IRC log of pointerevents on 2013-06-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:58 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents

14:59:58 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-irc

15:00:09 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

15:00:09 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

15:00:09 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0164.html

15:00:09 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

15:00:09 [ArtB]

Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

15:00:16 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make log Public

15:00:22 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

15:00:22 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB

15:00:45 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

15:01:05 [smaug]

Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay

15:01:05 [Zakim]

+Olli_Pettay; got it

15:01:12 [ArtB]

Present+ Olli_Pettay

15:01:18 [Zakim]

+ +1.519.513.aaaa

15:01:21 [smaug]

Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay

15:01:21 [Zakim]

ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay

15:01:28 [rbyers]

Zakim, aaaa is me

15:01:28 [Zakim]

+rbyers; got it

15:01:40 [ArtB]

Present+ Rick_Byers

15:02:23 [Zakim]

+[Microsoft]

15:02:43 [ArtB]

Present+ Asir_Vedamuthu

15:04:18 [Zakim]

+scott_gonzalez

15:04:32 [ArtB]

Present+ Scott_Gonzalez

15:04:45 [ArtB]

Topic: Tweak agenda

15:04:53 [ArtB]

AB: I posted a draft agenda last Friday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0164.html. Any change requests?

15:05:31 [ArtB]

AB: would someone please scribe today's call? I think most of the topics are going to be relatively quick.

15:05:33 [asir]

asir has joined #pointerevents

15:05:48 [ArtB]

Topic: Bug 21951

15:06:13 [ArtB]

AB: Bug 21951 is labeled "CR" and titled "pointermove dispatching when button state changes"; https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951

15:06:21 [ArtB]

AB: based on the text of the bug, it appears this will require a short clarification so probably nothing we need to discus but wanted to verify that.

15:06:48 [ArtB]

RB: yes, I think it is just a minor clarification

15:06:54 [ArtB]

… that Jacob can handle

15:07:01 [ArtB]

AV: yes, agree it is a clarification

15:07:14 [ArtB]

Topic: Answers to questions in new points.js polyfill

15:07:24 [ArtB]

AB: we have a thread about points.js and some other related libs and polyfills http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0148.html. It's good to see the interest

15:07:33 [ArtB]

AB: is there anything we need to discuss today or any followup actions?

15:08:00 [ArtB]

RB: I think I owe Rich a reply

15:08:09 [ArtB]

… we had a good discussion re tradeoffs

15:08:26 [ArtB]

… I think we have consensus on how to tradeoff performance on in/out semantics

15:08:35 [ArtB]

… preventDefault will be tricky, though

15:08:46 [ArtB]

… I need to think and experiment on that

15:09:01 [ArtB]

… I've had some other discussions about how we can test this

15:09:13 [ArtB]

… and trying to have one polyfill we can recommend

15:09:22 [ArtB]

… we should have design discussions on the list

15:09:33 [ArtB]

… I think implementers are ready to start hacking on this

15:09:43 [ArtB]

AV: yes, need to continue discussions

15:09:55 [ArtB]

… not sure if there are any issues that need WG attention

15:10:01 [ArtB]

… I don't think so

15:10:08 [ArtB]

RB: agree no WG attention needed

15:10:24 [ArtB]

… we need to get a high fidelity polyfilll

15:10:33 [ArtB]

… but I don't think we need any spec changes

15:10:52 [ArtB]

AV: ok, good; I haven't seen any issues that require spec changes

15:11:05 [ArtB]

RB: we could add some non-normative notes to the spec

15:11:19 [ArtB]

… it is good for the group to participate in the tradeoffs

15:11:28 [ArtB]

… and we should continue those on the list

15:11:37 [ArtB]

SG: jQuery is working on a polyfill

15:11:43 [ArtB]

… we'd rather not have to do so

15:11:53 [ArtB]

… but something is needed e.g. old IE

15:12:26 [ArtB]

… we have been working with MS Open Tech

15:12:41 [smaug]

(it can't be really polyfill, given that old IEs don't even have DOM events)

15:13:03 [ArtB]

… of all the events to polyfill, this is one of the hardest

15:13:13 [ArtB]

… hope we don't get random inconsistencies

15:13:30 [ArtB]

RB: shouldn't need jQuery specific parts for the polyfill

15:13:42 [ArtB]

SG: would prefer to just recommend something else

15:13:47 [ArtB]

… (and not create our own)

15:13:57 [ArtB]

… If we write our own, it will be jQuery specific

15:14:12 [ArtB]

RB: may be possible to work with other polyfills

15:14:18 [ArtB]

… e.g. Polymer

15:14:30 [ArtB]

… the Polymer pollyfill is separable

15:14:45 [ArtB]

… not aware of any technical issues why it couldn't support old IE

15:15:07 [ArtB]

… I'm sure they would appreciate help, if it doesn't create any perf issues

15:15:16 [ArtB]

… I could talke to Daniel Freedman

15:15:24 [ArtB]

SG: we've talked to him

15:15:41 [ArtB]

… the discussion kinda' died

15:15:56 [ArtB]

RB: I can help here, talking to Daniel

15:16:14 [ArtB]

… tough to invest when testing is hard

15:16:37 [ArtB]

AV: Scott, how did it go when you talked to MS Open Tech people

15:16:52 [ArtB]

SG: the conclusion was to create jQuery specific

15:16:59 [ArtB]

… ? hand.js ?

