See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
AB: any change requests to the draft agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0194.html?
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.
OP: think we should follow IE
… and put that behavior in the spec
RB: would be good to get details from Jacob
… and he did that
… now we need to spec it
JR: agree we want that in the spec
… not sure how I would insert this into the spec
… could be better for me to create a changeset and for people to discuss that
RB: sounds good
<scribe> ACTION: jacob create a changeset for bug 24923 and sent it to the list for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
<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].
AB: ok, thanks Jacob
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.
JR: I can add some info to the bug
… Olli had a related Q re the order
… in our imp when calll setptrcapture, we set a pending capture node
[ Jacob gives details of IE impl … ]
… So this is similar to what Olli says in comment #2
[ Jacob gives details about Olli's comment #4 ]
OP: that gives a surprising result
[ Olli gives a scenario that could result in surprising results ]
JR: if get gotcapture, we guarantee you get a lostptrcapture
… I agree we need to update the spec
… Similar to one of Anne's comments
… Need to make the spec clearer but need to make sure we all agree on the behavior for these scenarios
OP: wonder if this is just a bit too complicated and just fire synch events
… synch handling would make the algorithm simpler
JR: we had probs with apps when we had synch firing of the events
… we could say that's bad app behavior
… i.e. tight loops of setting capture
RB: would like to understand what the apps were trying to do in those cases
JR: that would require some investigation (been a few years)
SG: are storage events synch (like localStorage)
JR: if there are no other synch events, we probably don't want to address this
… if people have to deal with synch with click, then doing something like that could be ok
OP: if multiple clicks on same target, don't have to handle all
RB: so similar problem then
… we could say calling setptrcapt from within the context of gotptrcapt handle isn't legal
<smaug> just a sec
… If I understand Olli, with click, the spec prevents that (to stop recursive issues)
JR: not sure which is better
<smaug> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#run-synthetic-click-activation-steps
OP: I kind of like this behavior because it prevents endless loops
RB: would be nice if we could say
we have the same prob as click event
... I can look into this
… Seems sensible to make it behave like click
… I can look up the motivation for asynch and add to the bug
RB: would be good to have a site that uses asynch
JR: I'll check on the IE bugs that caused this behavior and add information to our bug
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob investigate IE behavior re bug 24971 and add that info to the bug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Investigate ie behavior re bug 24971 and add that info to the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-04-01].
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.
... 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.
... however, it appears Rick's March 18 e-mail could be
touching on different but related issues.
RB: the Q about when fractional coords can be returned is an open Q
… MSDN has some doc about this
JR: we are consistent
RB: do you do that for mouse events too?
JR: yes, I believe so
RB: is that causing any issues?
JR: not positive (we have a CSSOM switch)
RB: we are going to try to change blink to use float
… and see what sites break
JR: please let us know the results
AB: so where are we then?
RB: I would like to hear more about IE but I don't think our spec needs to change
JR: yes, I agree no PE spec change needed but I can get some more info
<asir> /me my connection keeps dropping today :)
RESOLUTION: the group agrees there is no need to change the spec re the "Sub-pixel coordinate granularity" topic
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>.
... 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.
RB: thanks Jacob for the details
… your proposal sounds great to me
JR: you know Chrome doesn't match it, right?
RB: yes, and I'll file a bug to get that fixed
… (probably won't get fixed for 35 but will get a fix for 36)
JR: Olli, same for FF
OP: yes
RB: would be nice to have an ED with this fix
JR: I can do that today
RB: if have a web site that is broken, that'd be helpful
AB: so you'll update the spec then Jacob?
JR: yes, will do
RESOLUTION: the group agrees Jacob's proposal for "Touch-action to SVG elements "topic is OK
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.
JR: this is a compat problem for IE
… I also am not convinced what we are doing is really a compat issue
AB: what about Chrome and FF?
RB: not sure offhand
… I'd be surprised if this was a problem for us
OP: I don't think this is an issue for us
AB: it appears we support the current value
… and we don't want to change it
JR: if there was strong consensus to change that's one thing but I don't think there is
… I feel like we are chasing a moving target
… and only change if there is clear and convincing evidence we should change
… Thus I prefer to leave the spec as is
RB: I agree there doesn't appear to be strong consistency argument
… so I am ok with leaving spec as is
AB: DRAFT RESOLUTION: group agrees to keep the spec as is re "Exception Usage" topic
OP: we could ask Anne about the stability of the decision he is pushing
AB: how about Matt?
