15:59:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:59:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-irc
15:59:52 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow
16:00:13 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
16:00:25 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
16:00:25 <ArtB> Scribe: ArtB
16:00:25 <ArtB> Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
16:00:25 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014OctDec/0056.html
16:00:25 <ArtB> Chair: ArtB
16:00:32 <Zakim> + +1.857.300.aaaa
16:00:38 <Zakim> + +1.571.426.aabb
16:00:49 <Cathy> zakim, aaaa is me
16:00:49 <Zakim> +Cathy; got it
16:01:39 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:02:07 <smaug> sip never works
16:02:34 <ArtB> Present: Art_Barstow, Rick_Byers, Cathy_Chan, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu
16:02:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:02:58 <smaug> back to skype
16:03:07 <smaug> in some distant future sip might start working
16:03:18 <ArtB> Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon, Patrick_Lauke, Scott_González, Doug_Schepers
16:03:23 <smaug> Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
16:03:23 <Zakim> +Olli_Pettay; got it
16:03:25 <ArtB> Present+ Olli_Pettay
16:03:30 <smaug> Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
16:03:31 <Zakim> ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
16:04:05 <ArtB> Topic: Tweak and agree on agenda
16:04:14 <ArtB> AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014OctDec/0056.html. Any change requests?
16:05:24 <ArtB> Topic: Testing and implementation report status
16:05:39 <ArtB> AV: we found some issues
16:05:44 <ArtB> … but they aren't blocking
16:05:50 <ArtB> … a couple of test case issues
16:05:58 <ArtB> … we are preparing PRs
16:06:09 <ArtB> … Jacob, can you get them this week?
16:06:14 <ArtB> JR: yes, I think so
16:06:35 <ArtB> … one change is to change expected event sequence
16:06:45 <ArtB> … I don't think that is an interop issue
16:07:14 <ArtB> AV: after we get through these issues, the aggregated report should be straight forward
16:07:19 <ArtB> … I just need the JSON files
16:08:37 <ArtB> JR: we are running our tests on IE and Matt is doing FF testing
16:08:44 <ArtB> … we have one issue to check
16:08:48 <ArtB> … think it is just timing
16:08:56 <ArtB> … it might require a tweak to a test file
16:09:12 <ArtB> … he have an internal change and now I need to push that change to w-p-t
16:09:23 <ArtB> AB: ok, thanks for that clarification
16:09:31 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
16:09:41 <ArtB> Present+ Doug_Schepers
16:09:51 <ArtB> OP: we noticed an issue
16:10:12 <ArtB> AB: so are you going to submit a new PR?
16:10:21 <ArtB> OP: we pass all of the tests but one
16:10:41 <ArtB> … we will need to run all of the tests after a patch lands in Gecko
16:11:18 <smaug> s/we pass/I think we pass/
16:11:59 <ArtB> OP: we need to run the tests after we land all of the Gecko patches for Pointer Events
16:12:11 <ArtB> … I just reviewed one Gecko patch earlier today
16:12:39 <ArtB> AB: how many PE patches for Gecko have not been reviewed?
16:12:42 <ArtB> OP: none
16:12:58 <smaug> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1094913
16:13:09 <ArtB> … but the patch needs to land and be compiled into an implementation we can test
16:13:17 <ArtB> OP: expect that patch to land tomorrow
16:13:26 <ArtB> AB: is Matt aware of this?
16:13:36 <ArtB> OP: yes, Matt has been involved
16:14:08 <ArtB> AB: do you know when we can expect Matt to run the tests with this patch?
16:14:13 <ArtB> OP: no, I don't know
16:14:40 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow followup with Matt re the timeframe to run the tests on a build that includes a fix for but 1094913
16:14:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-144 - Followup with matt re the timeframe to run the tests on a build that includes a fix for but 1094913 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-11-18].
16:15:21 <ArtB> AV: what about 109…?
16:15:30 <ArtB> … do you know when that will be closed?
