15:00:21 RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents 15:00:21 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc 15:00:30 RRSAgent, make log public 15:01:03 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started 15:01:09 + +44.797.663.aaaa 15:01:11 + +1.857.300.aabb 15:01:19 smaug has joined #pointerevents 15:01:28 zakim, aabb is ArtB_and_CathyC 15:01:28 +ArtB_and_CathyC; got it 15:01:31 Cathy has joined #pointerevents 15:01:43 zakim, aaaa is patrick_h_lauke 15:01:43 +patrick_h_lauke; got it 15:02:02 +Scott_Gonzalez 15:02:02 ScribeNick: ArtB 15:02:02 Scribe: ArtB 15:02:02 Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference 15:02:02 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0130.html 15:02:02 Chair: ArtB 15:02:06 zakim, who's here? 15:02:08 On the phone I see ArtB_and_CathyC, patrick_h_lauke, Scott_Gonzalez 15:02:08 On IRC I see Cathy, smaug, RRSAgent, Zakim, patrick_h_lauke, plh, AutomatedTester, ArtB, scottgonzalez, slightlyoff, cwilso, mbrubeck__, rbyers_, sangwhan, trackbot 15:02:17 +[IPcaller] 15:02:23 jrossi2 has joined #pointerevents 15:02:37 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay 15:02:37 +Olli_Pettay; got it 15:02:46 Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay 15:02:47 ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay 15:02:52 +[Microsoft] 15:03:06 +[Microsoft.a] 15:03:31 asir has joined #pointerevents 15:03:33 Zakim, [Microsoft.a] is jrossi2 15:03:33 +jrossi2; got it 15:03:39 +rbyers 15:04:12 i may need to shoot off a bit early...just to forewarn you 15:04:15 Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Olli_Pettay, Patrick_Lauke, Scott_González, Asir_Vedamuthu, Jacob_Rossi, Rick_Byers 15:05:02 Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon 15:05:09 Topic: Tweak and agree on agenda 15:05:13 AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0130.html. 15:05:18 AB: Since then, Bug-26888 (Add "pointerleave" to "9.1 The touch-action CSS property") was submitted so I propose we add that bug to the agenda https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26888. 15:05:33 AB: any objections to that addition? 15:05:38 [ None ] 15:05:44 AB: we also now have PR-1249 (PointerEvents Test Assertions 15.11, 15.18-15.20) so I propose we discuss that during our Pull Request topic and drop the related item from agenda topic #4. 15:06:04 AB: any objections to that change? 15:06:08 [ None ] 15:06:13 AB: any other agenda change requests? 15:06:15 very selfishly: could we talk about the bugs first as i may need to leave early? 15:06:29 Topic: PR-1121; SVG touch-action tests 15:06:37 AB: PR-1121 https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1121 was blocked on Doug's Action-116 https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/116 15:06:46 AB: Doug replied today and completed his action. 15:06:55 AB: having seen no objections to the PR itself, I propose someone merge this PR. Any objections to that? 15:07:06 AB: or comments? 15:07:21 ACTION: Jacob merge PR-1121 15:07:21 Created ACTION-127 - Merge pr-1121 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30]. 15:07:30 Topic: PR-1220; Assertions 4.3 and 5.3 15:07:41 AB: PR-1220 https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1220. Is this blocked on a review by someone other than Microsoft? 15:07:50 AB: there is also Action-122 "Follow up with Artem re pr-1220" on Jacob ; https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/122 . Jacob - it appears this can now be closed, is that correct? 15:08:37 AB: what's the next step for PR-1220? 15:08:42 JR: need to only review 5.3 test case 15:08:57 … and then merge after review 15:09:10 AB: would someone agree to review that test case? 15:09:13 CC: I'll do that 15:09:33 ACTION: Cathy review test 5.3 for PR-1220 15:09:34 Created ACTION-128 - Review test 5.3 for pr-1220 [on Cathy Chan - due 2014-09-30]. 15:10:16 AB: Cathy, please let Jacob know if the PR is OK so he can merge it 15:10:17 CC: will do 15:10:23 AB: thanks you two! 15:10:31 Topic: PR-1245; Properly check for async events related to capture 15:10:37 AB: PR-1245 https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1245; it appears this PR addresses Action-126 https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/126. Need someone to review this PR. Volunteer, please? 