- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:17:56 -0500
- To: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the November 19 voice conference are available at
the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-pointer-events mail list before November 26. In the
absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.
-Thanks, ArtB
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
19 Nov 2013
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0056.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Jacob_Rossi,
Asir_Vedamuthu
Regrets
Sangwhan_Moon, Scott_Gonzαlez, Doug_Schepers
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Tweak agenda
2. [6]How should touch-action apply to multiple fingers?
3. [7]touch-action hit testing
4. [8]Bug 22890
5. [9]Status of PR324 updates
6. [10]Need touch-action tests
7. [11]Gaps in coverage
8. [12]CR implementation updates
9. [13]AoB
* [14]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Tweak agenda
AB: any change requests for the proposed agenda
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013OctDec/0056.html?
... Since Sangwhan sent regrets, perhaps we should not cover
the "Compatibility Events" topic and defer discussion to the
list or add it to the next call if there is no "conclusion" on
the list.
... any objections to dropping Compatibility Events?
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0056.html?
[ none ]
AB: ok, we'll drop that and please followup on the list
... any other change requests?
JR: bug 22891 was from Sangwhan
perhaps we should drop that too
RB: agree
AB: any objections to JR's proposal?
[ none ]
How should touch-action apply to multiple fingers?
AB: Rick raised this question on November 6
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013OctDec/0050.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0050.html
RB: I was initially assuming this was out of scope
but since panning is potentially more than one finger
then I think we should talk about how that works with
touch-action
Spec seems to assume touch-action will only have one touch
point
need to think about multiple touch points too
Would like to understand IE's behaviour
JR: for IE, behavior depends on other gestures
if add pinch/zoom, can support multiple fingers
f.ex. if panning
don't think of panning and zooming as separate gestures
whether or not there are multiple fingers is an artifact
Not sure how to be more specific for action model
Tried to be gesture-agnostic
RB: what about touch-action auto and none
if have auto on a and none on b
and then touch both a and be elements
scribe: .what is done
JR: in Rick's case, depends on which gestures the UA supports
the gestures that are triggered depend on the UA
RB: what if 1 finger is pan x
and another finger is pan y
saying only panning is allowed
JR: so want to say only pan x
RB: if browser implements nothing more than what we supply
can the UA just support what the spec states
JR: not sure how to do that without compromising other things
in the spec
could have diff combos of fingers
RB: re scope, could say t-a model looks at all possible
intersection and says that's the way it works
<rbyers> Would it be in scope, for example, if we wanted to say
that the touch-action processing model was as follows:
<rbyers> look at the touch-action under each active touch point
and use the intersection to determine what action is permitted
<rbyers> i.e. we're not really comparing pointers at all, just
using multiple touch-action values
JR: I think we could describe something like that
but not sure if it solves the fundamental problem
of not understanding IE's behavior
If have one element that has a rule to pan-x
now if have 2 fingers
is pan in x direction allowed
for some browsers, 2 finger pan-x works
RB: I think we'll have different behavior for same gestures
for the purposes of this group, are we saying that anything
with more than 1 finger is out of scope?
JR: if I take a broad understanding of the group's scope, then
yes, I agree
<jrossi> [17]http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/
[17] http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/
(anything beyond one finger is out of scope)
<jrossi> "Gestures. Examples of out-of-scope gesture
functionality and APIs include, but are not limited to, the
following: Comparisons between pointers to determine an action
(e.g., panning for scrollable regions, pinch for zooming,
press-and-hold for a mouse right-click)."
RB: ok, I can understand that
I do need to think more about what this means
f.ex. need to gather some data
JR: think most content will be for auto
think we'll get good interop without being more specific
The more advanced cases will require a broader scope
RB: pinch is a common scenario
everyone will need to do it
AB: yes, we do need to consider the scope (and there could be
some IP concerns)
touch-action hit testing
AB: Rick started this thread on November 14
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013OctDec/0055.html
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0055.html
RB: the algorithm as written today is misleading
t-a proc model needs to be more specific
especially as hit testing is related to CSS
JR: there is no spec that defines hit testing
thus the general definition
There have been some efforts to define it
RB: CSS Object Model touches on this
JR: but that just defines the IDL
RB: without defining how it works, can we say @@
JR: think we can add some text about block elements
RB: yes, think we need some clarifications re block elements
JR: think that can be done as an informative note
RB: that would be fine with me
need to define "touched element" or at least clarify it
f.ex. has the following properties ...
Don't want surprises
JR: agree need some clarifications
and eventually define 'hit testing'
<AutomatedTester> ArtB: I raised
[19]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23825 re hit
testing in CSSOM
[19] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23825
RB: I can propose some text
JR: I can propose some text via the list
RB: some of testing led to this topic getting released
AB: RESOLUTION: multi-finger: we will not define additional
behavior for multiple fingers because of scope concerns
... any objections?