16:15:46 <ArtB> OP: sorry, not sure
16:16:09 <ArtB> AV: the bug is 1094913?
16:16:11 <ArtB> OP: yes
16:16:26 <ArtB> AV: if that issue is closed, I think Gecko is done
16:16:51 <ArtB> OP: I just completed a review of 1094913 about 20 minutes ago
16:17:22 <ArtB> JR: I need to run the tests end-to-end without any operator errors
16:17:32 <ArtB> … I have run them all, and they all pass
16:17:50 <ArtB> AB: ok, I think that means we're in pretty good shape for IE
16:18:14 <ArtB> RB: I was running the tests on w3test.org
16:18:27 <ArtB> … is there a harness?
16:18:34 <ArtB> JR: yes, runner/index.html
16:18:43 <ArtB> … there is a tool to create test report
16:19:16 <ArtB> RB: for Chrome, we only want to run touch-action tests
16:19:27 <ArtB> AB: yes, I think you'll have to do that all by hand
16:19:32 <ArtB> RB: oh, that's tedious
16:19:36 <ArtB> AB: agree
16:20:00 <ArtB> AB: do we want to include Chrome's touch-action data?
16:20:09 <ArtB> RB: I can send the results to the list
16:20:34 <ArtB> JR: yes, it would be good to get that data
16:21:26 <ArtB> AB: until we look at the Chrome data, not sure it would be helpful or not
16:22:01 <ArtB> AB: anything else on testing?
16:22:09 <ArtB> Topic: Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of Pointer Events
16:22:25 <ArtB> AB: there are no more open spec bugs.
16:22:33 <ArtB> … we could publish the LCWD now
16:22:43 <ArtB> … we could wait until the ImplReport is complete
16:23:00 <ArtB> AB: what do people think?
16:23:09 <ArtB> … any strong prefs one way or another?
16:23:22 <ArtB> JR: don't think we need to block on the ImplReport
16:23:37 <ArtB> … especially since the Gecko patch will give us 2 100% impls
16:23:47 <ArtB> … so I recommend publishing LC now
16:23:58 <Cathy> +1 on publishing LCWD now
16:24:05 <ArtB> … We did previously talk about some type of "pre LC" period
16:24:11 <ArtB> … not sure we need to do that
16:24:22 <ArtB> CC: publish LCWD now
16:24:37 <ArtB> AB: my inclination is to publish now
16:25:06 <ArtB> … don't see a strong need for some type of pre LC comment period
16:25:16 <ArtB> … and I prefer to publish LC now
16:25:34 <shepazu> +1 to publish
16:25:35 <ArtB> AV: I'm ok with publishing
16:25:41 <ArtB> RB: fine with me
16:25:44 <ArtB> OP: ok with me too
16:26:02 <ArtB> AB: hearing no objections, I'll record a resolution
16:26:24 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: group agrees to publish LCWD of Pointer Events
16:26:35 <ArtB> AB: Draft LC is https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html?specStatus=LC;edDraftURI=https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html;publishDate=2014-11-13;lcEnd=2014-11-30;previousPublishDate=2013-05-09;previousMaturity=CR;processVersion=2005
16:27:50 <ArtB> AB: the LCWD should include text that includes a link to the test suite and the implementation report. It should also state that if no substantive changes are made as a result of the LC review, the next publication will be a Proposed Recommendation.
16:28:56 <ArtB> AB: https://github.com/w3c/test-results
16:29:22 <ArtB> … https://github.com/w3c/test-results/tree/gh-pages/pointerevents
16:30:00 <ArtB> … need to remove UC10.json file
16:30:00 <jrossi> https://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.html
16:31:06 <ArtB> AB: not sure about the workflow
16:31:12 <ArtB> DS: I'm not sure either
16:31:37 <ArtB> AB: we could use lables
16:31:43 <ArtB> JR: yes, let's use labels
16:31:51 <Zakim> - +1.571.426.aabb
16:31:55 <ArtB> AB: ok, that's fine with me
16:32:13 <Zakim> + +1.571.426.aacc
16:32:30 <ArtB> AB: I'll create the LC if you want Jacob
16:32:33 <ArtB> JR: ok, please do
16:32:49 <ArtB> AB: and I'll make the ImplReport: https://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.html
16:33:22 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow create draft LCWD and ping the list for review
16:33:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-145 - Create draft lcwd and ping the list for review [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-11-18].
