Pointer Events WG Voice Conference -- 27 Nov 2012

<ArtB> Scribe: Art

<ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB

Date: 27 November 2012

Scribe

<rbyers> Zakin, ??P2 is rbyers

AB: we need a scribe. The basic instructions are in our Meeting wiki <http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/Meetings>

RB: I can do so

Scribe+ Rick_Byers

<scribe> ScribeNick: rbyers

<scribe> Scribe: Rick_Byers

Tweaking the agenda

All: no changes to agenda

Introductions

Art: Represents Nokia and was chair of WebEvents.
... Interested in having a single touch API for the web
... Also our chair

Doug: I'm the W3C staff contact.
... Also interesting in having a touch model that is fairly universally supported

<ArtB> Rick: I am a sw engineer at Google focusing on Chrome desktop

<ArtB> … want people to be able to create touch based apps

<ArtB> … we think PE provides a good path forward

Peter: also software engineer at Google
... same reasons as google

Asir: From Microsoft
... Interested in getting pointer events used everywhere

Matt: Work at Mozilla, worked previously on firefox for Android
... Now working on Firefox for Windows 8
... Was one if the editors of touch events spec

Cathy: From nokia
... also want a unified touch model

Scott: project lead for jQuery UI
... don't want to work with touch events because they have a different structure than mouse events
... want to build a wrapper around mouse and touch to bring pointer support to browsers that don't have it

group dynamics

ArtB: Peter is Peter Beverloo

Art: Same basic model as touch events
... key differences: will use bugzilla for bugs
... and will have a separate scribe
... if something isn't recorded correctly in meeting minutes, it's everyone's responsibility to ensure they're corrected
... will use tracker for action tracking - mostly for Doug/Art to keep track of administrative tasks
... didn't want to spend time on more procedural stuff
... unless there are questions?

Doug: want to make it clear we are not dealing with gestures here
... gestures are a legitimate interest, but we can talk about it in another context.

Use cases and requirements

<ArtB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2012OctDec/0028.html

Art: having requirements and use cases documented really does simplify how we focus
... eg. what we should focus on in v1 vs. future version
... Is someone willing to commit to leading this effort?

<ArtB> ACTION: barstow Create a UC and Reqs document for PE spec and look contributions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/27-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Create a UC and Reqs document for PE spec and look contributions [on Arthur Barstow - due 2012-12-04].

testing

Art: usually a mistake to consider testing as an after thought
... will use testharness.js
... used by many other working groups
... Expectation is that everyone will contribute to the testing effort
... It may not be the most glamourous but it's essential
... Do recommend 12 people active in the testing effort
... Would be helpful to have someone commit to being the group's test facilitator
... Anyone willing to step up?

Matt: I can take it on

Matt rocks

the spec itself

<ArtB> —> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html

Art: we've had a few bugs / issues on the list
... but bugzilla was just created so we need to create bugs for them
... everyone on the list should feel free to create bugs at any time
... specifically: francois issue on pressure, Rick's issue on mouseenter/leave, Rick's issue on touch event mapping

Jacob: appreciate great feedback on the list so far
... still catching up on e-mail from the past week
... mouseenter/leave - probably ALL mouse events should be optional
... model we'd like to push for in the future is that authors write only to pointer events
... also was an issue with a section that got dropped

Rick: was it intentional that there was no pointer enter / leave?

Jacob: are important, believe we should add it
... really just didn't have time to get to them in IE10
... welcome addition to the spec from my perspective

Art: process going forward:
... use bugzilla to handle issues, and
... continue to discuss on list

<ArtB> ACTION: Jacob create issues for the initial comments for the PE spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/27-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Create issues for the initial comments for the PE spec [on Jacob Rossi - due 2012-12-04].

Jacob: most interesting conversation so far is about pressure
... but would personally like to do some research first

Rick: do we want to talk about touch event mapping here?

<ArtB> —> Mapping e-mail from Rick http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2012OctDec/0047.html

Matt: haven't had a chance to do experimenting yet

Jacob: would like touch-event mapping section to be non-normative
... or optional

Art: Agree documentation should be written, but we need to be careful about how we document the mapping
... could define mapping in the context of the web events working group
... could have PE working group define it in non-normative way, eg. with a note in pe spec or separate document

Doug: there is no process here, if issues arise we'll deal with them

Jacob: may be better to do in the context of web events - so someone coming across the touch events spec sees that there's a newer model...

Rick: will commit to writing it up

Art: will work with you on getting it in the right place / format

<asir> I mentioned that this can be in a separate non-normative doc on the Working Group Note track

Rick: only concern is that we may need to tweak pointer event spec slightly to allow behavior that dopesn't break touch events

Jacob: agree is worth accomodating in the PE spec

asir: feel free to open issues
... first milestone is public draft in December

Art: there was a change, actually first milestone is January

Asir: looking for editors?

Art: Jacob is currently editor. If members of the group make "relatively substantial contributions" then that would provide an option to become a co-editor
... with respect to first public working draft, that's a WG decision on when we want to make that
... window of opportunity to get one this month is closing rapidly

Jacob: what are people's thoughts on what's missing for first draft?

Art: from process perspective: looking for breadth of feature set
... signal to members that when making IP commitments, spec is at state that it can be reviewed for potential IP concerns members may have
... but no expectation that first draft will have depth

Doug: would be really valuable to have spec out as soon as possible

Rick: eg. if we wanted to expand touch-action list to include more of the things in IE10, is that something we should try to get in the first draft?

Asir: could be as issues listed in the spec

Doug: first public working draft carries patent and royalty-free license commitment
... the more we have in there, the stronger the signal is that all members agree...

Art: first draft is by no means a feature freeze
... that's the last call draft
... ideal to touch all features in first draft, but doesn't have to
... should get potential features into bugzilla

Jacob: always easier to add to spec then to remove
... so prefer tracking in bugzilla

<ArtB> ACTION: jacob add a link to Bugzilla in the Status of this Document section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/27-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Add a link to Bugzilla in the Status of this Document section [on Jacob Rossi - due 2012-12-04].

Rick: ok to file issues for feature wish list, even if unlikely for v1?

Jacob: yes please - hard to track down later

<ArtB> ACTION: barstow work with Doug and Rick re how to document TouchEvents / PointerEvents Mapping [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/27-pointerevents-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Work with Doug and Rick re how to document TouchEvents / PointerEvents Mapping [on Arthur Barstow - due 2012-12-04].

Doug: feel free to file lots of issues even without discussion on list
... but may be a good idea to send e-mail to the list with a summary

Asir: if changes are made in bugzilla are notifications sent out?

Art: when issues are created, notification goes to list
... at that point people should add themselves as cc if they are interested in seeing updates
... when bug is closed, e-mail goes out to list again

<scribe> ACTION: barstow find out how to auto-cc specific people or list on all bug updates [on Arthur Barstow - due 2012-12-04] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/27-pointerevents-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - find out how to auto-cc specific people or list on all bug updates [on Arthur Barstow [on Arthur Barstow - due 1970-01-01].

Art: any other comments on the spec for today?

Rick/Asir/Jacob: supportive of publishing as soon as possible with link to list of open issues

Art: ok, next call we'll propose publishing first draft in December

AoB

Art: we will have a call next week
... proposal to publish first public working draft
... any other topics from the list will be on the agenda

Same time next tuesday

asir: maybe just a missing _ in your case?

(names can't have spaces I believe)

<asir> i see

<mbrubeck> heh

heh

- DRAFT -

Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

27 Nov 2012

Attendees

Contents