15:12:03 CC: I can do that 15:12:03 AB: thanks Cathy 15:12:03 JR: I can help out too 15:12:03 AB: who submitted this? 15:12:03 JR: Scott 15:12:03 … I can review it 15:12:04 ACTION: Jacob review PR 1245 and merge it if it is OK 15:12:04 Created ACTION-129 - Review pr 1245 and merge it if it is ok [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30]. 15:12:16 Topic: PR-1249; PointerEvents Test Assertions 15.11, 15.18-15.20 15:12:28 AB: yesterday Jacob submitted PR-1249 and it adds tests for assertions 15.{11,18-20} https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1249. We need someone to review this PR and merge it if it is OK. Would someone please volunteer review this PR? 15:13:11 AB: Cathy already agreed to review 15.20 15:13:24 … so we need someone to review 15.11, 15.18 and 15.19 tests 15:13:27 … any volunteers? 15:14:55 ACTION: barstow look for a commitment to review tests 15.{11,18,19} in PR-1249 15:14:56 Created ACTION-130 - Look for a commitment to review tests 15.{11,18,19} in pr-1249 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-09-30]. 15:15:27 AB: once these PRs are merged, we're all done right? 15:15:45 SG: I have some open actions too 15:16:07 Topic: Open Actions 15:16:12 AB: Action-119; Review the test for 15.20 when it is available and let us know if it covers the high priority manipulation scenarios; Cathy; https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/119 ; now that we have PR-1249, Cathy please review this. 15:16:20 AB: Action-124; Create tests for assertions 11.3 and 13.4 ; Scott ; https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/124 15:16:35 AB: Scott - what is the ETA for these tests? 15:17:03 SG: I need some clarification from Jacob 15:17:12 [ Jacob clarifies ] 15:17:47 SG: I'll send a PR today 15:18:21 … that is, I'll submit PRs for both tests today 15:18:27 JR: I'll be happy to review those 15:18:54 ACTION: Jacob review PRs for test assertions 11.3 and 13.4 (once available from Scott) 15:18:55 Created ACTION-131 - Review prs for test assertions 11.3 and 13.4 (once available from scott) [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30]. 15:20:01 AV: once Scott's PRs are submitted and approved and the other PRs are reviewed and merged, the test suite will be complete 15:20:07 VOW! 15:20:09 AB: yes, that's my understanding too 15:20:39 Topic: Bug 26809;  IE11 on Win8.1 fires a click event after pointer has moved when element has touch-event: none 15:20:46 AB: Bug-26809 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26809 has had some comments including Patrick's followup on the list on Sept 15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0125.html 15:21:06 AB: and Jacob replied to that thread too 15:21:09 AB: kinda feels like we might just need to make a few non-normative tweaks to the spec 15:22:10 PL: not necessarily a but 15:22:15 s/a but/a bug/ 15:22:21 … more of a misunderstanding 15:22:31 … think it can be closed 15:22:57 … but this discussion did raise a question about UAs and gestures 15:23:00 +Matt_Brubeck 15:23:09 Present+ Matt_Brubeck 15:23:32 PL: if have touch-action: none, final click still fired 15:23:39 … even if have moved 15:24:17 … Could add a bit more non-normative text 15:24:23 … but I don't feel strongly 15:24:39 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0137.html 15:24:45 JR: let me see what we already have 15:24:47 The user agent has determined (via methods out of scope for this specification) that touch input is to be consumed for a touch behavior 15:25:04 [ Patrick reads relevant part of spec … ] 15:25:37 … could add something more about UA-specific behavior 15:26:26 JR: not clear what we would need to add 15:26:34 … my gut feel is to leave it as is 15:26:44 … but would like to get a specific proposal from Patrick 15:27:11 PL: looking at it again, I think what we have now is OK 15:27:34 AB: so do we have a Resolution to close this as WONTFIX? 15:27:39 JR: I'm ok with that 15:27:42 PL: same here 15:29:02 RESOLUTION: close bug 26809 as WONTFIX and include a link to 23-Sep-2014 discussion in the bug 15:29:22 ACTION: Jacob close bug 26809 as WONTFIX and include a link to 23-Sep-2014 discussion in the bug 15:29:23 Created ACTION-132 - Close bug 26809 as wontfix and include a link to 23-sep-2014 discussion in the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30]. 15:29:32 Topic: Bug 26888 (Add "pointerleave" to "9.1 The touch-action CSS property") 15:29:44 AB: Jacob created this bug yesterday https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26888. The bug includes an explicit change proposal. Any comments? 