16:33:45 <ArtB> AB: anything else on the LCWD?
16:34:02 <ArtB> AV: so we include https://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.html as the ImplReport in the LCWD?
16:34:05 <ArtB> AB: yes
16:34:18 <ArtB> AV: and anyone can submit a PR?
16:34:42 <ArtB> AB: yes and we will label the ImplReport versions of the JSON files
16:35:11 <ArtB> ACTION: jacob label JSON files that are used for the Implementation Report
16:35:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-146 - Label json files that are used for the implementation report [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-11-18].
16:35:31 <ArtB> AB: anything else on LC?
16:35:37 <ArtB> Topic: AoB
16:35:54 <ArtB> RB: what about PE discussion at BlinkOn
16:36:01 <ArtB> … that's a conf for Blink devs
16:36:05 <ArtB> … it was last week
16:36:12 <ArtB> … we talked about PEs and TEs
16:36:36 <ArtB> … no specific takeaways for the group but wanted to share this info
16:36:52 <rbyers> Slides: https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/presentation/d/1AgcAyn6HLDkWNDkvPEDAAPsqx4Jv6kzMjLowZJ1wbBc/edit
16:37:38 <ArtB> JR: there is some work underway about Polymer polyfill for PointerEvents
16:37:51 <ArtB> … could use W3C test suite to make sure polyfill is high quality
16:37:58 <shepazu> q+
16:37:59 <ArtB> … and interoperable with native impls of PE
16:38:05 <AutomatedTester> AutomatedTester has joined #pointerevents
16:38:34 <ArtB> DS: if going to have polyfill, one thing re host postential is webplatform.org
16:38:47 <ArtB> s/postential/potential/
16:39:32 <ArtB> AB: seems like we need to have a discussion re Touch Events evolution
16:39:58 <ArtB> RB: agree the polyfill interoperability issue is high priority
16:40:22 <ArtB> … tough to polyfill without touch-action
16:40:49 <Zakim> - +1.571.426.aacc
16:40:51 <ArtB> AB: anything else?
16:41:05 <ArtB> AB: thanks everyone
16:41:14 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
16:41:16 <Zakim> -Olli_Pettay
16:41:17 <ArtB> … I'll get the LCWD published on Nov 13
16:41:17 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
16:41:20 <rbyers> In particular, if you read https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/ - polyfills are key to the strategy we should be following
16:41:20 <Zakim> -Cathy
16:41:22 <ArtB> … meeting adjourned
16:41:25 <Zakim> -rbyers
16:41:26 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
16:41:28 <Zakim> RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
16:41:28 <Zakim> Attendees were rbyers, Art_Barstow, +1.857.300.aaaa, +1.571.426.aabb, Cathy, [Microsoft], Olli_Pettay, Doug_Schepers, +1.571.426.aacc
16:41:35 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:41:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
16:41:54 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
17:26:16 <ArtB> zakim, bye
17:26:16 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pointerevents
17:26:20 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
17:26:20 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
17:26:20 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow followup with Matt re the timeframe to run the tests on a build that includes a fix for but 1094913 [1]
17:26:20 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-irc#T16-14-40
17:26:20 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow create draft LCWD and ping the list for review [2]
17:26:20 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-irc#T16-33-22
17:26:20 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jacob label JSON files that are used for the Implementation Report [3]
17:26:20 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-irc#T16-35-11
17:26:30 <ArtB> ArtB has changed the topic to: Pointer Events Working Group