14:47:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
14:47:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/07/15-pointerevents-irc
14:47:10 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
14:47:21 <ArtB> Scribe: Doug
14:47:30 <ArtB> ScribeNick: shepazu
14:47:35 <ArtB> Chair: Art
14:48:10 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0007.html
14:48:19 <ArtB> Meeting: Pointer Events WG
14:55:18 <rbyers_> I can scribe, but will want to hand off to someone else if we get deep into discussion blink, touch-action etc...
14:58:58 <Zakim> RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:05 <Zakim> +Matt_Brubeck
15:00:27 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
15:00:33 <Zakim> +Scott_Gonzalez
15:01:18 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:01:27 <jrossi> jrossi has joined #pointerevents
15:01:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:01:47 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
15:02:02 <smaug> Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
15:02:02 <Zakim> +Olli_Pettay; got it
15:02:03 <Zakim> +rbyers
15:02:05 <smaug> I think
15:02:06 <jrossi> Zakim, Microsoft is jrossi
15:02:06 <Zakim> +jrossi; got it
15:02:13 <smaug> Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
15:02:13 <Zakim> ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
15:02:17 <Asir> Asir has joined #pointerevents
15:02:34 <mbrubeck> zakim, nick mbrubeck is Matt_Brubeck
15:02:34 <Zakim> ok, mbrubeck, I now associate you with Matt_Brubeck
15:02:43 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
15:03:05 <Zakim> +Cathy
15:03:33 <Cathy> Cathy has joined #pointerevents
15:03:45 <rbyers> scribe: rbyers
15:03:50 <rbyers> scribeNick: rbyers
15:04:34 <rbyers> present: Art, Jacob, Asir, Cathy, Rick, Matt, Olli, Scott, Doug
15:05:02 <rbyers> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0007.html
15:05:21 <rbyers> Topic: tweak agenda
15:06:00 <rbyers> OP: Touch-action and touch-events
15:06:26 <rbyers> Topic: Test Assertion "holes"
15:06:32 <rbyers> is the TestAssertion data up-to-date; where are the holes? Who can commit to create tests to fill the holes (and by when)? <https://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions>
15:06:51 <rbyers> AB: Jacob, Matt, Cathy - any idea what coverage we have?
15:07:06 <rbyers> .. and is the data we have here accurate and up-to-date?
15:07:43 <rbyers> Asir: I don't know if it's fully up-to-date, but I can take an action to ensure there's a link for each assertion from the wiki to test case
15:07:49 <rbyers> AB: That would be excellent
15:08:28 <rbyers> Asir: 66 in the wiki, the recent PR covers 54, leaving 12.  Jacob has been pushing some changes to cover 2-3.
15:08:44 <rbyers> .. Scott has the remaining ones, has an action to create PRs for them
15:09:00 <rbyers> .. Scott's should cover about 9 of the remaining ones
15:09:25 <rbyers> SG: TWF submission covers 3.1, 3.2, 12.1, and some additional ones not listed on the wiki
15:09:55 <rbyers> .. 12.1 is covered in Microsoft's submission PR1074, so I won't merge mine in - just verify we have the coverage
15:10:03 <rbyers> .. for the others we should create new test assertions on the wiki, right?
15:10:16 <rbyers> Asir: how many do we need to create?
15:10:26 <rbyers> SG: Not sure.  Tests for gotpointercapture/lostpointercapture firing async.
