IRC log of pointerevents on 2013-05-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:00:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:00:13 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
15:00:13 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
15:00:13 [ArtB]
15:00:13 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
15:00:13 [ArtB]
Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:00:23 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
15:00:28 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:00:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
15:00:55 [ArtB]
Regrets: Rick_Byers
15:01:13 [Zakim]
RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started
15:01:19 [Zakim]
15:01:29 [Zakim]
15:01:51 [jrossi2]
Art: I'm muted hang on...
15:02:23 [Zakim]
15:03:57 [ArtB]
Present: Art_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu
15:04:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.717.578.aaaa
15:04:23 [ArtB]
Present+ Scott_González
15:04:29 [scott_gonzalez]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:04:29 [Zakim]
+scott_gonzalez; got it
15:04:41 [Zakim]
15:04:50 [ArtB]
Present+ Matt_Brubeck
15:04:52 [Zakim]
15:05:00 [ArtB]
Present+ Doug_Schepers
15:05:21 [ArtB]
Topic: Getting started
15:05:26 [ArtB]
AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday
15:05:32 [ArtB]
AB: since Rick sent regrets for today, I propose we drop item #3 in the draft ("Impact of pointer capture on pointerover/pointerout events") and replace it with a short discussion about tracking comments during Candidate Recommendation. Any objections to that?
15:06:03 [ArtB]
[ none ]
15:06:04 [ArtB]
AB: any other change requests?
15:06:12 [ArtB]
[ none ]
15:06:19 [ArtB]
Topic: Developers confuse the original MS PE submission for the current spec
15:06:28 [ArtB]
AB: Rick Byers started this thread
15:06:34 [ArtB]
AB: I believe Doug agreed to work with Jacob to take care of this. Is that correct Doug?
15:07:01 [ArtB]
JR: the action is on me to provide an updated doc via Michael Champion
15:07:18 [ArtB]
… one open question is can we update the existing Submission or not
15:07:26 [ArtB]
… and just add a link to the group's spec
15:07:49 [ArtB]
ACTION: jacob work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE Member Submission
15:07:49 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-41 - Work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE Member Submission [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-05-14].
15:08:16 [ArtB]
Topic: Tracking Comments during Candidate Recommendation
15:08:22 [ArtB]
AB: since the time we agreed to publish a CR, a few comments have been submitted and we should consider them CR comments.
15:08:33 [ArtB]
AB: regardless of the state of the spec, the group is always obligated to reply all comments.
15:08:51 [ArtB]
… and we've done a great job of that already
15:08:58 [ArtB]
AB: during CR, I don't think we are _required_ to create a Disposition of Comments like we did for LC but we need to be diligent to address all comments, in some form.
15:09:32 [ArtB]
JR: I think it would be helpful to be more diligent on Issues
15:09:40 [asir]
asir has joined #pointerevents
15:09:46 [ArtB]
… helpful to look at issues and Bugzilla
15:09:54 [ArtB]
… nice to look at the issues that were raised
15:10:35 [ArtB]
AB: so, do we want to create a bug if the spec changes as a result of a comment?
15:10:39 [ArtB]
JR: yes
15:11:12 [ArtB]
AV: if we create a CR target on Mozilla, it make it easy to target bugs against the CR
15:11:30 [ArtB]
AB: do we need to create some type of label?
15:11:38 [ArtB]
AV: there is a field for tracking docs
15:11:48 [asir]
15:11:52 [ArtB]
… perhaps Doug know about how to do that with Mozilla?
15:12:04 [ArtB]
DS: I haven't used it for that purpose
15:12:05 [asir]
15:12:12 [ArtB]
JR: I think we need to add versions
15:12:31 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow get a "CR" version created for the Pointer Events CR
15:12:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-42 - Get a "CR" version created for the Pointer Events CR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-05-14].
15:13:12 [ArtB]
DRAFT RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that result in spec changes
15:13:21 [ArtB]
AB: any comments on that Draft?
15:13:27 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that result in spec changes
15:14:00 [ArtB]
AB: anything else re admin tasks for CR, Doug?
15:14:11 [ArtB]
DS: no, I don't think so
15:14:32 [ArtB]
… we need to do Impl Report and Tests and we already know about that
15:14:41 [ArtB]
… we haven't marked anything "At Risk"
15:14:48 [ArtB]
… we've already talked about v2
15:14:56 [ArtB]
… so I think things our "pretty standard"
15:15:14 [ArtB]
JR: that all sounds right
15:15:19 [ArtB]
Topic: pointermove dispatching when button state changes
15:15:29 [ArtB]
AB: Scott started this thread and Jacob replied
15:15:56 [ArtB]
SG: seems unclear there is no move when a button is clicked
15:16:11 [ArtB]
JR: yeah, I think the sentence in ptrmove is ambiguous
15:16:25 [ArtB]
… need to take care of the case where there is no up or down event
15:16:37 [ArtB]
SG: should we just add a sentence that adds the exception?