15:30:34 AB: seems to be related to discussion around Bug-26809 but not sure? 15:30:44 -ArtB_and_CathyC 15:31:12 +ArtB_and_CathyC 15:31:24 this is just a case where the addition of pointerenter/pointerleave was missed out in some parts of the spec 15:31:45 RB: this is just another instance of a missing out event 15:31:50 … think this is a trivial fix 15:31:51 so this is just a case where we only have pointerout, but we need to just add pointerleave too 15:31:55 … we need to search the spec 15:32:09 action on me to search the spec 15:32:09 Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at . 15:32:17 happy to do that 15:32:41 AB: do we all agree the proposed text is OK? 15:32:49 … any objections to the proposed text? 15:32:58 oops sorry didn't mean to issue a trackbot action. but yeah if we want somebody to go through the spec, i'm happy to do it 15:33:14 JR: I'll make another pass of the spec for similar bugs 15:33:21 … if I find any, I'll notify the group 15:33:36 RB: the intro is a place to check 15:33:44 … but that's minor (because of use of "etc.") 15:34:04 OP: enter and leave are diff than over and out 15:34:14 … so do be careful 15:34:44 having a quick skim over the spec now searching for pointerout, i think the one in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26888 is the only omission 15:34:52 [ Olli listed some other cases ] 15:35:14 :) 15:35:15 OP: the spec should be consistent throughout 15:36:01 RB: think Olli was suggesting the proposed text isn't quite right 15:36:33 AB: Jacob, please enter the new proposed text in IRC 15:36:33 In particular instead of "a pointerout and pointerleave event" it should be "a pointerout event and pointerleave events" 15:36:53 proposed text: "The user agent must fire a pointer event named pointercancel (and subsequently a pointerout event and pointerleave events) whenever all of the following are true, in order to end the stream of events for the pointer:" 15:37:24 AB: does anyone object to the proposed text Jacob just entered into IRC? 15:37:43 OP: LGTM 15:37:47 No, also wouldn't object to Jacob making this change anywhere else that's following a similar pattern 15:38:07 RB: looks ok 15:38:33 PL: could say "… one or more ..." 15:38:38 JR: that's fine with me 15:38:40 splitting hairs, but yeah :) 15:38:49 RB: that's fine 15:39:03 AB: ok, so I think we have a resolution 15:39:35 RESOLUTION: re bug 26888, the text Jacob proposed in IRC plus Patrick's small correction is acceptable 15:39:38 "The user agent must fire a pointer event named pointercancel (and subsequently a pointerout event and one or more pointerleave events) whenever all of the following are true, in order to end the stream of events for the pointer:" 15:40:02 ACTION: Jacob update the spec for bug 26888 to reflect resolution recorded on 23-Sep-2014 15:40:03 Created ACTION-133 - Update the spec for bug 26888 to reflect resolution recorded on 23-sep-2014 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30]. 15:40:07 Note this pattern does occur elsewhere. Eg. in 5.2.5 "For input devices that do not support hover, a user agent must also fire a pointer event named pointerover followed by **a pointer event named pointerenter** prior to dispatching the pointerdown event." 15:40:49 RB: there are similar bugs in the spec 15:41:16 JR: I can send a proposal to the list or file a bug 15:41:45 AB: my preference is to just send a link to a changeset to the list 15:42:10 ACTION: Jacob review the spec for bugs like 26888 and send changeset to the list 15:42:10 Created ACTION-134 - Review the spec for bugs like 26888 and send changeset to the list [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30]. 15:42:20 Topic: Amazing set/releasePointerCapture 15:42:28 AB: Maksim Lebedev submitted this e-mail on Sept 12; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0118.html and there has been no followup. 