15:10:49 <rbyers> .. and more extensive pointerleave tests with deeply nested elements, but not sure the complexity is necessary
15:11:03 <scott_gonzalez> https://github.com/dmethvin/pointerevents-test/blob/master/pointerenterleave-continuous.html
15:11:26 <rbyers> .. see diagrams on line 175
15:12:59 <rbyers> RB: some nested element case for enter/leave would be good to test - an easy thing to break
15:13:22 <rbyers> SG: So I can add assertions to the wiki and put together a PR for whatever doesn't overlap
15:13:29 <scott_gonzalez> https://github.com/dmethvin/pointerevents-test/blob/master/pointerenterleave-continuous.html#L175
15:13:58 <rbyers> SG: I can try to get this done for next week
15:14:21 <rbyers> AB: Next call will likely be next tuesday in August unless someone else wants to chair
15:14:26 <rbyers> DS: I would probably be available to chair
15:14:54 <rbyers> AB: Ok, let Doug know if you want to have a meeting next week
15:15:18 <rbyers> AV: Implementations are blocked on testing, so any help to get tests landed quickly would be helpful
15:15:28 <rbyers> .. let us know if anyone needs help
15:15:37 <rbyers> AB: Scott let us know if you need help getting this done for next week
15:15:50 <rbyers> .. Anything else on this topic?
15:16:05 <rbyers> .. Also covered the next: Test Assertion cleanup: if a TA is covered by a merged tests, the data in "Test Status" column should be a link to the merged/approved test case <http://w3c-test.org/pointerevents>. Who can commit to helping with this?
15:16:27 <rbyers> Topic:  status of PR 1074
15:16:30 <mbrubeck> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1074
15:16:36 <rbyers> AV: If there are no comments we should merge
15:16:56 <rbyers> CC: I had some questions in github
15:17:25 <rbyers> JR: There were two questions.  1) is it true that IE fails some of the tests (constructor test and pointerleave after pointercancel test).  Yes, we're looking at what we need to do.  Tests are correct.
15:17:45 <rbyers> .. 2) a minor thing - title element on constructor test should go on head.  If Artim hasn't corrected then I will.
15:17:54 <rbyers> CC: Also one with an incomplete assertion
15:18:01 <rbyers> .. a quick fix, but needs to be fixed
15:18:10 <rbyers> AV: Can we make those quick fixes and merge it in?
15:18:25 <rbyers> JR: Cathy do you agree it's fairly obvious what needs to happen to address these?  Or do you want to review?
15:18:41 <rbyers> CC: They're trivial, fine to fix and land
15:18:50 <rbyers> SG: Also one for script changes to be relative
15:19:01 <rbyers> AB: Sounds like we have agreement on what needs to change.  Jacob can merge once those fixes land.
15:19:02 <jrossi> action: jrossi to make final corrections and merge PR 1074
15:19:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Make final corrections and merge pr 1074 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-07-22].
15:19:24 <rbyers> AV: I believe we have one or two more PRs coming in to plug remaining holes
15:19:41 <rbyers> .. it would be great if we could get these in within a weeks timeframe - would really help implementers
15:19:53 <rbyers> AB: Anything else on testing for today?
15:20:07 <rbyers> Topic: CR implementation: status and updates
15:20:17 <rbyers> AB: Main open question is Firefox metro - is that 100% implemented now?
15:20:41 <rbyers> MB: It's very close, out of 72 test cases (including merged and submmitted) it's passing all but 1.
15:20:45 <mbrubeck> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1036985
15:20:49 <rbyers> .. 1 is a recent regression we're actively working on fixing.
15:21:14 <rbyers> OP: And there's a bug open to handle the legacy mouse events properly
15:21:36 <rbyers> AB: Anybody have anything else about the FF implementation?
15:21:50 <rbyers> AB: Any other new news regarding CR implementation?
15:22:02 <rbyers> Topic: touch-action for touch events
15:22:53 <rbyers> scribenick: mbrubeck
15:23:09 <mbrubeck> OP: the amount of new spec required is rather small
15:23:15 <mbrubeck> ... it's mainly about what events are required and when
15:23:23 <mbrubeck> RP: We talked about this when we were first landing touch-action in Blink
15:23:34 <mbrubeck> ... including whether touch-action should be in its own spec.
15:23:50 <mbrubeck> ... We talked about two things: The effect touch-action has on actions in the browser, and the effect on events.
15:24:10 <mbrubeck> ... Aside from the stuff directly around events (like pointercancel), everything else is about browser actions.
15:24:30 <mbrubeck> ... In terms of what happens to the events, there's no change. Blink has made some changes, but it's all within the (not very precise) wording of the Touch Events spec.