15:16:41 [ArtB]
JR: yes
15:16:58 [ArtB]
SG: if move cause down, need to clarify
15:17:04 [ArtB]
JR: yes, I can make that change
15:17:22 [ArtB]
AB: so, you'll create a bug for this Jacob?
15:17:26 [ArtB]
JR: yes, I'll do that
15:17:38 [ArtB]
Topic: MSPointer implementation only dispatches mousemove when hovering
15:17:43 [ArtB]
AB: Scott started this thread
15:18:07 [ArtB]
AB: it appears to identify a bug in IE
15:18:14 [ArtB]
JR: yes, it's a bug
15:18:41 [ArtB]
… we still fire the hover event
15:18:47 [ArtB]
… expect to align with the spec
15:18:55 [ArtB]
SG: agree, we don't need to discuss here
15:19:01 [asir]
zakim, [microsoft] is me
15:19:01 [Zakim]
+asir; got it
15:19:12 [ArtB]
AB: any need for spec tightening?
15:19:16 [ArtB]
SG: no, I don't think so
15:19:41 [ArtB]
… I was looking for clarification (they have a hover event which is not in the spec)
15:19:53 [ArtB]
Topic: Testing
15:20:00 [ArtB]
AB: CfC to move tests to GitHub passed.
15:20:30 [ArtB]
SG: I have a question about the GH repo
15:20:45 [ArtB]
… there is a PR from Nokia
15:20:46 [jrossi2]
regarding pointermove and property changes:
15:20:53 [ArtB]
… not sure about the status of that
15:21:16 [ArtB]
… What is the process for review, merge, etc.?
15:21:23 [ArtB]
… Not sure how this PR is handled?
15:21:51 [ArtB]
AB: those are all good questions Scott
15:21:59 [ArtB]
… we need to define our workflow
15:22:06 [ArtB]
… including, who is going to do what
15:22:34 [ArtB]
… would like to hear from Matt
15:22:42 [ArtB]
MB: I need to do some homework
15:22:47 [ArtB]
… re W3C's GH repo
15:22:55 [ArtB]
… I can read up on that
15:23:04 [asir]
15:23:04 [ArtB]
… I expect submissions are PRs
15:23:18 [ArtB]
… comments can be made on the list or in the PRs
15:23:30 [ArtB]
JR: work with MikeSmith and Robin re permissions
15:23:44 [ArtB]
… I think you want to get setup with perms
15:23:51 [ArtB]
MB: yes, I'll do that
15:24:00 [ArtB]
SG: with Hg, there was submissions
15:24:13 [ArtB]
… and with GH, that doesn't appear to be used
15:24:25 [ArtB]
JR: with GH, branches are used instead of submissions
15:24:43 [ArtB]
SG: so, there is no submissions directory on GH
15:24:56 [ArtB]
JR: yes, I think so but Matt can help us figure this out
15:25:14 [ArtB]
AV: after someone submits, there should be some review but approval
15:25:31 [ArtB]
… need to separate WG's workflow from GH's workflow
15:25:41 [ArtB]
SG: I agree, PRs can serve as submissions
15:25:44 [mbrubeck]
15:26:16 [asir]
where PR = Pull Request
15:27:40 [ArtB]
AB: need to figure out how to watch for just pointerevents changes
15:27:49 [ArtB]
SG: don't think that can be done directly with GH
15:28:04 [ArtB]
… will get notifications for all PRs to webplatform-tests
15:28:54 [ArtB]
AB: here is Rebecca's doc
15:29:12 [ArtB]
… WebApps and HTML WGs will use as a guide
15:29:27 [ArtB]
… and we should use it too unless we really have some specific constraints or reqs
15:30:11 [ArtB]
AB: Asir mentioned we want to agree on review and approval process
15:30:44 [ArtB]
AV: this doc has a section on Submit that mentions specific WG processes
15:31:12 [ArtB]
JR: this doc doesn't really address how the WG does its reviews and approvals
15:31:20 [ArtB]
… that is left to the WG to define
15:31:33 [ArtB]
AV: yes, that is correct
15:31:57 [ArtB]
JR: the undefined steps are accepting the PR and merging into the master
15:32:03 [ArtB]
… we can define that ourselves
15:32:16 [ArtB]
… but we should learn from what other groups are doing
15:32:23 [ArtB]
AB: that makes perfect sense to me
15:32:37 [ArtB]
JR: Matt, can you take an action on this?
15:33:05 [ArtB]
ACTION: matt make a proposal re how to accept Pull Requests and merge them to the master
15:33:05 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-43 - Make a proposal re how to accept Pull Requests and merge them to the master [on Matt Brubeck - due 2013-05-14].
15:33:35 [ArtB]
AB: one thing I wanted to mention is ATT tests
15:33:52 [ArtB]
… and I think DaveM from jQuery has done some work too
15:34:16 [ArtB]
AB: Scott will you submit a PR for your HG submission?
15:34:20 [ArtB]
SG: yes, I'll do that
15:34:37 [ArtB]
… and I'll work with DaveM to get his PR to pointerevents repo
15:34:56 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on testing?
