Pointer Events Working Group Voice Conference -- 17 Mar 2015

<artb> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: ArtB

Tweak and agree on agenda

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>.
... Rick, how about I'll chair the PEWG part and you Chair the TECG part?

RB: sounds good to me

<rbyers> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2015JanMar/0027.html

AB: any change requests?

Short overview of REC errata and Modifying a REC process

AB: the post-REC part of the TR process is defined in http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#rec-modify
... 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".

PLH: I think that is correct

… but we can only do that for editorial changes

… but if have substantive changes, must go through a WG

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

… is that about right PLH

PLH: it would depend on what WG you have in mind

… there is a lot of history re the IP for Touch Events

… so that could be tricky

DS: well the PEWG could be one such WG, assuming the WG was not closed

AV: would that require PEWG being re-chartered?

PLH: yes, definitely

DS: note PEWG charter expires in early May

… it could be less overhead

… if substanative changes, must have a chartered WG

AV: you mean TE spec?

DS: yes

AV: but for PE spec, we can extend PEWG charter, right?

DS: yes

PLH: figure out what you want to do and then we'll figure out the process

AB: excellent advice

AV: agree

AB: thanks PLH

RB: the TECG's original plan was to just fix bugs

… we originally didn't think we would need substantive changes

PLH: if changes were not substantive, don't need a WG to publish

DS: we need to be careful about what we mean by bug fixes and the nature of the changes

… we need to evaluate each change

… if changes are substantive i.e. affect an implementation, then we need a WG

<plh> "Corrections that do not affect conformance"

PLH: if a change affects conformance, it is substantive

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#editorial-change

RB: I think we have 1-2 changes that could be considered substantive

… I'm ok with leaving those in limbo now

… we can figure this out in a few months

… but first must agree on all of the changes we want to make

AB: what Rick says resonates with me

… think we should focus on the issues and ignore the issue about if we need a WG or not for now

RB: agree

JR: agree

<shepazu> agreed

Next step(s) for Pointer Events

AB: so the PE REC was published Feb 24 http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-pointerevents-20150224/
... the REC's errata page is https://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/errata
... do we have a sense yet if we have changes to make?

JR: we don't have any errata now

… would like to know if Rick would like to explore potential changes for v.next

RB: yes, I am interested in exploring the outstanding issues

… f.ex. touch-action

<rbyers> I'd like to see touch-action support broadly: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133112#c11

RB: would be good to get touch-action in Safari

AB: so are you saying touch-action needs work before Safari people would be willing to implement?

RB: yes

AV: so we should explore this as part of PEWG?

RB: yes

JR: so do you see this as a bug fix or a new feature?

RB: think we need some new semantics re panning

JR: so that would be a new feature

… want to make sure I understand the procedural options

AV: are there other feature requests?

JR: there are some items in the wiki but I don't think any are significant

<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)

JR: we should review those

AB: if we get agreement to add new features, we can extend the PEWG charter

RB: think IE could be in violation of the mouse compat part of the spec so we might want to address that

JR: yes, good point

RB: Safari concerns are mouse compat and the touch-action property

JR: the mouse compat is optional

DS: these items don't feel like they would require a re-charter

… that is are more like charter extension

AV: sounds right to me

RB: if we update mouse compat to match what IE is doing

… TECG charter includes PE and TE compat

… perhaps we need that in one document

AV: that's not a requirement, right but an option, right?

RB: yes, I'm asking

JR: so you think Rick we need more info about mouse compat for TEs

RB: we need something that defines interaction between PEs and TEs

… and we don't have that now

AV: that could be a separate spec, right?

