15:00:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:00:45 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-irc
15:00:45 <Zakim> +rbyers
15:00:48 <mustaq> mustaq has joined #pointerevents
15:01:05 <Zakim> +Plh
15:01:09 <Zakim> + +1.571.426.aaaa
15:01:14 <rbyers> Zakim, rbyers is Chrome_Team
15:01:14 <Zakim> +Chrome_Team; got it
15:01:18 <artb> ScribeNick: ArtB
15:01:18 <artb> Scribe: ArtB
15:01:18 <artb> Meeting: Pointer Events Working Group Voice Conference
15:01:18 <artb> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014OctDec/0099.html
15:02:22 <artb> Present: Art_Barstow, Rick_Byers, Philippe_LeHegaret, Asir_Vedamuthu, Scott_González
15:02:24 <jrossi2> jrossi2 has joined #pointerevents
15:02:29 <rbyers> Present+ Tim_Dresser, Mustaq_Ahmed
15:02:29 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:02:47 <artb> Present+ Doug_Schepers
15:02:57 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
15:03:29 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
15:03:39 <artb> Present+ Jacob_Rossi
15:04:01 <jrossi2> Zakim, Microsoft.a is jrossi2
15:04:03 <Zakim> +jrossi2; got it
15:04:20 <teddin> teddin has joined #pointerevents
15:04:21 <artb> Topic: Tweak and agree on agenda
15:04:25 <asir> asir has joined #pointerevents
15:04:27 <artb> AB: yesterday I posted a draft agenda to the PEWG and TECG lists <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2015JanMar/0027.html>.
15:04:32 <artb> AB: Rick, how about I'll chair the PEWG part and you Chair the TECG part?
15:04:41 <artb> RB: sounds good to me
15:04:48 <rbyers> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2015JanMar/0027.html
15:04:49 <artb> AB: any change requests?
15:05:01 <artb> Topic: Short overview of REC errata and Modifying a REC process
15:05:14 <artb> AB: the post-REC part of the TR process is defined in http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#rec-modify
15:05:30 <artb> AB: one open Q I had is "may a CG publish an Edited Recommendation?" and Philippe replied no, not directly but the W3C can publish it. I think the implication is that consortium staff like Doug and Philippe can "git'r'done".
15:06:02 <artb> PLH: I think that is correct
15:06:10 <artb> … but we can only do that for editorial changes
15:06:20 <artb> … but if have substantive changes, must go through a WG
15:07:09 <artb> AB: so for the context of Touch Events REC, that would mean a couple of options, one being restart the Web Events WG; another option would be to add TE spec to an existing WG
15:07:18 <artb> … is that about right PLH
15:07:26 <artb> PLH: it would depend on what WG you have in mind
15:07:39 <artb> … there is a lot of history re the IP for Touch Events
15:07:44 <artb> … so that could be tricky
15:08:12 <artb> DS: well the PEWG could be one such WG, assuming the WG was not closed
15:08:21 <artb> AV: would that require PEWG being re-chartered?
15:08:27 <artb> PLH: yes, definitely
15:08:39 <artb> DS: note PEWG charter expires in early May
15:09:00 <artb> … it could be less overhead
15:10:07 <artb> … if substanative changes, must have a chartered WG
15:10:12 <artb> AV: you mean TE spec?
15:10:14 <artb> DS: yes
15:10:29 <artb> AV: but for PE spec, we can extend PEWG charter, right?
