Pointer Events WG + Touch Events CG Voice Conference -- 03 Nov 2015

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: ArtB

<smaug> ArtB: can't hear you

<patrick_h_lauke> gotta love webex...

<smaug> how does this work...

<smaug> +present Olli_Pettay

<smaug> maybe not

<rbyers> +present Rick_Byers

<mustaq> +present Mustaq_Ahmed

<patrick_h_lauke> + present patrick_h_lauke

<dtapuska> +present Dave_Tapuska

<chongz> +present Chong_Zhang

<sangwhan> +present Sangwhan_Moon

<smaug> audio only, given that I don't apparently have devices to use the Java stuff

<jrossi> +present jrossi

<jrossi> lol

<patrick_h_lauke> and me :)

<smaug> and me

Agree on agenda

AB: welcome (back) everyone!
... I submitted a draft agenda yesterday <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-touchevents/2015Nov/0003.html>. The first part is PEWG and then TECG, led by Rick. Rick requested adding pointer events PR#24 to the agenda and that's fine with me.
... any other agenda change requests?

Pointer Events: v2 spec status

AB: Would the editors please give us a quick "state of the spec"? <https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/>; <https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues>)

RB: we've landed a bunch of tweaks

… not many major issues

… but Chrome and the block issues and we can talk about that later

JR: main Q is correlating spec to issue status

… lots of things on the list/gh that need to be discussed

RB: some issues need discussing; 15 are open

… most are minor and not blocking impls

<patrick_h_lauke> "blame the cloud"

JR: would be nice to do some triage; mark Editorial vs. New/Experimental

… such as 3D mice

RB: some are big issues and urgent

… and blocking implementation

… f.ex. #8

… that is biggest issue for Chrome

JR: if can create a new Lable that would be good

<patrick_h_lauke> +1 for label "v2blocking"

RB: ok, will create "blocking v2"

<mbrubeck> We could also use a "milestone"

<mbrubeck> for v2

RB: any other blockers?

<rbyers> In my opinion, we shouldn't work explicitly on force without Apple participation

JR: I expect 3rd party hardware to expose pressure/force

… so eventually will become more urgent to discuss

PL: there is a different event model for force and pressure

… not sure how it might impact us

JR: can affect how mouse events are fired

<smaug> going up now !

<patrick_h_lauke> to me this is orthogonal to PE though

AB: can we get someone to create a related issue here?

<smaug> sangwhan: do you happen to know how they deal that all in Safari

<patrick_h_lauke> or it would affect user agents that want to support BOTH touch events + special apple force touch stuff AND PE

RB: there are a couple of related issues

<sangwhan> smaug: the safari model is a bit strange

<sangwhan> smaug: https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/mac/documentation/AppleApplications/Conceptual/SafariJSProgTopics/RespondingtoForceTouchEventsfromJavaScript.html

… there are pressure-sensitive touch screens

… and stylus pressure

… think force touch is the difficult one

… we can talk to Apple about it

… but without them being a member of the WG, not sure they will engage

… Jacob, can you file an issue?

TD: I'll work with Jacob to create the issue

AB: thanks Ted

Pointer Events: State of deployment

<patrick_h_lauke> personally, i think the issue may be more force touch vs touch events v2, rather than pointer events v2

AB: I'd like to get a sense of which sites are using PointerEvents and how the level of traction PEs are getting

JR: I don't have any numbers for now

… but can send some figures to the list

RB: I got a few numbers, bit of a heuristi

… checking http archive, found 10% mention pointerdown

… 63% mention touchend

… checking touchstart isn't reliable because it is used for feature detection

<rbyers> Sites in httparchive (top 450k) - as of Oct 2015, desktop UA

<rbyers> touchstart: 72% (70% last year)

<rbyers> touchend: 63% (50% last year)

<rbyers> pointerdown: 10% (4% last year)

<rbyers> MSPointerDown: 31% (34% last year)

<smaug> that last one is a lot

AB: Jacob, if you have some data to send to the list, that would be great

TD: we can run some queries and send the group some data

<smaug> I wonder if all this data is based on event support in some script libraries

<rbyers> sangwhan: I know Beth a little. She worked with Dean Jackson and Benjamin Poulin on the design, I know them better.

<scribe> ACTION: Ted send some pointer event usage data to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-154 - Send some pointer event usage data to the list [on Ted Dinklocker - due 2015-11-10].

Pointer Events: Interoperability issues

AB: are there any interoperability issues (especially those that originate back to the spec, such as Pointer Events + Mouse Events + Touch Events)?

<patrick_h_lauke> re interop: i see lots of activity on PEP

<rbyers> JR: We should be able to get use-counter data that will be better than Rick's simple static analysis

RB: I don't have any visibility since we aren't engaging with devlopers re PE now

JR: when we first started implementing PE and TE we had problems but nothing in a long time

TD: agree, no related issues for months

RB: what's your current thinking with TE and Mouse?

