IRC log of pointerevents on 2013-02-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:58:11 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:58:11 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:58:29 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
15:58:29 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
15:58:29 [ArtB]
15:58:29 [ArtB]
Date: 5 February 2013
15:58:29 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
15:58:29 [ArtB]
Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:58:37 [mbrubeck]
Good morning, Art.
15:59:27 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:59:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
15:59:33 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
15:59:58 [Zakim]
16:00:13 [Zakim]
16:00:19 [Zakim]
16:00:21 [Zakim]
16:00:35 [Zakim]
16:00:39 [Zakim]
16:01:18 [Zakim]
16:01:42 [Zakim]
16:02:14 [mbrubeck]
Zakim, jrossi2 is really Jacob_Rossi
16:02:14 [Zakim]
+Jacob_Rossi; got it
16:02:19 [ArtB]
Present: Art_Barstow, Scott_Gonzalez, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, Jacob_Rossi
16:02:24 [mbrubeck]
Zakim, nick jrossi2 is Jacob_Rossi
16:02:24 [Zakim]
ok, mbrubeck, I now associate jrossi2 with Jacob_Rossi
16:02:39 [Zakim]
16:02:41 [mbrubeck]
Zakim, I am Matt_Brubeck
16:02:41 [Zakim]
ok, mbrubeck, I now associate you with Matt_Brubeck
16:02:59 [ArtB]
Present+ Asir_Vedamuthu
16:03:04 [ArtB]
Regrets: Rick_Byers, Olli_Pettay
16:03:11 [ArtB]
Topic: Agenda
16:03:19 [ArtB]
AB: I posted a draft agenda a couple of days ago Since then there has been a relatively significant amount of activity on various agenda topics.
16:03:25 [ArtB]
AB: we could now try to sort out what needs to be dropped, changed, added; or, it could be more time efficient to just stick with the draft agenda and adjust it accordingly as we proceed.
16:03:38 [ArtB]
AB: we can also add a discussion about LC plans to the AoB section.
16:03:49 [ArtB]
AB: is that OK? Any other proposed additions
16:04:09 [ArtB]
JR: want to walk through some of my e-mails
16:04:14 [ArtB]
AB: sure, that's fine
16:04:43 [ArtB]
Topic: Making click/contextmenu use PointerEvent interface
16:04:48 [asir]
asir has joined #pointerevents
16:04:49 [ArtB]
AB: this topic was raised by Rick a few weeks ago and we talked about it last week
16:05:07 [ArtB]
AB: it appears we still need feedback from Rick so I propose we postpone this topic and I can assign an Action to  Rick to reply to this thread. OK?
16:05:43 [ArtB]
JR: I think that's fine
16:05:56 [ArtB]
… I raised this issue and if it takes some more time that's fine
16:06:07 [ArtB]
… I dont think it will require changes to PE spec
16:06:08 [Zakim]
16:06:17 [ArtB]
… but perhaps some spec in HTML and/or WebApps
16:06:31 [ArtB]
ACTION: Rick reply to the "Making click/contextmenu use PointerEvent interface" thread
16:06:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-18 - Reply to the "Making click/contextmenu use PointerEvent interface" thread [on Rick Byers - due 2013-02-12].
16:06:33 [Cathy]
Cathy has joined #pointerevents
16:06:41 [ArtB]
Topic: Mapping for devices that don't support hover and CSS :hover; bug 20222
16:06:47 [ArtB]
AB: the hover issue is documented in bug 20222 and Rick started a related thread
16:06:56 [Cathy]
Present+ Cathy_Chan
16:06:56 [ArtB]
AB: an issue is whether or not the current text regarding hover is overly restrictive (given hover's  usage `in the wild`). And there is also an issue about making sure v1 doesn't preclude us from doing
16:07:16 [ArtB]
… something about this in v2
16:07:22 [ArtB]
AB: we postponed this topic last week because Rick was not present. He followed up yesterday and then Jacob replied.