15:17:22 [ArtB]

AV: I can followup too

15:17:57 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make Minutes

15:17:57 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB

15:18:05 [asir]

You got the name right

15:19:38 [ArtB]

RB: is there a good addEventListener for old IE?

15:19:43 [ArtB]

SG: I'm not aware of any

15:20:00 [ArtB]

… not aware of a good polyfill for addEvListener for old IE

15:20:21 [ArtB]

AV: what version is "old IE"

15:20:28 [ArtB]

SG: jQuery UI is IE 7

15:21:07 [ArtB]

RB: so that could add significant complexity to polymer to go way back with IE

15:21:57 [ArtB]

… wondering about how far back the polyfills need to go

15:22:11 [ArtB]

SG: want to eventually stop using mouse events completely

15:22:30 [ArtB]

RB: in the short term, there will be some tradeoffs

15:22:44 [ArtB]

… going to be hard to polyfill everything and get good performance

15:23:04 [ArtB]

SG: two sides: people trying to use PE directly; people that are still using mouse events

15:23:15 [ArtB]

… want to get people to stop writing to mouse events

15:23:34 [ArtB]

RB: polyfill could have a switch re use PE or not

15:23:45 [rbyers]

s/use PE/use touch events/

15:24:44 [ArtB]

SG: things like preventDefault and touch-action will be tricky

15:24:56 [ArtB]

RB: ok, I'll reach out to the Polymer guys

15:25:15 [ArtB]

… worst case is we must have a separate IE6 polyfill

15:25:32 [ArtB]

… if we need that, we should work with MS Open Tech

15:25:35 [ArtB]

AV: yes, agree

15:25:48 [ArtB]

Topic: An update on the Chrome team's stance on implementing pointer events in Chrome

15:25:59 [ArtB]

AB: Rick provided an update re Chrome's PE implementation

15:25:59 [ArtB]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0155.html

15:26:06 [ArtB]

AB: there is also the video Rick and Boris Smus gave at G-IO <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DujfpXOKUp8>.

15:26:55 [ArtB]

RB: we will need touch-action or something like

15:27:05 [ArtB]

… it is probably the hardest part of PE

15:27:18 [ArtB]

… want to get it working with TouchEvents (TE)

15:27:28 [ArtB]

… would make polyfills easier

15:27:38 [ArtB]

… I have a design doc for Chrome

15:27:58 [ArtB]

… ATM, I see this as experimental

15:28:12 [ArtB]

… May need a new property for compatibility with TE

15:28:38 [ArtB]

… I landed one CL and another is in progress (touch-action)

15:28:52 [ArtB]

… I think we have a couple of months ahead

15:29:01 [ArtB]

… before we can turn this on by default

15:29:22 [ArtB]

… I talked to Matt about our design and he thinks it is reasonable and applicable for FireFox

15:29:46 [ArtB]

… I reached out to Safari people and have to followup with them

15:29:58 [ArtB]

… Talking to Scott at MS Open Tech

15:30:09 [ArtB]

… Slow progress but it's moving forward

15:30:55 [ArtB]

Topic: Justification for the touch-action processing model

15:31:01 [ArtB]

AB: this topic has a couple of threads, one is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0163.html.

15:31:08 [ArtB]

AB: there is also a thread titled "Is touch-action implicitly applied to any elements?" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0156.html

15:31:31 [rbyers]

By the way, to follow Chrome's touch-action support, follow crbug.com/241964

15:31:48 [ArtB]

AB: do we discuss now or keep discussions on the list?

15:31:56 [ArtB]

RB: I think using the list is fine

15:32:16 [ArtB]

… I've been getting Qs and I'm passing them on to the list

15:32:25 [ArtB]

AV: I think Jacob replied

15:32:32 [ArtB]

RB: he did and then I had a followup

15:32:52 [ArtB]

… I'm not arguing for a change but more trying to understand the "Whys" of the processing model

15:33:33 [ArtB]

… If/when I get a Q like "why is this so different than everything else?", I'd like to have some background and context to reply

15:34:11 [rbyers]

... In particular, making sure my reasons for why I like the design as it is are consistent with the original design goals...

15:34:17 [ArtB]

AB: please continue the discussion on the list [Art notes Jacob wasn't on the call]

15:34:27 [ArtB]

Topic: Testing: status and plans;

15:34:36 [ArtB]

AB: yesterday, Matt proposed a submission and approval process http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0167.html and there has been quit

15:34:57 [ArtB]

… quite a bit of followup on the list

15:35:02 [ArtB]

AB: he also indicated he is willing to move tests from hg into the GitHub PE directory https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/pointerevents

15:35:15 [ArtB]

… and that's good

15:35:20 [ArtB]

AB: there a few sub-issues here ...