RESOLUTION: multi-finger: we will not define additional
behavior for multiple fingers because of scope concerns
AB: RESOLUTION: hit testing: Jacob will draft proposed Note to
clarify details of hit testing is out of scope, we will clarify
properties UA's must adhere to for hit testing
RB: change "we" to "and"
RESOLUTION: hit testing: Jacob will draft proposed Note to
clarify details of hit testing is out of scope, and we will
clarify properties UA's must adhere to for hit testing
Bug 22890
AB: bug 22890 was filed by Olli on Augus6 6 "It is not clear
why navigator.pointerEnabled is needed"
[20]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22890
[20] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22890
JR: we talked about this issue before
not necessary from a technical view
concerned about removing this for compat reasons
If we want to mark this "At Risk", we would have to go back
to LC->CR
we wouldn't remove it from our impl
at least not initially
we could remove it from our docs
A question is what the group wants to do about it
I think this would be the only substantive change to the spec
RB: if we were going to make this change, then we should
consider other substantive changes like hit testing
JR: I think the hit testing change could be done with out a
substantive normative change
but the new text would need to be testable
RB: I don't have a strong opinion
if left in the spec and FF and Blink don't implement it, what
are consequences
If no one else implements it, we can't get out of CR
JR: I'm comfortable with making this change
if we need to go back to LC/CR, we could try to scope the
review to just changes since the last LC/CR
that helps preventing a bunch of new comments
RB: makes sense
<rbyers> sorry, trying to address the noise
AB: if we make any substantive changes, we will need to go back
to LC/CR
my recommendation is to first complete the test suite and get
2 impls before going to LC/CR
AB: another option is to get the Impl Report done before LC#2
and then we can skip CR and go right to Proposed
Recommendation after the 3-week LC review period is complete
AV: what is the minimum LC review period?
AB: 3 weeks
... do we have a resolution for bug 22890 that we want to fix
this bug?
RB: yes, I think we need to do this to get 2 impls to pass the
tests
AV: yeah, I agree
RB: if we remove it, think we will get to REC faster
AV: yes, I think that is true
<rbyers> note that the impls may still someday add this API for
compat with IE, but only if substantial compat testing showed
it was necessary - so if we wanted to count on that it would
probably delay getting to REC...
think we should focus on Testing and Impl and the process
steps will then follow
AB: RESOLUTION: agree that navigator.pointerEnable should be
removed from the spec
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: agree that navigator.pointerEnable should be
removed from the spec
Status of PR324 updates
AB: what's the status of processing PR324 comments?
[21]https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324
[21] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324
AV: we are reviewing comments
I don't have a ETA
but we are working on them
RB: if you want to give me feedback on my comments, please let
me know
not clear how much value there is for comments during the
test case review
AV: if we have any issues, we'll let you know
comments are always welcome
Need touch-action tests
AB: since the draft agenda was posted, Jacob announced
Microsoft added some touch-action tests to PR324
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013OctDec/0059.html. The new commit is
[23]https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/comm
it/886568a445cded3b5aa01f0c8befb48e0534fed6
... it appears there are several new tests
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0059.html.
[23] https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/commit/886568a445cded3b5aa01f0c8befb48e0534fed6
this is excellent
RB: yes, this is good
AV: you should be able to use them Rick
if you have feedback, please let me know
RB: I can review them
AB: if anyone else wants to review them, that would be great
CC: I'll review them
AB: great
RB: as I'm working on our impl of touch-action, I will do
testing
would like to share them with the group
but probably need to keep the blink tests separated
AV: I'll assign actions to Rick and Cathy
<scribe> ACTION: Rick review touch-action tests [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Review touch-action tests [on
Rick Byers - due 2013-11-26].
<scribe> ACTION: Cathy review touch-action tests [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Review touch-action tests [on
Cathy Chan - due 2013-11-26].
Gaps in coverage
AB: we still have some gaps in
[26]http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions
[26] http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions
<rbyers> eg. if anyone is curious, here's a simple touch-action
test case I'm landing in blink:
www.rbyers.net/touch-action-simple.html
AV: not sure if Jacob update the wiki yet
<scribe> ACTION: Jacob update the TestAssertion wiki re
touch-action tests [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update the testassertion wiki re
touch-action tests [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-11-26].
AV: there are 17 test assertions without tests
we are working on them
some time soon expect to contribute our tests
We have 3-4 that need some discussions
AB: ok, that sounds great
are some assertions not clear?
AV: for some, it's not clear how to test the assertion
AB: please do followup on the list
CR implementation updates
AB: any new progress on implementations?
RB: I've been making progress on touch-action
<rbyers> Implement simple touch-action support in blinki on the
main thread:
[28]https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=316735
[28] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=316735
Driving for basic touch-action impl behind a flag by
mid-December
this work uncovered some design issues
AB: IE11 is now available on Win 7 and up?
AV: yes
re FireFox, we reported a while ago about a FF patch
Rick has been part of the discussion thread
I don't have a firm ETA
other than there is some progress
AoB
AB: are there any other topics for today?
AV: when will we meet again?
AB: good Q
I'll ping Sangwhan
AV: we need to make progress on the test suite
AB: I agree
we may have next week, depending on topics and availability
AV: Rick is out next week and me too
AB: no meeting on Nov 26
so next potential meeting is Dec 3
AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Cathy review touch-action tests [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion02]
[NEW] ACTION: Jacob update the TestAssertion wiki re
touch-action tests [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion03]
[NEW] ACTION: Rick review touch-action tests [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 17:20:44 UTC