16:07:32 [ArtB]
AB: it appears the way forward is: a) to leave text as is for v1; and b) to add hover to the list of potential features for v2.
16:08:18 [ArtB]
JR: I stated the right approach on the list
16:08:31 [ArtB]
… think some experimentation is still needed here
16:08:38 [ArtB]
… want a general solution
16:08:53 [ArtB]
… Rick and I agree this is a tough problem to solve generally
16:09:08 [ArtB]
… and that doing something in v2 may be the right thing to do
16:09:23 [mbrubeck]
I also support punting any changes to v2.
16:09:29 [ArtB]
MB: I support leaving current text as is and potentially doing something in v2
16:09:32 [ArtB]
SG: agree
16:09:48 [ArtB]
DS: fine with that but it should be called out because it is an Accessiblity issue
16:09:51 [ArtB]
JR: that's fair
16:09:59 [ArtB]
… I can add a related note
16:10:20 [ArtB]
… identify the problem but note we don't have a solution
16:10:39 [ArtB]
… Hover has always been an a11y issue
16:11:19 [ArtB]
… It is worth noting PE doesn't fix nor this issue nor make it worse
16:11:39 [ArtB]
AB: so Jacob will add some non-normative text
16:11:52 [ArtB]
… and also close 20222
16:11:53 [Cathy]
s/fix nor/fix/
16:11:57 [ArtB]
… is that correct?
16:11:59 [ArtB]
JR: yes
16:12:07 [ArtB]
ACTION: Jacob close bug 20222 per the 5-Feb-2013 resolution
16:12:07 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-19 - Close bug 20222 per the 5-Feb-2013 resolution [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-02-12].
16:12:20 [ArtB]
ACTION: Jacob add some non-normative text for 20222
16:12:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-20 - Add some non-normative text for 20222 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-02-12].
16:12:32 [ArtB]
Topic: Transformed Pointer Coordinates?
16:12:41 [ArtB]
AB: Doug Schepers  started the conversation via Based on that discussion, Jacob opened a bug for the CSSOM View spec.
16:13:16 [ArtB]
AB: it appears there is nothing we need to do for the PE spec. Is that correct?
16:13:29 [ArtB]
DS: yes, that's correct
16:13:41 [ArtB]
… the result is that people have some ideas
16:13:56 [ArtB]
… they agree it is not a PE issue but an issue for CSSOM spec
16:14:11 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: the "Transformed Pointer Coordinates" issue will be addressed in other specs (not the Pointer Events spec)
16:14:25 [ArtB]
Topic: PE spec comments by Cathy
16:14:34 [ArtB]
AB: Cathy asked some question about the PE spec
16:14:41 [ArtB]
AB: Jacob replied yesterday He suggests two comments are mostly editorial and he added two new bugs:
16:14:47 [ArtB]
... 1.  "PREVENT MOUSE EVENT flag should be per pointer type"
16:14:56 [ArtB]
... 2.  "Pointercancel should also implicitly release capture"
16:15:25 [ArtB]
JR: this was good feedback
16:15:37 [ArtB]
… I can walk through them
16:15:53 [ArtB]
… #1 how many pointers can be the primary pointer at once
16:16:18 [ArtB]
… there can in theory be many devices
16:16:34 [ArtB]
… but in reality, don't see many devices used at once
16:17:11 [shepazu]
16:17:14 [ArtB]
… End up having mouse events fighting each other
16:17:27 [ArtB]
… We considered device arbitration
16:17:32 [ArtB]
… but we didn't go that route
16:18:37 [ArtB]
DS: if a game has a tablet and 2 people and each person has an input device - does this work?