15:10:32 <artb> DS: yes
15:11:15 <artb> PLH: figure out what you want to do and then we'll figure out the process
15:11:20 <artb> AB: excellent advice
15:11:23 <artb> AV: agree
15:11:39 <artb> AB: thanks PLH
15:12:02 <artb> RB: the TECG's original plan was to just fix bugs
15:12:05 <asir> asir has joined #pointerevents
15:12:15 <artb> … we originally didn't think we would need substantive changes
15:12:35 <artb> PLH: if changes were not substantive, don't need a WG to publish
15:13:00 <asir> asir has joined #pointerevents
15:13:02 <artb> DS: we need to be careful about what we mean by bug fixes and the nature of the changes
15:13:18 <artb> … we need to evaluate each change
15:13:38 <artb> … if changes are substantive i.e. affect an implementation, then we need a WG
15:13:45 <plh> "Corrections that do not affect conformance"
15:13:52 <artb> PLH: if a change affects conformance, it is substantive
15:14:07 <plh> http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#editorial-change
15:14:09 <artb> RB: I think we have 1-2 changes that could be considered substantive
15:14:18 <artb> … I'm ok with leaving those in limbo now
15:14:31 <artb> … we can figure this out in a few months
15:14:47 <artb> … but first must agree on all of the changes we want to make
15:14:57 <artb> AB: what Rick says resonates with me
15:15:02 <asir> asir has joined #pointerevents
15:15:56 <artb> … think we should focus on the issues and ignore the issue about if we need a WG or not for now
15:16:01 <artb> RB: agree
15:16:11 <artb> JR: agree
15:16:30 <shepazu> agreed
15:16:40 <artb> Topic: Next step(s) for Pointer Events
15:16:55 <artb> AB: so the PE REC was published Feb 24 http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-pointerevents-20150224/
15:16:55 <artb> ...  the REC's errata page is https://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/errata
15:17:26 <artb> AB: do we have a sense yet if we have changes to make?
15:17:35 <artb> JR: we don't have any errata now
15:18:02 <artb> … would like to know if Rick would like to explore potential changes for v.next
15:18:19 <artb> RB: yes, I am interested in exploring the outstanding issues
15:18:24 <artb> … f.ex. touch-action
15:18:26 <rbyers> I'd like to see touch-action support broadly: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133112#c11
15:18:47 <artb> RB: would be good to get touch-action in Safari
15:19:26 <artb> AB: so are you saying touch-action needs work before Safari people would be willing to implement?
15:19:31 <artb> RB: yes
15:19:44 <artb> AV: so we should explore this as part of PEWG?
15:19:47 <artb> RB: yes
15:20:00 <artb> JR: so do you see this as a bug fix or a new feature?
15:20:14 <artb> RB: think we need some new semantics re panning
15:20:21 <artb> JR: so that would be a new feature
15:20:43 <artb> … want to make sure I understand the procedural options
15:20:51 <artb> AV: are there other feature requests?
15:21:06 <artb> JR: there are some items in the wiki but I don't think any are significant
15:21:07 <rbyers> in particular, the request from safari was that we add pan-right, pan-left, pan-up and pan-down (in addition to pan-x and pan-y)
15:21:23 <artb> JR: we should review those
15:23:06 <artb> AB: if we get agreement to add new features, we can extend the PEWG charter
15:23:46 <artb> RB: think IE could be in violation of the mouse compat part of the spec so we might want to address that
15:23:51 <artb> JR: yes, good point
15:24:10 <artb> RB: Safari concerns are mouse compat and the touch-action property
15:24:29 <artb> JR: the mouse compat is optional
15:25:04 <artb> DS: these items don't feel like they would require a re-charter
15:25:12 <artb> … that is are more like charter extension
15:25:18 <artb> AV: sounds right to me
15:25:29 <artb> RB: if we update mouse compat to match what IE is doing
15:25:47 <artb> … TECG charter includes PE and TE compat
15:25:58 <artb> … perhaps we need that in one document
15:26:13 <artb> AV: that's not a requirement, right but an option, right?
15:26:17 <artb> RB: yes, I'm asking
15:26:34 <artb> JR: so you think Rick we need more info about mouse compat for TEs
15:26:53 <artb> RB: we need something that defines interaction between PEs and TEs
15:26:59 <artb> … and we don't have that now
15:27:07 <artb> AV: that could be a separate spec, right?