15:24:40 <mbrubeck> ... implementations differ here already, regardless of touch-action.
15:24:54 <mbrubeck> ... I think you could formulate those interop questions without bringing up touch-action.
15:25:12 <mbrubeck> ... e.g. the Touch Events spec would specify whether touchcancel is dispatched when scrolling starts.
15:25:22 <mbrubeck> ... That's independent of the touch-action question.
15:25:52 <rbyers> s/RP/RB/
15:26:03 <mbrubeck> RB: I agree with Olli that it would be nice to have this written down somewhere. But I'm not sure how/where to do that.
15:26:12 <mbrubeck> Zakim: who is talking
15:26:54 <mbrubeck> JR: I'm not sure if this needs an additional spec.
15:27:14 <mbrubeck> RB: Maybe it doesn't; I'm mostly just concerned about the explicit mention of pointercancel in the touch-action section of the spec.
15:27:25 <mbrubeck> ... Would it make sense to just move that one line to a different section of the PE spec?
15:28:07 <mbrubeck> ... It could be a hook, so any other event system that wanted to support touch-action could specify its equivalent behavior.
15:28:18 <mbrubeck> JR: Yes, I think we could move that to 5.2.8.
15:28:47 <mbrubeck> RB: Another reason that could make sense is that consumers of pointer events might not use touch-action anywhere. But that behavior is still relevant even if the property is not used.
15:29:11 <mbrubeck> JR: I think you're right. I think we can just lift that paragraph into the section that defines pointercancel.
15:29:32 <mbrubeck> ... I'd be okay with that if it makes it easier to write a lightweight spec referencing just 9.1.
15:29:55 <mbrubeck> RB: We still have the problem of all the details around how Touch Events respond to scrolling.
15:30:16 <mbrubeck> ... We've talked about that in the touch-events CG and documented existing browser behavior.
15:30:21 <mbrubeck> OP: Sounds good to me.
15:30:31 <mbrubeck> ... I just wanted to make sure we agree it should be documented somewhere.
15:30:47 <mbrubeck> AB: So Jacob can take an action to make that one change.
15:30:52 <mbrubeck> ... Any objections?
15:30:54 <mbrubeck> [None]
15:31:16 <rbyers> scribenick: rbyers
15:31:20 <rbyers> Topic: AOB
15:31:54 <rbyers> AB: I'll be away for the next 2 weeks, if anyone wants to have a meeting they should notify Doug and group Monday early morning boston time
15:32:02 <rbyers> AV: I wonder if we should meet next week to finalize the test case
15:32:15 <rbyers> AB: If scott completes his action by Monday then meeting on Tuesday sounds good to me
15:32:45 <rbyers> AB: Sounds like we have a plan to meet next Tuesday, topic: reviewing the tests - blocked on Scott's action
15:33:04 <Zakim> -Olli_Pettay
15:33:10 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
15:33:12 <Zakim> -Scott_Gonzalez
15:33:12 <Zakim> -rbyers
15:33:13 <Zakim> -Cathy
15:33:18 <Zakim> -jrossi
15:33:22 <Zakim> -Matt_Brubeck
15:33:40 <rbyers> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:33:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/15-pointerevents-minutes.html rbyers
15:49:15 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
15:49:17 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
15:49:18 <Zakim> RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
15:49:18 <Zakim> Attendees were Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, Scott_Gonzalez, Olli_Pettay, rbyers, jrossi, Art_Barstow, Cathy
16:21:42 <shepazutu> shepazutu has joined #pointerevents
17:11:17 <jrossi> jrossi has joined #pointerevents
17:21:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pointerevents
18:04:45 <jrossi> jrossi has left #pointerevents
20:22:12 <ArtB> ArtB has changed the topic to: Pointer Events WG
20:22:30 <ArtB> RRSAgent, bye
20:22:30 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/15-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
20:22:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jrossi to make final corrections and merge PR 1074 [1]
20:22:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/15-pointerevents-irc#T15-19-02