16:18:41 [ArtB]
JR: absolutely
16:19:01 [ArtB]
… primary gives UA a rule for multitouch to determine which device wins
16:20:08 [ArtB]
DS: do you have some code to demonstrate this? If yes, that would be great to show during W3Conf
16:20:19 [ArtB]
JR: ok; I can look into that
16:21:04 [ArtB]
JR: if anyone has feedback on other scenarios like that, please send email
16:21:12 [ArtB]
JR: ok, Cathy's comment #2
16:22:02 [ArtB]
… the spec will need to be changed
16:22:17 [ArtB]
… it's a simple change
16:22:33 [ArtB]
… filed bug 20872
16:22:50 [ArtB]
16:23:30 [ArtB]
… I proposed changes in
16:23:46 [Cathy]
Looks fine to me.
16:23:47 [ArtB]
AB: any comments re Jacob's proposal for #2?
16:24:10 [ArtB]
JR: re Cathy's comment #3 ...
16:24:29 [ArtB]
… agree the text is a bit convoluted
16:24:35 [ArtB]
… I can clarify this text
16:24:54 [ArtB]
… I didn't open up a bug because the fix is relatively easy
16:25:03 [ArtB]
JR: re Cathy's comment #4
16:25:44 [ArtB]
… there is a scenario missing from the spec
16:25:55 [ArtB]
… for pointer cancel
16:26:23 [ArtB]
… I opened bug 20873 for that
16:26:45 [ArtB]
… will make a simple text change to fix this
16:26:52 [ArtB]
AB: sounds good to me
16:26:55 [asir]
Correct link is
16:26:56 [ArtB]
CC: yes, that's good
16:27:25 [ArtB]
Topic: Pointer events – active buttons state & pen devices
16:27:30 [ArtB]
AB: Tim Bannister asked about how PEs work with pen devices and buttons
16:27:35 [ArtB]
AB: Jacob replied yesterday
16:27:40 [ArtB]
AB: it appears this was mostly a request for clarification and that no spec change is needed. Is that correct?
16:27:58 [ArtB]
JR: yes
16:28:10 [ArtB]
… I haven't seen the behaviour Tim described
16:28:18 [ArtB]
… the button is just a modifier
16:28:31 [ArtB]
AB: any comments?
16:28:40 [ArtB]
… ok, then we consider that resolved
16:28:49 [ArtB]
Topic: Pointer Events Open Bugs
16:28:55 [ArtB]
AB: the only open bug we haven't talked about is 20109 that Jacob reopened yesterday
16:29:06 [ArtB]
... Jacob's comment
16:29:35 [ArtB]
JR: this is the mouse emulating pressure bug
16:30:09 [ArtB]
… we realize that in most pen apps, for max pressure for the pen correlates to greather than normal stroke width
16:30:22 [ArtB]
… half-pressure would be "normal" pressure
16:30:53 [ArtB]
… if use something like Msft Paint, a line is .5 pressure
16:31:01 [ArtB]
… We changed the spec about a month ago
16:31:11 [ArtB]
… changed from .5 to 1
16:31:35 [ArtB]
… Need to think about other properties e.g. tiltX, tiltY, width, height
16:31:58 [ArtB]
… Can leave it up to impls to decide
16:32:17 [ArtB]
… If we emulate one prop, we should emulate the other properties too
16:32:37 [ArtB]
… We are proposing : mouse should be .5 rather 1 for pressue
16:32:57 [ArtB]
… spec now use MAY for width and height and we think it should be SHOULD
16:33:33 [ArtB]
MB: if max should be twice default pressure but in Msft doc it's 1.5 times
16:33:55 [ArtB]
JR: the documentation is correct, I made an error in my e-mail
16:34:06 [ArtB]
MB: ok, thanks
16:34:34 [ArtB]
… I agree with the proposal to change this to SHOULD
16:34:43 [ArtB]
… we need consistency with the defaults
16:34:56 [ArtB]
… otherwise, get interop problems
16:35:14 [ArtB]
… so having consistent defaults is a good idea
16:35:21 [ArtB]
AB: any other comments
16:35:50 [mbrubeck]
Rationale: If developers test only in browsers with a default value, they might not realize their program has a divide-by-zero bug or other bugs, in browsers without a nonzero default.
