See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: ArtB
<patrick_h_lauke> i may need to shoot off a bit early...just to forewarn you
AB: I posted a draft agenda
yesterday
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0130.html.
... 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.
... any objections to that addition?
[ None ]
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.
... any objections to that change?
[ None ]
AB: any other agenda change requests?
<patrick_h_lauke> very selfishly: could we talk about the bugs first as i may need to leave early?
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
... Doug replied today and completed his action.
... having seen no objections to the PR itself, I propose
someone merge this PR. Any objections to that?
... or comments?
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob merge PR-1121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Merge pr-1121 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
AB: PR-1220 https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1220.
Is this blocked on a review by someone other than
Microsoft?
... 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?
... what's the next step for PR-1220?
JR: need to only review 5.3 test case
… and then merge after review
AB: would someone agree to review that test case?
CC: I'll do that
<scribe> ACTION: Cathy review test 5.3 for PR-1220 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Review test 5.3 for pr-1220 [on Cathy Chan - due 2014-09-30].
AB: Cathy, please let Jacob know if the PR is OK so he can merge it
CC: will do
AB: thanks you two!
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?
CC: I can do that
AB: thanks Cathy
JR: I can help out too
AB: who submitted this?
JR: Scott
… I can review it
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob review PR 1245 and merge it if it is OK [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Review pr 1245 and merge it if it is ok [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
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?
... Cathy already agreed to review 15.20
… so we need someone to review 15.11, 15.18 and 15.19 tests
… any volunteers?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow look for a commitment to review tests 15.{11,18,19} in PR-1249 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Look for a commitment to review tests 15.{11,18,19} in pr-1249 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-09-30].
AB: once these PRs are merged, we're all done right?
SG: I have some open actions too
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.
... Action-124; Create tests for assertions 11.3 and 13.4 ;
Scott ; https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/124
... Scott - what is the ETA for these tests?
SG: I need some clarification from Jacob
[ Jacob clarifies ]
SG: I'll send a PR today
… that is, I'll submit PRs for both tests today
JR: I'll be happy to review those
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob review PRs for test assertions 11.3 and 13.4 (once available from Scott) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-131 - Review prs for test assertions 11.3 and 13.4 (once available from scott) [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
AV: once Scott's PRs are submitted and approved and the other PRs are reviewed and merged, the test suite will be complete
<asir> VOW!
AB: yes, that's my understanding too
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
... and Jacob replied to that thread too
... kinda feels like we might just need to make a few
non-normative tweaks to the spec
PL: not necessarily a bug
… more of a misunderstanding
… think it can be closed
… but this discussion did raise a question about UAs and gestures
PL: if have touch-ACTION: none, final click still fired
… even if have moved
… Could add a bit more non-normative text
… but I don't feel strongly
<patrick_h_lauke> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0137.html
JR: let me see what we already have
<patrick_h_lauke> The user agent has determined (via methods out of scope for this specification) that touch input is to be consumed for a touch behavior
[ Patrick reads relevant part of spec … ]
… could add something more about UA-specific behavior
JR: not clear what we would need to add
… my gut feel is to leave it as is
… but would like to get a specific proposal from Patrick
PL: looking at it again, I think what we have now is OK
AB: so do we have a Resolution to close this as WONTFIX?
JR: I'm ok with that
PL: same here
RESOLUTION: close bug 26809 as WONTFIX and include a link to 23-Sep-2014 discussion in the bug
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob close bug 26809 as WONTFIX and include a link to 23-Sep-2014 discussion in the bug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> 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].
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?
... seems to be related to discussion around Bug-26809 but not
sure?
<patrick_h_lauke> this is just a case where the addition of pointerenter/pointerleave was missed out in some parts of the spec
RB: this is just another instance of a missing out event
… think this is a trivial fix
<patrick_h_lauke> so this is just a case where we only have pointerout, but we need to just add pointerleave too
… we need to search the spec
<patrick_h_lauke> action on me to search the spec
<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/users>.
<patrick_h_lauke> happy to do that
AB: do we all agree the proposed text is OK?
… any objections to the proposed text?
<patrick_h_lauke> 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
JR: I'll make another pass of the spec for similar bugs
… if I find any, I'll notify the group
RB: the intro is a place to check
… but that's minor (because of use of "etc.")
OP: enter and leave are diff than over and out
… so do be careful
<patrick_h_lauke> 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
[ Olli listed some other cases ]
<smaug> :)
OP: the spec should be consistent throughout
RB: think Olli was suggesting the proposed text isn't quite right
AB: Jacob, please enter the new proposed text in IRC
<rbyers> In particular instead of "a pointerout and pointerleave event" it should be "a pointerout event and pointerleave events"
<jrossi2> 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:"
AB: does anyone object to the proposed text Jacob just entered into IRC?
OP: LGTM
<rbyers> No, also wouldn't object to Jacob making this change anywhere else that's following a similar pattern
RB: looks ok
PL: could say "… one or more ..."