15:43:15 AB: do we discuss today or defer to the list? 15:43:35 OP: I discussed this with Maksim, there are some unclear scenarios 15:43:40 +Plh 15:43:54 Present+ Philippe_Le_Hegaret 15:44:09 OP: we need to go through the algorithms and check for all of these cases 15:44:37 sorry folks, gotta drop off now... 15:44:46 -patrick_h_lauke 15:45:21 AB: seems like rather than go thru this e-mail now, everyone should review it and reply to the list 15:45:44 AB: anything else on this? 15:45:53 RB: agree to defer discussion to the list 15:47:06 Topic: Plan to move Pointer Events back to LC and then Proposed Recommendation 15:47:43 abarsto has joined #pointerevents 15:48:00 AB: as previously agreed, our Plan of Record (PoR) is essentially to first: fix all spec bugs; complete the test suite; run interop testing; update specs and or implementations accordingly. 15:48:04 … Second, when we have two or more independent implementations that pass all test cases:  publish a LCWD and assuming there are no substantive comments during the 3-week LC comment period, we propose to the Director publishing a Proposed Recommendation (and thus not publish an explicit Candidate Recommendation). 15:48:52 AB: although we have had a number of developments since we agreed to this PoR, I don't believe there have been any substantive "new info/data" to change that plan. 15:49:23 AB: any comments? 15:49:27 q+ 15:49:29 RB: sounds good to me 15:49:35 AV: same to me 15:49:52 PLH: you have a D3E spec 15:49:59 … that spec is not moving forward 15:50:07 … so that could be a problem 15:50:21 AB: we have not discussed the D3E reference 15:50:48 PLH: need to know if the D3E features PE refernces are also specified in D2E REC 15:51:05 JR: the dependencies are Event constructors and Dictionaries 15:51:11 … they are not in D2E 15:51:22 … but they are implemented widely 15:51:48 PLH: I think w-p-t has some relevant test to check "it is implemented broadly" 15:52:11 JR: the test case we have for event constructors would fail if hadn't implemented D3E part correctly 15:52:16 PLH: that's good 15:52:35 … just know this will be an issue during the Proposed Rec Director's call 15:53:01 … we do have tests and test results for the DOM spec 15:53:15 RB: I think we did talk about this a while ago 15:53:29 … early in 2014 (perhaps Feb) 15:54:01 AB: any other refernces that "red flagged" for you PLH? 15:54:01 http://w3c.github.io/test-results/dom/less-than-2.html#test-file-1 15:54:11 PLH: no, I didn't notice anything else 15:54:24 … we have a dedicated DOM constructor test 15:54:36 … it appears a lot more work isn't needed 15:54:48 http://w3c.github.io/test-results/dom/all.html#test-file-4 15:54:53 … but we do need to create a "story" 15:55:07 status.modern.ie/domeventconstructors 15:55:11 http://status.modern.ie/domeventconstructors 15:55:26 ACTION: barstow work with Doug and PLH and the group on the D3E reference story 15:55:26 Created ACTION-135 - Work with doug and plh and the group on the d3e reference story [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-09-30]. 15:55:26 well dang, site seems to be having issues 15:56:47 JR: re Event constructors, the relevant portion is implemented by at least 2 browsers and the PE Event constructor will be implemented by 2 or more browsers 15:57:18 … but not sure about the time of the IE shipping 15:57:22 PLH: the group can define "the bar" 15:57:48 JR: ok, think this case is pretty straight forward 15:58:02 … re discussing this with the Director 15:58:41 PLH: the group needs to create its rationale for the Director 15:58:48 … it appears you will be ok 15:59:29 RESOLUTION: the Plan of Record we discussed on 23-Sep-2014 re moving to LC and Proposed REC is agreed 16:00:17 PLH: note the DOM spec is about to move to Proposed REC 16:00:40 … in that case, if PE spec refs DOM spec, there would be no issues 16:00:49 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html#pointerevent-interface 16:01:23 AB: one additional task I think we should add is to do a short-ish (f.ex. 1-2 week) "pre LC Request for Comments" and target specific people and/or groups such as Anne van Kesteren, public-script-coord, www-dom, TAG. 16:01:25 PLH: we'll need to check the mouse events constructor 16:02:27 AB: any comments about adding that additional step? 16:02:57 I have to drop off the call. I have another call starting now. 16:03:02 -Scott_Gonzalez 16:04:11 RB: seems reasonable to me 16:04:39 PLH: +1 16:04:53 Topic: AoB 16:04:59 AB: as is SOP for this group, if it appears a call would be helpful next week, I'll send a draft agenda at least a day in advance; otherwise there will be no call and I'll make such an announcement. 16:05:15 AB: anything else for today? 