15:35:28 [ArtB]

AB: one is, do we create our own repo or re-use the .../w3c/web-platform-tests/?

15:35:53 [ArtB]

SG: my comments were more about W3C policy

15:36:04 [ArtB]

… I think we should just follow the W3C policy

15:36:21 [ArtB]

… my comments were those driving W3C testing effort

15:36:28 [ArtB]

AB: ok, thanks for that clarification

15:37:37 [ArtB]

AB: another is how to manage the "notification hell"

15:37:58 [ArtB]

… and since, Tobie replied and is gathering requirements on how to address that

15:38:38 [ArtB]

AB: we definitely need a solution to that issue

15:38:54 [ArtB]

AV: do we need a separate mailing list for testing?

15:38:57 [ArtB]

AB: good Q

15:39:23 [ArtB]

… my feel now is not yet

15:39:40 [ArtB]

AV: I would expect the set of tests to not be as large as other groups

15:39:53 [ArtB]

AB: I agree with your expectation

15:40:22 [ArtB]

AB: any comments on Matt's proposal?

15:40:29 [ArtB]

AV: I want to thank Matt!

15:40:54 [ArtB]

… Matt asked about using the list to signal reviews

15:41:07 [ArtB]

… I like the idea to make that email mandatory

15:41:19 [ArtB]

… Re fixing/updating tests, how is that done?

15:41:26 [ArtB]

… I would expect a PR to be made

15:41:34 [ArtB]

… just like a submission

15:41:46 [ArtB]

OP: yes, agree

15:42:05 [ArtB]

AV: so need to be clear that test updates need to go through the same process

15:42:20 [ArtB]

… there front page is missing some information

15:42:33 [ArtB]

… e.g. copyrights, obligations, etc.

15:43:15 [ArtB]

AB: agree the update process should use the same mechanics as submissions

15:43:34 [ArtB]

… and if there is some missing documentation in the home page, then yes, we need to fix that

15:44:55 [ArtB]

… if have general OWP questions, issues, feedback, send to public-infr-test

15:45:09 [ArtB]

AV: I want to talk to my team about Matt's proposal

15:45:13 [ArtB]

AB: ok, sounds good

15:45:25 [ArtB]

AV: I think we all need to make a commitment to review the tests

15:45:33 [ArtB]

AB: yes, I definitely agree with that

15:45:48 [ArtB]

… and it's up to us to define the review and approval process

15:46:14 [ArtB]

AV: Matt suggested #2 be mandatory i.e. to notify the group of all submissions and ask for reviews

15:46:51 [ArtB]

AB: I agree we should use the list for explicit "call for reviews" of test cases

15:47:26 [ArtB]

AB: anything else on testing for today?

15:47:55 [ArtB]

AB: Scott, did you volunteer to help Matt manage the PE tests?

15:47:59 [ArtB]

SG: sure

15:48:06 [ArtB]

AB: OK, thanks Scott

15:48:13 [ArtB]

Topic: Any other Business

15:48:20 [ArtB]

AB: any new Implementation status to share?

15:48:32 [chaals]

chaals has joined #pointerevents

15:48:57 [ArtB]

OP: I need to talk to @@@ to get implementation status

15:49:13 [smaug]

s/@@@/romaxa/

15:50:05 [ArtB]

RB: Olli - if romaxa has feedback on my design doc, that would be great

15:50:27 [ArtB]

… could make sense for FF to implement touch-action first, independent of PE spec

15:50:45 [ArtB]

… that could facilitate a pollyfill experience

15:53:11 [ArtB]

AB: anything else for today?

15:54:08 [ArtB]

AB: so we'll have the next call when we have sufficient topics

15:54:17 [ArtB]

… If you see a need for a call let me know

15:54:35 [Zakim]

-Olli_Pettay

15:54:37 [Zakim]

-Art_Barstow

15:54:38 [Zakim]

-rbyers

15:54:40 [ArtB]

AB: meeting adjourned

15:54:40 [Zakim]

-scott_gonzalez

15:54:46 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

15:54:46 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB

15:55:07 [ArtB]

Present+ Art_Barstow

15:55:12 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

15:55:12 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB

16:05:01 [Zakim]

disconnecting the lone participant, [Microsoft], in RWC_PEWG()11:00AM

16:05:02 [Zakim]

RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended

16:05:02 [Zakim]

Attendees were Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, +1.519.513.aaaa, rbyers, [Microsoft], scott_gonzalez

16:23:16 [mbrubeck]

d'oh, sorry I missed the call. :(

16:26:00 [mbrubeck]

reading the minutes...

16:26:14 [mbrubeck]

Thanks for the offer of help scott_gonzalez and sorry for my slow reaction time.

16:33:32 [scott_gonzalez]

mbrubeck: no problem

16:34:41 [ArtB]

zakim, bye

16:34:41 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #pointerevents

16:34:45 [ArtB]

rrsagent, bye

16:34:45 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items