JR: there is a toggle to pick the mode

… it is gesture based

<patrick_h_lauke> in about:flags - Mouse events for touchFire compatible mouse events in response to the tap gesture

TD: only have TE on by default on Mobile

JR: yes, that's right

TD: touch events are off on desktop

JR: if TE enabled expects gesture model

… so on surface, TE not on by default

TD: with continum products have some unique probs

SG: does IE plan to continue to have TE disabled on desktop?

JR: yes
... the problem with TE on desktop was far greater than TE on mobile

RB: I don't see TE going away any time soon, especially on mobile

… perhaps on desktop they can go away (eventually)

SG: future devleopers should never even have to know about TEs

… especially on desktop

<patrick_h_lauke> sangwhan PEP *may* help here

Pointer Events: v2 Implementation status

AB: is there any new information regarding v2 implementation both for desktops and mobiles? In particular Chrome, FF, IE/Edge, and others.

MA: for Chrome basic event firing is almost done: done for touches, almost done for mouse. Pointer capture is untouched, hope to start soon.

RB: we have done some work; but not capture start which is not easy

… after that, we will start on capture support and the open question of implicit capture

OP: currently PEs are disabled because of one crashing bug

… once that is fixed, we intend to enable it again

<mustaq> Chrome impl status: basic event firing is almost done: done for touches, almost done for mouse. Pointer capture is untouched, hope to start soon.

OP: yes we do support pointer capture

MB: FF passes all of the v1 test suite

… that is when the flag is enabled

TD: we are tracking v2

… but we don't have firm impl plans yet

… f.ex. we have not implemented the new touch-action values

RB: we have implemented the new touch-action value but they are not shipping yet (must turn on flag)

Pointer Events WG Charter

AB: the current charter expires November 9 <http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/>. What, if anything, should be done? Options include re-charter, request extension, close the WG, create a new CG, merge with TECG, ...)?
... what is your inclination Doug?

DS: no strong opinion

… until we have something to publish, it doesn't matter that much

… we can continue to operate as is

… having a WG might help keep the work moving forward

… if we want to publish docs, we need a WG or a CG

… I created a draft charter for a WG http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/pointer-events-2015.html

<shepazu> http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/pointer-events-2015.html

<shepazu> https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/blob/gh-pages/pointer-events-2015.html

<shepazu> http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/

… it was helpful because it focuses on "what EXACTLY do we want to accomplish"

RB: the most important thing for me is getting convergence

… we need to get some issues resolved before we can ship

… spec needs to be republished

… think it will be at least 6 months before the v2 spec and impls are aligned

… if we want to merge the groups, that's fine with me too

<patrick_h_lauke> +1 agree merging groups

MB: we are effectively running like one group

TD: seems like it would make sense to get an extension of the WG to give us time to decide if we should merge, or get a new WG extension

… our attorneys probably have an opinion, especially regarding merging the two groups

DS: this group has already had one extension

… it can be problematic to keep getting extensions

… if we aren't publishing documents, there is no need for a group

… Recharter if adding new features

… v2 is not in initial charter

… so one can argue the v2 work is already outside of the group's charter

… thus getting an extension doesn't feel like the right thing to do

… we certainly can let the group expire, move to a CG and then create a new WG charter if/when we want to start publishing v2

RB: what about resources for CGs?

DS: think we can get an exception and get resources if we decide to move to a CG

SG: no strong opinion

<patrick_h_lauke> +1 CG would suffice for me

RB: it would be ok with me to close the WG, start a CG and then create a WG in the future

SM: there are IP implications here

JR: think a CG gives lesser IP commitment

… seems like we all want to eventually publish a v2 REC

… thus having a WG seems like a better path

… so a re-charter makes sense to me

… path of least existance

DS: the overhead for me is about the same for the various options

JR: CGs are good for really new stuff

… but v2 of PE is different; work has already started

… are we OK with a CG, I suspect yes but if we are going to create a REC, need a WG

… we can create a draft at any time

AB: no really strong opinion but since we all seem to want to work toward a v2 REC

… then a new WG seems like the right way to go

<sangwhan> ArtB, shepazu: Maybe throw out a WBS and find out what everyone thinks?

… Think people should submit Issues and PRs against Doug's propsosed v2 WG charter

DS: please send comments

<jrossi> Strawman: clone the V1 charter, replace the deliverable with the V2 spec, done! :-)

AB: so I propose we try to get a new charter

… any objections to that?

[ None ]

RESOLUTION: we are going to work toward a new charter based on Doug's draft

Touch Events

RB: nothing really urgent

… Apple is implementing some v2 features f.eg. force

… so we have at least WebKit and Chrome for some v2 features

… The GEHs - they are already implemented

… Mostly small tweaks and updating impls to match

Pointer Events PR#24

RB: please see <https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/24>

… would like to get Ted and Jacob to review that PR

AoB

AB: please everyone review Doug's PEWG charter http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/pointer-events-2015.html and submit PRs and Issues

DS: Wacom to participate

JR: if Wacom joins then have all major pen manufactures

… that would be cool

RB: the Wacom people I talk to like pointer events!

AB: thanks all; meeting adjourned!

- DRAFT -

Pointer Events WG + Touch Events CG Voice Conference

03 Nov 2015

Attendees

Contents