Pointer Events WG Voice Conference -- 07 May 2013

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<jrossi2> Art: I'm muted hang on...

Getting started

AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0138.html.
... 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?

[ none ]

AB: any other change requests?

[ none ]

Developers confuse the original MS PE submission for the current spec

AB: Rick Byers started this thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0118.html
... I believe Doug agreed to work with Jacob to take care of this. Is that correct Doug?

JR: the action is on me to provide an updated doc via Michael Champion

… one open question is can we update the existing Submission or not

… and just add a link to the group's spec

<scribe> ACTION: jacob work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE Member Submission [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE Member Submission [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-05-14].

Tracking Comments during Candidate Recommendation

AB: since the time we agreed to publish a CR, a few comments have been submitted and we should consider them CR comments.
... regardless of the state of the spec, the group is always obligated to reply all comments.

… and we've done a great job of that already

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.

JR: I think it would be helpful to be more diligent on Issues

… helpful to look at issues and Bugzilla

… nice to look at the issues that were raised

AB: so, do we want to create a bug if the spec changes as a result of a comment?

JR: yes

AV: if we create a CR target on Bugzilla, it make it easy to target bugs against the CR

AB: do we need to create some type of label?

AV: there is a field for tracking docs

… perhaps Doug know about how to do that with Bugzilla?

DS: I haven't used it for that purpose

JR: I think we need to add versions

<scribe> ACTION: barstow get a "CR" version created for the Pointer Events CR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Get a "CR" version created for the Pointer Events CR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-05-14].

DRAFT RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that result in spec changes

AB: any comments on that Draft?

RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that result in spec changes

AB: anything else re admin tasks for CR, Doug?

DS: no, I don't think so

… we need to do Impl Report and Tests and we already know about that

… we haven't marked anything "At Risk"

… we've already talked about v2

… so I think things our "pretty standard"

JR: that all sounds right

pointermove dispatching when button state changes

AB: Scott started this thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0134.html and Jacob replied http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0141.html.

SG: seems unclear there is no move when a button is clicked

JR: yeah, I think the sentence in ptrmove is ambiguous

… need to take care of the case where there is no up or down event

SG: should we just add a sentence that adds the exception?

JR: yes

SG: if move cause down, need to clarify

JR: yes, I can make that change

AB: so, you'll create a bug for this Jacob?

JR: yes, I'll do that

MSPointer implementation only dispatches mousemove when hovering

AB: Scott started this thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0135.html
... it appears to identify a bug in IE

JR: yes, it's a bug

… we still fire the hover event

… expect to align with the spec

SG: agree, we don't need to discuss here

AB: any need for spec tightening?

SG: no, I don't think so

… I was looking for clarification (they have a hover event which is not in the spec)

Testing

AB: CfC to move tests to GitHub https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/pointerevents passed.

SG: I have a question about the GH repo

… there is a PR from Nokia

<jrossi2> regarding pointermove and property changes: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951

… not sure about the status of that

… What is the process for review, merge, etc.?

… Not sure how this PR is handled?

AB: those are all good questions Scott

… we need to define our workflow

… including, who is going to do what

… would like to hear from Matt

MB: I need to do some homework

… re W3C's GH repo

… I can read up on that

… I expect submissions are PRs

… comments can be made on the list or in the PRs

JR: work with MikeSmith and Robin re permissions

… I think you want to get setup with perms

MB: yes, I'll do that

SG: with Hg, there was submissions

… and with GH, that doesn't appear to be used

JR: with GH, branches are used instead of submissions

SG: so, there is no submissions directory on GH

JR: yes, I think so but Matt can help us figure this out

AV: after someone submits, there should be some review but approval

… need to separate WG's workflow from GH's workflow

SG: I agree, PRs can serve as submissions

<mbrubeck> +1

<asir> where PR = Pull Request

AB: need to figure out how to watch for just pointerevents changes

SG: don't think that can be done directly with GH

… will get notifications for all PRs to webplatform-tests

AB: here is Rebecca's doc http://testthewebforward.org/resources/github_test_submission.html

… WebApps and HTML WGs will use as a guide

… and we should use it too unless we really have some specific constraints or reqs

AB: Asir mentioned we want to agree on review and approval process

AV: this doc has a section on Submit that mentions specific WG processes

JR: this doc doesn't really address how the WG does its reviews and approvals

… that is left to the WG to define

AV: yes, that is correct

JR: the undefined steps are accepting the PR and merging into the master

… we can define that ourselves

… but we should learn from what other groups are doing

AB: that makes perfect sense to me

JR: Matt, can you take an action on this?

<scribe> ACTION: matt make a proposal re how to accept Pull Requests and merge them to the master [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]

<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].

AB: one thing I wanted to mention is ATT tests http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-testtwf/2013May/0000.html

… and I think DaveM from jQuery has done some work too

AB: Scott will you submit a PR for your HG submission?

SG: yes, I'll do that

… and I'll work with DaveM to get his PR to pointerevents repo

AB: anything else on testing?

JR: I don't see AT&T listed as a WG member

… do they need to be a member of the group to submit tests?

DS: there are various ways to handle this

… indeed being a WG member is easiest

… but anyone can submit a test

JR: oh, yeah, there is form for that right?

DS: yes

JR: I recall TTWF participants had to sign that form

AB: ok, so we should be fine then

JR: yes, I think so

Any other Business

AB: Director approved the publication of a Pointer Events Candidate Recommendation and that CR should be published on May 9

<asir> Congratulations to the WG!!

AB: F2F meeting @ TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, China Nov 11-15? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0128.html. I've heard some support. Any comments, feedback, concerns, etc.?

AV: if we were to meet, what would we do?

… re the agenda and goal?

AB: good question

AV: I think it would be good to meet

… but not sure we want to wait until November

… e.g. get together for interop and testing work

DS: we could meet in China e.g. to discuss things about v2

AB: I don't feel strongly either way

AV: so if this is about securing a spot, maybe we can think about this as tentative

DS: yes, there is a bit of that

AB: based on what I know now, I don't think we will have a need to meet

DS: if we think we will need to talk to other groups, then meeting at TPAC can be useful

… and do we anticipate that need 6 months from now?

… groups that we depend on or groups that depend on us

… There is some serendipity that happens too at TPAC

… The Web Events is one group

… but we can contact them other ways

… The Indie UI WG is another potential group

… and I don't know about the usefulness of meeting with them

… Another reason to meet is if we can discuss topics with people f2f

… e.g. manufactures of touch devices

DS: so I leave it up to the group

AV: are such mfgs members of W3C?

DS: not sure but some type of "expo day" could be useful

… and we could do that via a presentation e.g. @ TPAC slot

AB: I propose we don't meet and take advantage of the TP meeting to do a demo about the PE spec

MB: sounds good to me

AV: sounds good to me too

JR: sounds reasonable; it's just too far in advance

SG: it's hard to say if there will be a good reason to meet

… but six months out is too far away

JR: and as Doug said, if we find a need to meet earlier, we can do so

AV: yes, good idea

RESOLUTION: the Pointer Events WG will not meet f2f at the TPAC 2013

AB: any implementation news or status?

<jrossi2> New polyfill: http://rich-harris.github.io/Points/

AB: re next meeting, we'll have a call when there are sufficient topics

… Meeting Adjourned

, bye

shepazu - yt? RRSAgent is updating the minutes

- DRAFT -

Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

07 May 2013

Attendees

Contents