RB: yes

… do we do that in a separate doc or update the related text in the PE spec

DS: depends on the details

… re the charter discussion, re-chartering isn't really that much overhead

… there is indeed a posibility of a Formal Objection but that process can happen in the background and not affect the WG

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

DS: we'll get into some potential IP problems if a PEWG spec starts making normative statements about Touch Events

… if TE is put within within charter of PEWG, it could result in some Members not joining a re-chartered PEWG

JR: not sure we want to expand PEWG charter to include TE normatively

… think we can, however, talk non-normatively about TEs in a PEWG spec

… but agree with PLH we should figure out what we want to do first

… let's first get agreement on touch-action changes

… and figure out a plan for the compatibility text/guildelines

… 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)

DS: if we agree TE needs substantive changes, a new chartered WG will likely be needed

RB: Jacob's plan sound good to me

DS: think we should go forward now as we've discussed

AB: thanks for the clarifications and positions

… a conclusion of mine is the PEWG still needs to get agreement on next steps

… especially WRT touch-action and compatibility

… and it would appear that an extension beyond May 2015 is likely

AB: is that a fair summary?

AV, RB, JR: yes

AB: does anyone have the action re touch-action?

DS: are we going to have calls?

RB: think we should have a call if/when one is needed

… I'll take the action to take this to the list

DS: ok, sounds good

RB: I think we should use this slot for one or both group calls

AB: sounds good to me

DS: I'll take an action to get the charter extended

JR, AV, RB: SGTM

<scribe> ACTION: doug work on a charter extension for the PEWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-147 - Work on a charter extension for the pewg [on Doug Schepers - due 2015-03-24].

<scribe> ACTION: Rick start a thread re what we want to do with touch-action vis-a-vis Safari and other requests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]

<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].

AB: thanks everyone!

Touch Events CG Update

Chair+ Rick

<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

<scribe> ScribeNick: rbyers

<artb> Scribe+ Rick

<scribe> ScribeNick: tdresser

<rbyers> Scribe+ Tim

<rbyers> mouseenter/mouseleave - Mustaq in progress

<rbyers> Touch that can cause scroll / click - blocked on Ben’s implementation

<rbyers> :hover/:active - blocked on Jacob

rbyers: We still have a few outstanding interop issues.
... Improving interop is what's most important.
... There has been some good work on improving spec quality.

<rbyers> https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/issues/6

rbyers: This is a bug in the spec, currently blocked on Mustaq.
... That's the only thing on my list currently.
... Now that we're on github, we should be make further improvements.
... We need to solve the conditional touch event API problem, which is blocked on the SourceDevice api proposal.
... #4: interaction with pointer events - we should clarify what we're doing with pointer events and the mouse event model.
... #5: Right now the group isn't doing much to add new capabilities to touch events.
... Did I miss anything?
... Is there anything on that list that is out of scope?
... artb - is that a reasonable high level status update?

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.
... That's fine, but we should think about what that means. We may reconvene web events.
... We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

rbyers: Sounds good.
... jrossi - does that sound reasonable?

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.

rbyers: I think all of those items are blocked on things that can be dealt with on the list.
... Anything else?

AoB

<artb> JR: Microsoft is trying very hard to get a new build that will include flags for Touch Events

<artb> … I'll announce when it's ready

<artb> RB: default?

rbyers: We check if there's a touchscreen attached on startup - jrossi, when do you check?

jrossi: We check on page load.

rbyers: That's better, we should do that.

jrossi: We do have some issues still with hybrid devices.
... There are also a few places where co-existance of touch events and pointer events causes problems, where people register for both event types.
... This doesn't seem very common though.

rbyers: Hearing about the web compat impact is very valuable, thanks jrossi.
... Everything we're learning about IE web compat is relevant to Mozilla's pointer event implementation, and for the pointer event polyfill.

<rbyers> .. so a problem for Chrome's users as well, even without native PE support

jrossi: I'll be gone March 24-31.

<artb> Scribe: Art, Tim

- DRAFT -

Pointer Events Working Group Voice Conference

17 Mar 2015

Attendees

Contents

Tweak and agree on agenda

Short overview of REC errata and Modifying a REC process

Next step(s) for Pointer Events

Touch Events CG Update

AoB

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output