MB: that action-73 is something different
<mbrubeck_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0082.html
AB: so Matt, Olli do we want to continue to discuss this or adopt the Draft Resolution?
<smaug> smaug annevk: who stable is this DOMException/Error handling stuff http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0185.html
MB: Anne pointed to an es_discuss thread that didn't appear to have a solid conclusion
<smaug> annevk smaug: it isn't
… we could see if anything else has been done there in DOM and/or WebIDL
… if there is no mature decision about this, I'm OK with leaving the spec as is
AB: would you please followup with Anne then Matt?
MB: yes, I can do that
<scribe> ACTION: Brubeck followup with Anne re the Exception thread [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/25-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Followup with anne re the exception thread [on Matt Brubeck - due 2014-04-01].
SG: for Node, everything is done with codes
JR: within WebApps, consensus codes is bad
… because it requires centralizing
… and names/strings were supposed to be better in avoiding collisions
<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
AB: thanks smaug
… one question is if PE is "new" API or not given there are sites that are using it
JR: if there is another UC, that would be helpful
<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
AB: feels like we should keep this open now
MB: understand the compat issues for IE
JR: don't want to change the spec until there is broad agreement from the DOM/ES community
… but don't want to change the spec until then
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
JR: that sounds ok
AB: sounds ok with me too
… are we back to a resolution we agree not to change spec based on what we know now
JR: yes
RB: agree
RESOLUTION: group agrees to keep Exception as is
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>
JR: I owe Anne a reply
… most is OK
… one part could be contentious re defaultActions if an event not canceled
… could add more steps
… but some events are marked canceleable because their mouse event counterparts are marked cancelable
… no spec defines that for mouse events
… So I'm not sure we can get to the level of crispness that Anne wants
… I think we tried to define this in DOM 3 Events and it was hard
DS: my recollection is lots of details is very hard
… I tried with D3E and the feedback was mostly "not good enough"
AB: so it sounds like Jacob will reply
… and others should join the conversation
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.
... I don't recall what the means specifically and if that
means we also need reviews from others.
<smaug> and I lost connection or something
<smaug> yeah, it is 18:00, I guess Zakim kicked me out
MB: I split them up
RB: I think 1-5 are mine
… not sure who reviewed 6-8
JR: I think the wiki needs some updating
… f.ex. there are some file name updates
<mbrubeck_> Previously: http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45
<Cathy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0029.html
AB: thanks Matt
… this means review needs to be done by: Rick, Cathy, Art and Matt
<scott_gonzalez> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324/files?w=1 will show the diff without whitespace changes.
RB: were any new files added Jacob?
<scott_gonzalez> You should be able to add `?w=1` to any diff URL.
JR: yes, I think so
… check the diff
<scott_gonzalez> For example, https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/commit/e872664c81fbcc9d3c53ff5e171ccf48443d066c?w=1 is just the most recent commit without whitespace chages.
RB: I'll look at anything with "capture"
JR: could you please check if there are any files without a Reviewer?
MB: yes, I'll do that
AB: ok, thanks
AV: how do we close on the test cases?
AB: the review should be done by someone that didn't write the tests
… all comments should be submitted to GH
JR: I can merge the request after all comments are addressed
AB: everyone please review your set of tests and put your reveiw comments on GH
JR: if there are big issues, they should be added as GH Issues
AB: that makes sense to me
AB: any new info re implementations?
[ None ]
AB: thanks everything; 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/JR/RB/ Succeeded: s/JR/RB/ Succeeded: s/JR:/RB:/ Succeeded: s/JR/RB/ Succeeded: s/JR/RB/ Succeeded: s/JR/RB/ Succeeded: s/Topic: CR implementation updates// Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Arthur_Barstow Jacob_Rossi Asir_Vedamuthu Scott_Gonzalez Cathy_Chan Rick_Byers Olli_Pettay Matt_Brubeck Doug_Schepers Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon Patrick_Lauke Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0194.html Got date from IRC log name: 25 Mar 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/03/25-pointerevents-minutes.html People with action items: brubeck jacob WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]