16:05:51 JR: we have a couple of weeks of spec work ahead of us 16:06:00 … and our charter expires end of October 16:06:18 … we have had discussions about a v2 spec 16:06:37 … not sure if we want to extend our charter just to finish v1 or to add v2 16:06:46 PLH: charter extensions are purely admin 16:07:06 … if want to expand scope, then the group must re-charter i.e. new charter 16:07:23 JR: is work on v2 considered an extension or is a new charter needed? 16:07:29 PLH: that's a bit of a grey line 16:07:35 … several things to consider 16:07:43 … f.ex. the length of the extension 16:07:53 … also need to consider errata that could be needed 16:08:05 AV: what is the max extension? 16:08:18 PLH: could be 3 mos, through up to 2 years 16:08:45 AV: I think we have some bugs or features marked "v2" 16:08:51 JR: yes, they are in a wiki 16:09:05 … seems like we should start the work to extend the charter 16:09:09 … say 6 mos 16:09:18 … and that would give us time to complete v1 16:09:28 … and then talk about the v2 features 16:09:41 … and figure if an extension #2 would be needed or a new charter 16:09:48 PLH: that sounds reasonable to me 16:10:25 ACTION: barstow work with Doug and Philippe on extending PEWG's charter to get the group through v1 and allow discussions for what to do about v2 16:10:26 Created ACTION-136 - Work with doug and philippe on extending pewg's charter to get the group through v1 and allow discussions for what to do about v2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-09-30]. 16:10:56 AB: anything else? 16:11:02 JR: re TPAC 16:11:09 … I'm wondering who's going? 16:11:19 … I'll be there 16:11:39 … if anyone want to talk about PE and/or TE, that would be great 16:11:51 AB: I'll be at TPAC 16:11:57 JR: me too 16:12:01 AB: anyone else? 16:12:04 [ Silence ] 16:12:07 probably not 16:13:58 AB: do you know how you are going to organize such a meeting? 16:14:03 JR: not sure yet 16:14:16 PLH: if you have a meeting, please include IndieUI group 16:14:49 AB: meeting adjourned 16:15:06 -Plh 16:15:07 -[Microsoft] 16:15:08 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:15:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB 16:15:09 -Olli_Pettay 16:15:10 -ArtB_and_CathyC 16:15:10 -rbyers 16:15:19 -jrossi2 16:15:21 -Matt_Brubeck 16:15:21 RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended 16:15:22 Attendees were +44.797.663.aaaa, +1.857.300.aabb, ArtB_and_CathyC, patrick_h_lauke, Scott_Gonzalez, Olli_Pettay, [Microsoft], jrossi2, rbyers, Matt_Brubeck, Plh 16:26:55 jrossi has left #pointerevents 16:48:06 patrick_h_lauke has left #pointerevents 16:53:24 zakim, bye 16:53:24 Zakim has left #pointerevents 16:54:33 RRSAgent, by 16:54:33 I'm logging. I don't understand 'by', ArtB. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:54:39 RRSAgent, bye 16:54:39 I see 10 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-actions.rdf : 16:54:39 ACTION: Jacob merge PR-1121 [1] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T15-07-21 16:54:39 ACTION: Cathy review test 5.3 for PR-1220 [2] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T15-09-33 16:54:39 ACTION: Jacob review PR 1245 and merge it if it is OK [3] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T15-12-04 16:54:39 ACTION: barstow look for a commitment to review tests 15.{11,18,19} in PR-1249 [4] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T15-14-55 16:54:39 ACTION: Jacob review PRs for test assertions 11.3 and 13.4 (once available from Scott) [5] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T15-18-54 16:54:39 ACTION: Jacob close bug 26809 as WONTFIX and include a link to 23-Sep-2014 discussion in the bug [6] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T15-29-22 16:54:39 ACTION: Jacob update the spec for bug 26888 to reflect resolution recorded on 23-Sep-2014 [7] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T15-40-02 16:54:39 ACTION: Jacob review the spec for bugs like 26888 and send changeset to the list [8] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T15-42-10 16:54:39 ACTION: barstow work with Doug and PLH and the group on the D3E reference story [9] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T15-55-26 16:54:39 ACTION: barstow work with Doug and Philippe on extending PEWG's charter to get the group through v1 and allow discussions for what to do about v2 [10] 16:54:39 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc#T16-10-25 16:54:50 ArtB has changed the topic to: Pointer Events Working Group