See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: ArtB
AB: I posted a draft agenda on August 29 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0086.html>. Since then PR-1220 was submitted so I propose we include that in the PR topics. Any objections to that, or are there any other change requests?
AB: PR-1121; SVG touch-action
tests; <https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1121>
; blocked on Doug's Action-116 <https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/116>
... Doug what's the ETA for your review to be completed?
DS: I looked at it
… a bit strange since SVG doesn't directly have scroll
… but it inherits it via HTML (f.ex.)
… I need to mention this to the SVGWG
<scribe> ACTION: doug review PR-1121 with the SVGWG and then report findings to PEWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Review pr-1121 with the svgwg and then report findings to pewg [on Doug Schepers - due 2014-09-09].
AB: if you could expedite that
Doug, I would appreciate it
... PR-1124; Updates and new tests for TAs 2.4.1, 3.6, 3.6.1,
4.3, 4.3.1; <https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1124>.
We discussed this on August 5 and agreed to continue discussion
on the list <http://www.w3.org/2014/08/05-pointerevents-minutes.html>.
... I believe the related thread is "pointerout and
pointerleave after pointercancel" <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0044.html>.
Is this ready to be merged or are there any open issues?
CC: I sent a Q to the list
… Jacob replied and he clarified
… I have one minor tweak
… I'll also discuss with Sangwhan
… and then we need someone to review
AB: so, Cathy needs to review and talk to Sangwhan and then we need someone to review the PR. Is that right?
CC: yes
<scribe> ACTION: Cathy follow up with Sangwhan re PR-1124 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-121 - Follow up with sangwhan re pr-1124 [on Cathy Chan - due 2014-09-09].
AB: PR-1215; this fixes work of
the checkDirection function in Firefox; by @EvgenyAgafonchikov;
<https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1215/>.
Has anyone reviewed this
... would someone please agree to take an action to review
this?
JR: this could be someone from MS Open Tech but I'm not sure
<smaug> back
MB: the change looks trivial
AB: trivial enough that we could agree on this call to merge it?
MB: yes, I think so.
AB: any objections to the merge?
[ None ]
AB: Matt, please merge it
MB: will do
AB: thanks Matt!
... PR-1220; Assertions 4.3 and 5.3; <https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1220>;
by @ArtemAntonets ; discussion thread is <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0093.html>.
... Jacob, what's the status of this PR?
JR: I'll have to check with Artem
… if there is a duplicate, we'll need to drop a file
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob follow up with Artem re PR-1220 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-122 - Follow up with artem re pr-1220 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-09].
AB: anything else on open PRs?
AB: I have Action-117 and
Action-118 to issue a call for a volunteer to create a tests
for TAs 11.3 and 13.4 (<https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/117>,
<https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/118>)
... I didn't make that call since I believe Scott said he would
investigate these two after he returned. I think we also
previously discussed if these two assertions could be
considered more like `stress tests` and hence not part of the
CR testing.
... any comments these two TAs?
SG: these should be easy to write tests for
JR: I'll need to look at them
SG: there was a recent thread about this
… (I'll look for the archive link)
JR: we don't have anything in the pipeline for these
<scott_gonzalez> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0091.html
SG: I asked for more details
AB: not clear to me, what - if anything - needs to be done (with the spec)
SG: see his latest reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0094.html
RB: I can see there is a contradiction here
AB: Jacob, would you please reply?
JR: yes; there could be a contradiction; I'll need to review it
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0094.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-pointerevents-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Reply to http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/public-pointer-events/2014julsep/0094.html [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-09].
SG: I think we just need to update the table
… I can reply to thread and suggest updating the table and if that will address his concern
RB: I think that's a good way forward
AB: ok, so Scott, please do reply
to Maksim and Jacob, please do update the table
... so Scott, can you write tests for 11.3 and 13.4?
SG: yes; but I first want to verify the scope of the tests
[ Scott expands on his context concern ]
JR: I think what you suggested is ok
<scribe> ACTION: Scott create tests for assertions 11.3 and 13.4 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-pointerevents-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Create tests for assertions 11.3 and 13.4 [on Scott González - due 2014-09-09].
AB: assertion 5.3 <https://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions#Test_Assertions_for_pointermove_events>
is covered by PR-1220 so we already discussed this.
... Jacob, Asir, what's the status of tests for assertions
15.{11,18,19,20} <https://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions#Test_Assertions_for_touch-action_CSS_property>
JR: I think we have tests for all of these
… I think we can remove the last assertion
… I propose we delete the "To-be-added"
AB: any objections to that deletion?
[ None ]
<scribe> ACTION: barstow remove the empty assertion at the bottom of the touch-action CSS property table [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-pointerevents-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Remove the empty assertion at the bottom of the touch-action css property table [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-09-09].
AB: will be expect one new PR for these tests?
JR: yes, I think so and should come in this week
AB: ok; great
AB: anyone know Maksim?
OP: he is MS Open Tech working on FF impl
SG: he does have a microsoft.com address
JR: yes, he does work for MS Open Tech
AB: Maksim Lebedev <alessarik@gmail.com> asked about the tests for assertions 10.2 and 11.2 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0068.html>
OP: I sent some comments to the list just now
… I agree there is a test issue
… the test needs to be fixed
JR: where did this test originate?
SG: I submitted this test
JR: this is tricky to test
… I would just test for the asynch property and then `call it good`
OP: think there is a way to test this
[ Olli describes a fix ]
JR: yes, that could be done
OP: event handler can change the value of the flag
SG: we can make that change
OP: think that we would be good enough
[ Jacob describes some old/obsolete behavior with just synch events ]
SG: I can submit a PR to fix these
<scribe> ACTION: Scott submit a PR to address Maksim's comment in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0068.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-pointerevents-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Submit a pr to address maksim's comment in http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/public-pointer-events/2014julsep/0068.html [on Scott González - due 2014-09-09].
AB: Maksim Lebedev <alessarik@gmail.com> also asked about the test for assertion 11.1 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0069.html>
SG: this is exactly the same as we just discussed
OP: I think there is a need for spec change
JR: yes, that's fine; this is the same as discussed earlier
AB: do we need a new action?
JR: no, I think the previous action I took will take care of this
DS: will we have the impls we need to get to REC?
JR: yes, IE
MB: yes, Metro
DS: then we should proceed
AB: yes, I agree
AB: probably don't need a call on Sept 9 and I have a conflict on Sept 16 so there won't be a call that day
… please address open actions
… Thanks everyone!
… 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/want to/first want to/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: ArtB Inferring ScribeNick: ArtB Present: Art_Barstow Scott_González Rick_Byers Doug_Schepers Olli_Pettay Matt_Brubeck Cathy_Chan Jacob_Rossi Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0086.html Got date from IRC log name: 02 Sep 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-pointerevents-minutes.html People with action items: barstow cathy doug jacob reply scott WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]