> AB: feels like we should keep this open now
15:49:35 <ArtB> MB: understand the compat issues for IE
15:50:00 <ArtB> JR: don't want to change the spec until there is broad agreement from the DOM/ES community
15:50:15 <ArtB> … but don't want to change the spec until then
15:50:40 <ArtB> MB: ok, so sounds like we don't want to change the spec now but if DOM or WebIDL spec changes before REC, we could revisit this
15:50:50 <ArtB> JR: that sounds ok
15:50:58 <ArtB> AB: sounds ok with me too
15:51:33 <ArtB> … are we back to a resolution we agree not to change spec based on what we know now
15:51:38 <ArtB> JR: yes
15:51:41 <ArtB> RB: agree
15:51:47 <asir> asir has joined #pointerevents
15:52:16 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: group agrees to keep Exception as is
15:53:06 <ArtB> Topic: Feedback on pointer events
15:53:15 <ArtB> AB: Anne's March 17 followup <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0187.html>; original thread starts at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0069.html>
15:54:43 <ArtB> JR: I owe Anne a reply
15:54:48 <ArtB> … most is OK
15:55:04 <ArtB> … one part could be contentious re defaultActions if an event not canceled
15:55:13 <ArtB> … could add more steps
15:55:43 <ArtB> … but some events are marked canceleable because their mouse event counterparts are marked cancelable
15:55:56 <ArtB> … no spec defines that for mouse events
15:56:14 <ArtB> … So I'm not sure we can get to the level of crispness that Anne wants
15:56:43 <ArtB> … I think we tried to define this in DOM 3 Events and it was hard
15:56:58 <ArtB> DS: my recollection is lots of details is very hard
15:57:25 <ArtB> … I tried with D3E and the feedback was mostly "not good enough"
15:57:34 <ArtB> Present+ Doug_Schepers
15:58:12 <ArtB> AB: so it sounds like Jacob will reply
15:58:20 <ArtB> … and others should join the conversation
15:58:40 <ArtB> Topic: Testing: Jacob's latest commits for PR 324 needs review
15:58:47 <ArtB> AB: Jacob's e-mail <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0192.html> says PR 324 has been updated. Rick and Cathy agreed to review the tests they have previously reviewed.
15:59:08 <ArtB> AB: I don't recall what the means specifically and if that means we also need reviews from others.
15:59:25 <smaug> and I lost connection or something
15:59:25 <Zakim> -Olli_Pettay
15:59:32 <smaug> yeah, it is 18:00, I guess Zakim kicked me out
15:59:38 <ArtB> MB: I split them up
15:59:44 <ArtB> RB: I think 1-5 are mine
15:59:53 <ArtB> … not sure who reviewed 6-8
16:00:06 <ArtB> JR: I think the wiki needs some updating
16:00:14 <ArtB> … f.ex. there are some file name updates
16:00:25 <mbrubeck_> Previously: http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45
16:00:29 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:00:41 <smaug> Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
16:00:41 <Zakim> +Olli_Pettay; got it
16:00:54 <Cathy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0029.html
16:00:54 <smaug> Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
16:00:54 <Zakim> ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
16:00:56 <ArtB> AB: thanks Matt
16:01:12 <ArtB> … this means review needs to be done by: Rick, Cathy, Art and Matt
16:02:08 <scott_gonzalez> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324/files?w=1 will show the diff without whitespace changes.
16:02:16 <ArtB> RB: were any new files added Jacob?
16:02:20 <scott_gonzalez> You should be able to add `?w=1` to any diff URL.
16:02:23 <ArtB> JR: yes, I think so
16:02:39 <ArtB> … check the diff
16:02:47 <scott_gonzalez> For example, https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/commit/e872664c81fbcc9d3c53ff5e171ccf48443d066c?w=1 is just the most recent commit without whitespace chages.
16:02:52 <ArtB> RB: I'll look at anything with "capture"
16:03:06 <ArtB> JR: could you please check if there are any files without a Reviewer?
16:03:10 <ArtB> MB: yes, I'll do that
16:03:14 <ArtB> AB: ok, thanks
16:03:31 <ArtB> AV: how do we close on the test cases?
16:04:55 <ArtB> AB: the review should be done by someone that didn't write the tests
16:05:02 <Zakim> -Scott_Gonzalez
16:05:09 <ArtB> … all comments should be submitted to GH
16:05:22 <ArtB> JR: I can merge the request after all comments are addressed
16:05:54 <ArtB> AB: everyone please review your set of tests and put your reveiw comments on GH
16:06:02 <ArtB> Topic: CR implementation updates
16:06:22 <ArtB> s/Topic: CR implementation updates//
16:07:08 <ArtB> JR: if there are big issues, they should be added as GH Issues
16:08:18 <ArtB> AB: that makes sense to me
16:08:25 <ArtB> Topic: CR implementation updates
16:08:29 <ArtB> AB: any new info re implementations?
16:08:45 <ArtB> [ None ]
16:08:46 <ArtB> Topic: AoB
16:09:04 <ArtB> AB: thanks everything; meeting adjourned
16:09:05 <Zakim> -Olli_Pettay
16:09:07 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
16:09:10 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
16:09:11 <Zakim> -rbyers
16:09:11 <Zakim> -Cathy
16:09:19 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:09:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/25-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
16:09:24 <Zakim> -Matt_Brubeck
16:09:41 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
16:09:42 <Zakim> -jrossi
16:09:57 <jrossi> Cathy: we just have to enable issues for the repo
16:10:09 <jrossi> I just enabled this on github.com/internetexplorer/web-platform-tests
16:10:30 <jrossi> once enabled, a tab appears on the right side called "Issues"
16:10:47 <jrossi> (next to Pull Requests and Code)
16:11:13 <jrossi> https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/issues
16:11:19 <Zakim> - +1.571.426.aaaa
16:11:20 <Zakim> RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
16:11:20 <Zakim> Attendees were Scott_Gonzalez, Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, Asir_Vedamuthu, rbyers, jrossi, Cathy, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, asir, +1.571.426.aaaa
16:23:30 <ArtB> zakim, bye
16:23:30 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pointerevents
17:01:35 <jrossi> jrossi has joined #pointerevents
17:49:12 <abarsto> abarsto has joined #pointerevents
18:56:06 <jrossi> jrossi has joined #pointerevents
20:44:51 <jrossi> jrossi has joined #pointerevents
20:57:31 <jrossi> jrossi has joined #pointerevents
21:16:40 <smaug> smaug has joined #pointerevents
22:06:23 <jrossi> jrossi has joined #pointerevents
23:05:34 <jrossi> jrossi has joined #pointerevents