15:27:09 <artb> RB: yes
15:27:27 <artb> … do we do that in a separate doc or update the related text in the PE spec
15:27:42 <artb> DS: depends on the details
15:28:02 <artb> … re the charter discussion, re-chartering isn't really that much overhead
15:28:32 <artb> … there is indeed a posibility of a Formal Objection but that process can happen in the background and not affect the WG
15:29:09 <artb> AV: think we need to get clarity and agreement on what we want to do first, then we can figure out the process related sub-issues
15:29:52 <artb> DS: we'll get into some potential IP problems if a PEWG spec starts making normative statements about Touch Events
15:30:16 <artb> … if TE is within charter of PEWG, it could result in some Members not joining a re-chartered PEWG
15:30:30 <artb> s/TE is/TE is put within/
15:31:24 <artb> JR: not sure we want to expand PEWG charter to include TE normatively
15:31:50 <artb> … think we can, however, talk non-normatively about TEs in a PEWG spec
15:32:03 <artb> … but agree with PLH we should figure out what we want to do first
15:32:16 <artb> … let's first get agreement on touch-action changes
15:32:31 <artb> … and figure out a plan for the compatibility text/guildelines
15:32:42 <scottgonzalez> scottgonzalez has joined #pointerevents
15:33:17 <artb> … If we agree we need to add new features to TE spec, we can figure out the process to make that happen later (don't need to decide now)
15:34:11 <artb> DS: if we agree TE needs substantive changes, a new chartered WG will likely be needed
15:34:43 <artb> RB: Jacob's plan sound good to me
15:34:54 <artb> DS: think we should go forward now as we've discussed
15:35:07 <artb> AB: thanks for the clarifications and positions
15:35:28 <artb> … a conclusion of mine is the PEWG still needs to get agreement on next steps
15:35:41 <artb> … especially WRT touch-action and compatibility
15:36:02 <artb> … and it would appear that an extension beyond May 2015 is likely
15:36:12 <artb> AB: is that a fair summary?
15:36:20 <artb> AV, RB, JR: yes
15:36:57 <artb> AB: does anyone have the action re touch-action?
15:37:18 <artb> DS: are we going to have calls?
15:37:30 <artb> RB: think we should have a call if/when one is needed
15:37:41 <artb> … I'll take the action to take this to the list
15:37:47 <artb> DS: ok, sounds good
15:38:18 <artb> RB: I think we should use this slot for one or both group calls
15:38:23 <artb> AB: sounds good to me
15:38:35 <artb> DS: I'll take an action to get the charter extended
15:38:42 <artb> JR, AV, RB: SGTM
15:38:56 <artb> ACTION: doug work on a charter extension for the PEWG
15:38:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-147 - Work on a charter extension for the pewg [on Doug Schepers - due 2015-03-24].
15:39:24 <artb> ACTION: Rick start a thread re what we want to do with touch-action vis-a-vis Safari and other requests
15:39:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-148 - Start a thread re what we want to do with touch-action vis-a-vis safari and other requests [on Rick Byers - due 2015-03-24].
15:39:46 <artb> AB: thanks everyone!
15:40:03 <artb> Topic: Touch Events CG Update
15:40:10 <artb> Chair+ Rick
15:40:15 <rbyers> What we're trying to achieve: 1) improve interoperability, 2) improve spec quality, 3) solve conditional Touch Event API problem, 4) define interaction with pointer events, 5) potentially explore adding new capabilities
15:40:34 <artb> ScribeNick: rbyers
15:40:37 <artb> Scribe+ Rick
15:40:47 <artb> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:40:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-minutes.html artb
15:40:51 <rbyers> ScribeNick: tdresser
15:40:55 <rbyers> Scribe+ Tim
15:41:02 <rbyers> mouseenter/mouseleave - Mustaq in progress
15:41:02 <rbyers> Touch that can cause scroll / click - blocked on Ben’s implementation
15:41:02 <rbyers> :hover/:active - blocked on Jacob
15:41:12 <tdresser> rbyers: We still have a few outstanding interop issues.
15:41:18 <artb> RRSAgent, make log Public
15:41:34 <artb> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:41:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-minutes.html artb
15:42:01 <tdresser> rbyers: Improving interop is what's most important.
15:42:18 <tdresser> rbyers: There has been some good work on improving spec quality.
15:42:26 <rbyers> https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/issues/6
15:42:38 <tdresser> rbyers: This is a bug in the spec, currently blocked on Mustaq.
15:42:52 <tdresser> rbyers: That's the only thing on my list currently.