16:36:19 [ArtB]
AB: so do we ask Jacob to change this now?
16:36:35 [ArtB]
JR: I can make the change and then ask Rick and Olli if they have any concerns
16:37:17 [ArtB]
ACTION: Jacob apply your proposed change to bug 20109 and ask the group for comments
16:37:17 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-21 - Apply your proposed change to bug 20109 and ask the group for comments [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-02-12].
16:37:49 [asir]
16:37:53 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on the spec before AoB
16:38:03 [ArtB]
JR: re touch-action
16:38:06 [asir]
You can find Rick's response
16:38:26 [ArtB]
… Rick replied and was OK with the proposal
16:39:32 [ArtB]
Topic: Any other Business
16:39:40 [ArtB]
AB: re LC, it appears we have 3 open bugs (20109, 20872 and 20873). If we still want to get a LC published on Feb 19, we should be in a position to discuss this transition during our Feb 12 call. That means we need proposed fixes for these bugs `real soon now`.
16:40:29 [ArtB]
AB: I think we are in pretty good shape
16:41:13 [ArtB]
AV: we are still waiting for Rick's input on the context menu issue
16:41:18 [ArtB]
AB: oh yes, good point
16:41:32 [ArtB]
DS: can someone make sure Rick knows that?
16:41:41 [ArtB]
AB: I already have an action to contact Rick
16:41:55 [ArtB]
DS: would be good to get the bugs fixed as soon as we can
16:42:01 [ArtB]
JR: yes, I'm on it
16:42:11 [ArtB]
AB: if you have any comments regarding the IndieUI: Events 1.0 FPWD, please send them to public-indie-ui-comments @
16:43:23 [ArtB]
AB: and news regarding implementations?
16:46:55 [ArtB]
AV: call next week?
16:47:07 [ArtB]
AB: yes, to record consensus to publish LC
16:47:19 [ArtB]
DS: re W3Conf ...
16:47:31 [asir]
16:47:35 [ArtB]
… if people have implementation info we can share, that would be good
16:49:21 [ArtB]
… would be good if JQuery would create a blog about their plans related to Pointer Events
16:49:34 [ArtB]
… then Jacob could mention that during his presentation
16:49:43 [ArtB]
… it would send a good message
16:50:01 [ArtB]
SG: yes, I'll talk to others in jQuery
16:53:29 [ArtB]
DS: are there any especially cool demos that Jacob could potentially use during his preso?
16:53:43 [ArtB]
JR: yes, proposals welcome [and slides ;-)]
16:54:11 [ArtB]
DS: think a two-player game would be nice
16:54:22 [mbrubeck]
Air hockey, e.g.
16:54:38 [ArtB]
JR: we worked with Atari on some games like pong and those games use pointer events
16:55:49 [ArtB]
AV: what about a call on Feb 19?
16:56:00 [ArtB]
AB: yes, that's fine with me
16:56:48 [Zakim]
16:56:49 [Zakim]
16:56:49 [Zakim]
16:56:51 [Zakim]
16:57:02 [Zakim]
16:57:05 [ArtB]
AB: so we will have a call next week if there is something to discuss other than a CfC to publish LC
16:57:30 [ArtB]
… if LC is the only topic, I will use email and a short review period - like 1 or 2 days
16:57:35 [Zakim]
16:57:46 [ArtB]
AB: meeting adjourned
16:57:50 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:57:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:59:31 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
16:59:31 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Art_Barstow, scott_gonzalez, Matt_Brubeck, [Microsoft], Doug_Schepers, Jacob_Rossi, Cathy
16:59:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pointerevents
17:17:01 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in :
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Rick reply to the "Making click/contextmenu use PointerEvent interface" thread [1]
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jacob close bug 20222 per the 5-Feb-2013 resolution [2]
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jacob add some non-normative text for 20222 [3]
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jacob apply your proposed change to bug 20109 and ask the group for comments [4]
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
recorded in