15:35:09 [ArtB]
JR: I don't see AT&T listed as a WG member
15:35:23 [ArtB]
… do they need to be a member of the group to submit tests?
15:35:34 [ArtB]
DS: there are various ways to handle this
15:35:42 [ArtB]
… indeed being a WG member is easiest
15:35:48 [ArtB]
… but anyone can submit a test
15:35:59 [ArtB]
JR: oh, yeah, there is form for that right?
15:36:01 [ArtB]
DS: yes
15:36:18 [ArtB]
JR: I recall TTWF participants had to sign that form
15:36:27 [ArtB]
AB: ok, so we should be fine then
15:36:30 [ArtB]
JR: yes, I think so
15:36:47 [ArtB]
Topic: Any other Business
15:36:52 [ArtB]
AB: Director approved the publication of a Pointer Events Candidate Recommendation  and that CR should be published on May 9
15:37:37 [asir]
Congratulations to the WG!!
15:38:38 [ArtB]
AB: F2F meeting @ TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, China Nov 11-15? I've heard some support. Any comments, feedback, concerns, etc.?
15:39:44 [mbrubeck]
mbrubeck has joined #pointerevents
15:40:42 [ArtB]
AV: if we were to meet, what would we do?
15:40:53 [ArtB]
… re the agenda and goal?
15:40:59 [ArtB]
AB: good question
15:41:29 [ArtB]
AV: I think it would be good to meet
15:41:37 [ArtB]
… but not sure we want to wait until November
15:41:49 [ArtB]
… e.g. get together for interop and testing work
15:42:02 [ArtB]
DS: we could meet in China e.g. to discuss things about v2
15:43:14 [ArtB]
AB: I don't feel strongly either way
15:43:34 [ArtB]
AV: so if this is about securing a spot, maybe we can think about this as tentative
15:43:55 [ArtB]
DS: yes, there is a bit of that
15:44:21 [ArtB]
AB: based on what I know now, I don't think we will have a need to meet
15:44:44 [ArtB]
DS: if we think we will need to talk to other groups, then meeting at TPAC can be useful
15:45:01 [ArtB]
… and do we anticipate that need 6 months from now?
15:45:15 [ArtB]
… groups that we depend on or groups that depend on us
15:45:30 [ArtB]
… There is some serendipity that happens too at TPAC
15:45:40 [ArtB]
… The Web Events is one group
15:45:46 [ArtB]
… but we can contact them other ways
15:45:56 [ArtB]
… The Indie UI WG is another potential group
15:46:10 [ArtB]
… and I don't know about the usefulness of meeting with them
15:47:02 [ArtB]
… Another reason to meet is if we can discuss topics with people f2f
15:47:12 [ArtB]
… e.g. manufactures of touch devices
15:47:37 [ArtB]
DS: so I leave it up to the group
15:47:47 [ArtB]
AV: are such mfgs members of W3C?
15:48:04 [ArtB]
DS: not sure but some type of "expo day" could be useful
15:48:15 [ArtB]
… and we could do that via a presentation e.g. @ TPAC slot
15:49:26 [ArtB]
AB: I propose we don't meet and take advantage of the TP meeting to do a demo about the PE spec
15:49:30 [ArtB]
MB: sounds good to me
15:49:37 [ArtB]
AV: sounds good to me too
15:49:59 [ArtB]
JR: sounds reasonable; it's just too far in advance
15:50:15 [ArtB]
SG: it's hard to say if there will be a good reason to meet
15:50:27 [ArtB]
… but six months out is too far away
15:50:43 [ArtB]
JR: and as Doug said, if we find a need to meet earlier, we can do so
15:50:49 [ArtB]
AV: yes, good idea
15:51:11 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: the Pointer Events WG will not meet f2f at the TPAC 2013
15:51:26 [ArtB]
AB: any implementation new or status?
15:51:46 [ArtB]
s/new or/news or/
15:52:01 [jrossi2]
New polyfill:
15:53:30 [Zakim]
15:53:31 [Zakim]
15:53:31 [Zakim]
15:53:33 [Zakim]
15:53:44 [Zakim]
15:53:46 [Zakim]
15:53:47 [Zakim]
RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
15:53:47 [Zakim]
Attendees were Art_Barstow, +1.717.578.aaaa, scott_gonzalez, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, asir
16:06:14 [ArtB]
AB: re next meeting, we'll have a call when there are sufficient topics
16:06:22 [ArtB]
… Meeting Adjourned
16:06:27 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:06:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:09:52 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:09:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:10:49 [ArtB]
, bye
16:11:20 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
16:11:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pointerevents
16:12:19 [ArtB]
shepazu - yt? RRSAgent is updating the minutes
16:13:07 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
16:13:12 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:13:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:34:24 [abarsto]
abarsto has joined #pointerevents
16:35:54 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, log?
16:35:54 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'log'
16:36:03 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, help
16:36:37 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bookmark
16:36:37 [RRSAgent]
16:36:56 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:36:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
17:45:16 [chaals]
chaals has joined #pointerevents