15:43:08 <tdresser> rbyers: Now that we're on github, we should be make further improvements.
15:43:35 <tdresser> rbyers: We need to solve the conditional touch event API problem, which is blocked on the SourceDevice api proposal.
15:44:21 <tdresser> rbyers: #4: interaction with pointer events - we should clarify what we're doing with pointer events and the mouse event model.
15:44:49 <tdresser> rbyers: #5: Right now the group isn't doing much to add new capabilities to touch events.
15:44:59 <tdresser> rbyers: Did I miss anything?
15:45:15 <tdresser> rbyers: Is there anything on that list that is out of scope?
15:45:36 <tdresser> rbyers: artb - is that a reasonable high level status update?
15:46:04 <tdresser> artb: Yeah, that's helpful. By the time we get agreement on the touchevent spec, we'll likely have a spec that includes substantive changes from the v1 recommendation.
15:46:23 <tdresser> artb: That's fine, but we should think about what that means. We may reconvene web events.
15:46:30 <tdresser> artb: We'll cross that bridge when we get there.
15:46:38 <tdresser> rbyers: Sounds good.
15:46:50 <tdresser> rbyers: jrossi - does that sound reasonable?
15:47:14 <tdresser> jrossi: Yeah, the list looks accurate. It probably will result in substantive changes, but I agree that we can deal with that when we get there.
15:47:28 <tdresser> rbyers: I think all of those items are blocked on things that can be dealt with on the list.
15:47:31 <tdresser> rbyers: Anything else?
15:47:43 <artb> Topic: AoB
15:48:22 <artb> JR: Microsoft is trying very hard to get a new build that will include flags for Touch Events
15:48:38 <artb> … I'll announce when it's ready
15:48:43 <artb> JR: default?
15:48:55 <artb> s/JR: default?/RB: default?/
15:50:03 <tdresser> rbyers: We check if there's a touchscreen attached on startup - jrossi, when do you check?
15:50:07 <tdresser> jrossi: We check on page load.
15:50:12 <tdresser> rbyers: That's better, we should do that.
15:50:35 <tdresser> jrossi: We do have some issues still with hybrid devices.
15:50:57 <tdresser> jrossi: There are also a few places where co-existance of touch events and pointer events causes problems, where people register for both event types.
15:51:03 <tdresser> jrossi: This doesn't seem very common though.
15:51:19 <tdresser> rbyers: Hearing about the web compat impact is very valuable, thanks jrossi.
15:51:51 <tdresser> rbyers: Everything we're learning about IE web compat is relevant to Mozilla's pointer event implementation, and for the pointer event polyfill.
15:52:08 <rbyers> .. so a problem for Chrome's users as well, even without native PE support
15:52:54 <tdresser> jrossi: I'll be gone March 24-31.
15:53:16 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
15:53:17 <Zakim> -Plh
15:53:18 <Zakim> -Chrome_Team
15:53:19 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
15:53:21 <Zakim> -jrossi2
15:53:22 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
15:53:25 <artb> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:53:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-minutes.html artb
15:53:28 <Zakim> -Scott_Gonzalez
15:53:33 <teddin> teddin has left #pointerevents
15:53:44 <artb> Chair: Art, Rick
15:53:48 <Zakim> - +1.571.426.aaaa
15:53:49 <artb> Scribe: Art, Tim
15:53:50 <Zakim> RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
15:53:50 <Zakim> Attendees were Scott_Gonzalez, Art_Barstow, Plh, +1.571.426.aaaa, Chrome_Team, [Microsoft], Doug_Schepers, jrossi2
15:53:55 <artb> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:53:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-minutes.html artb
15:55:03 <smaug> smaug has joined #pointerevents
15:58:28 <scott_gonzalez> scott_gonzalez has joined #pointerevents
16:58:27 <plh> plh has left #pointerevents
17:08:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pointerevents
17:09:08 <artb> RRSAgent, bye
17:09:08 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
17:09:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: doug work on a charter extension for the PEWG [1]
17:09:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-irc#T15-38-56
17:09:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Rick start a thread re what we want to do with touch-action vis-a-vis Safari and other requests [2]
17:09:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-irc#T15-39-24