JR: that's fine with me
<patrick_h_lauke> splitting hairs, but yeah :)
RB: that's fine
AB: ok, so I think we have a resolution
RESOLUTION: re bug 26888, the text Jacob proposed in IRC plus Patrick's small correction is acceptable
<jrossi2> "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:"
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob update the spec for bug 26888 to reflect resolution recorded on 23-Sep-2014 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-133 - Update the spec for bug 26888 to reflect resolution recorded on 23-sep-2014 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
<rbyers> 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."
RB: there are similar bugs in the spec
JR: I can send a proposal to the list or file a bug
AB: my preference is to just send a link to a changeset to the list
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob review the spec for bugs like 26888 and send changeset to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-134 - Review the spec for bugs like 26888 and send changeset to the list [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
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.
... do we discuss today or defer to the list?
OP: I discussed this with Maksim,
there are some unclear scenarios
... we need to go through the algorithms and check for all of
these cases
<patrick_h_lauke> sorry folks, gotta drop off now...
AB: seems like rather than go
thru this e-mail now, everyone should review it and reply to
the list
... anything else on this?
RB: agree to defer discussion to the list
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.
… 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).
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.
... any comments?
RB: sounds good to me
AV: same to me
PLH: you have a D3E spec
… that spec is not moving forward
… so that could be a problem
AB: we have not discussed the D3E reference
PLH: need to know if the D3E features PE refernces are also specified in D2E REC
JR: the dependencies are Event constructors and Dictionaries
… they are not in D2E
… but they are implemented widely
PLH: I think w-p-t has some relevant test to check "it is implemented broadly"
JR: the test case we have for event constructors would fail if hadn't implemented D3E part correctly
PLH: that's good
… just know this will be an issue during the Proposed Rec Director's call
… we do have tests and test results for the DOM spec
RB: I think we did talk about this a while ago
… early in 2014 (perhaps Feb)
AB: any other refernces that "red flagged" for you PLH?
<plh> http://w3c.github.io/test-results/dom/less-than-2.html#test-file-1
PLH: no, I didn't notice anything else
… we have a dedicated DOM constructor test
… it appears a lot more work isn't needed
<plh> http://w3c.github.io/test-results/dom/all.html#test-file-4
… but we do need to create a "story"
<jrossi> status.modern.ie/domeventconstructors
<jrossi> http://status.modern.ie/domeventconstructors
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Doug and PLH and the group on the D3E reference story [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-135 - Work with doug and plh and the group on the d3e reference story [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-09-30].
<jrossi> well dang, site seems to be having issues
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
… but not sure about the time of the IE shipping
PLH: the group can define "the bar"
JR: ok, think this case is pretty straight forward
… re discussing this with the Director
PLH: the group needs to create its rationale for the Director
… it appears you will be ok
RESOLUTION: the Plan of Record we discussed on 23-Sep-2014 re moving to LC and Proposed REC is agreed
PLH: note the DOM spec is about to move to Proposed REC
… in that case, if PE spec refs DOM spec, there would be no issues
<smaug> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html#pointerevent-interface
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.
<plh> PLH: we'll need to check the mouse events constructor
AB: any comments about adding that additional step?
<scottgonzalez> I have to drop off the call. I have another call starting now.
RB: seems reasonable to me
PLH: +1
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.
... anything else for today?
JR: we have a couple of weeks of spec work ahead of us
… and our charter expires end of October
… we have had discussions about a v2 spec
… not sure if we want to extend our charter just to finish v1 or to add v2
PLH: charter extensions are purely admin
… if want to expand scope, then the group must re-charter i.e. new charter
JR: is work on v2 considered an extension or is a new charter needed?
PLH: that's a bit of a grey line
… several things to consider
… f.ex. the length of the extension
… also need to consider errata that could be needed
AV: what is the max extension?
PLH: could be 3 mos, through up to 2 years
AV: I think we have some bugs or features marked "v2"
JR: yes, they are in a wiki
… seems like we should start the work to extend the charter
… say 6 mos
… and that would give us time to complete v1
… and then talk about the v2 features
… and figure if an extension #2 would be needed or a new charter
PLH: that sounds reasonable to me
<scribe> 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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> 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].
AB: anything else?
JR: re TPAC
… I'm wondering who's going?
… I'll be there
… if anyone want to talk about PE and/or TE, that would be great
AB: I'll be at TPAC
JR: me too
AB: anyone else?
[ Silence ]
<smaug> probably not
AB: do you know how you are going to organize such a meeting?
JR: not sure yet
PLH: if you have a meeting, please include IndieUI group
AB: 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/a but/a bug/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: ArtB Inferring ScribeNick: ArtB Present: Art_Barstow Cathy_Chan Olli_Pettay Patrick_Lauke Scott_González Asir_Vedamuthu Jacob_Rossi Rick_Byers Matt_Brubeck Philippe_Le_Hegaret Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0130.html Got date from IRC log name: 23 Sep 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html People with action items: barstow cathy jacob WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]