IRC log of pointerevents on 2013-07-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:01:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:01:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:01:22 [Zakim]
15:01:23 [smaug]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
15:01:23 [Zakim]
+Olli_Pettay; got it
15:01:33 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
15:01:38 [smaug]
Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
15:01:38 [Zakim]
ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
15:01:44 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
15:01:44 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
15:01:44 [ArtB]
15:01:44 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
15:01:44 [ArtB]
Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:01:50 [Zakim]
15:01:52 [mbrubeck]
Zakim, I am Matt_Brubeck
15:01:52 [Zakim]
ok, mbrubeck, I now associate you with Matt_Brubeck
15:02:30 [Zakim]
15:02:43 [ArtB]
Present: Art_Barstow, Matt_Brubeck, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu, Cathy_Chan, Olli_Pettay
15:03:03 [asir]
asir has joined #pointerevents
15:03:23 [ArtB]
Present+ Scott_González
15:03:29 [ArtB]
Regrets: Rick_Byers
15:03:48 [ArtB]
Topic: Tweak agenda
15:03:54 [ArtB]
AB: Welcome back everyone ;-)!
15:04:16 [jrossi]
Congrats, Cathy!
15:04:27 [ArtB]
AB: I published a draft agenda yesterday Any change requests?
15:04:46 [Cathy]
Cathy has joined #pointerevents
15:05:07 [ArtB]
[ No change requests for the agenda ]
15:05:16 [Zakim]
15:05:16 [ArtB]
Topic: CR implementation status
15:05:26 [ArtB]
Present+ Doug_Schepers
15:05:34 [ArtB]
AB: let's talk about CR implementation status.
15:05:45 [ArtB]
AB: Rick submitted an update re Blink/Chrome
15:06:33 [ArtB]
AB: Rick says a few weeks for touch-actions
15:06:48 [ArtB]
JR: and Rick said a few months before the impl is complete
15:07:23 [ArtB]
AS: the "few months" from Rick was about the touch-action-delay
15:07:46 [ArtB]
MB: re Firefox, a Microsoft person (?) submitted a Gecko patch
15:07:47 [mbrubeck]
Microsoft contributed patches to Gecko, currently being reviewed:
15:07:48 [mbrubeck]
15:07:50 [ArtB]
… still a WIP
15:08:08 [ArtB]
OP: that is in my review queue
15:08:32 [ArtB]
… that patch was about the PE events and not the CSS property
15:08:42 [ArtB]
… but I expect that person to implement that too
15:08:59 [mbrubeck]
The contributor, Oleg Romashin ("romaxa") is a long-time Firefox developer.
15:09:02 [jrossi]
Oleg Romashin <>
15:09:24 [ArtB]
AB: thanks Matt and Olli
15:09:44 [ArtB]
OP: I think there needs to be some work on mouse and pointer events interaction
15:09:55 [Zakim]
15:09:56 [ArtB]
… we need some tests to work on that
15:10:03 [ArtB]
… Oleg is working on that
15:10:19 [ArtB]
MB: Wes Johnson is interested in doing some work too
15:10:26 [ArtB]
… he mentioned that to Oleg
15:10:31 [sangwhan]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
15:10:31 [Zakim]
+sangwhan; got it
15:10:52 [ArtB]
AB: is there a timeframe for FF/Gecko?
15:10:54 [ArtB]
MB: no
15:11:11 [ArtB]
OP: no, events stuff is "easy" but the CSS property is not
15:11:22 [ArtB]
Present+ Sangwhan_Moon
15:11:47 [ArtB]
AB: Scott, any news from jQuery?
15:12:25 [ArtB]
SG: working on Polymer. The goal is to use Polymer and not our own implementation
15:12:52 [sangwhan]
Opera 14+ is a ditto of Rick's status update
15:12:58 [ArtB]
AB: Jacob, Asir, what about IE?
15:13:08 [ArtB]
JR: we release IE11 Preview a few weeks ago
15:13:26 [ArtB]
… it includes updated MSPointerEvents
15:13:34 [ArtB]
… it is still member-prefixed
15:13:47 [ArtB]
… We will ship IE 11 without prefixes
15:14:02 [ArtB]
… we will announce this on our blog later this week
15:14:11 [ArtB]
… We think the compat hit will be minimal
15:14:36 [ArtB]
AB: when can we expect that to hit the street?
15:14:46 [ArtB]
JR: we don't have an announced date
15:14:57 [ArtB]
… other than we expect IE11 to be in Windows 8.1
15:15:38 [ArtB]
AB: thanks Jacob
15:15:41 [jrossi]
Windows 8.1 will be available before the end of the calendar year
15:16:00 [ArtB]
JR: one thing to note is that now we don't expect to build support for the constructor
15:16:18 [ArtB]
… we need to do that across the board
15:16:24 [ArtB]
… not clear if that will be in IE11
15:17:01 [ArtB]
DS: that's not a problem per se from the standarization PoV, but if that constructor is in the spec, we will need 2 impls that do support the constructor
15:17:07 [ArtB]
… Will we get that?
15:17:20 [ArtB]
JR: think it will be supported by Blink and WebKit
15:17:26 [mbrubeck]
15:17:32 [ArtB]
OP: I expect us to support it in Gecko
15:17:39 [ArtB]
DS: ok, thanks
15:18:52 [ArtB]
AB: Sangwhan, what about Opera?
15:19:11 [ArtB]
SM: our impl will depend on Rick (Chromium's) work
15:19:32 [ArtB]
… Opera's Presto - it seems unlikely we will add PE support
15:19:49 [ArtB]
… unless there becomes lots of content that use it and we have an interop problem
15:20:31 [ArtB]
AS: so Opera's work depends on Chromium?
15:20:34 [ArtB]
SM: yes
15:20:47 [ArtB]
AS: what about Presto?
15:20:50 [sangwhan]
Bottom line is Opera's work now depends on Chromium
15:21:16 [sangwhan]
As the rendering engine is now using Blink starting from Opera (Mobile) 14+
15:21:38 [Zakim]
15:21:45 [sangwhan]
Nothing else from Opera
15:21:53 [ArtB]
AB: any news about Polymer?
15:22:22 [ArtB]
SG: one place is a deviation is the touch-action attribute
15:22:30 [ArtB]
… they've done a lot of work to remove it
15:22:36 [ArtB]
… not sure where that stands now
15:22:43 [scott_gonzalez]
15:23:01 [ArtB]
JR: Rick mentioned Polymer in his status report
15:23:02 [Zakim]
15:23:29 [ArtB]
AB: anything about WebKit?
15:23:30 [sangwhan]
Zakim, ??P27 is me
15:23:30 [Zakim]
+sangwhan; got it
15:23:51 [ArtB]
… as I understand it, Microsoft submitted a patch for WebKit. Is that true?
15:23:58 [ArtB]
AS: our patches are all online
15:24:07 [ArtB]
… I don't have any new info
15:24:23 [ArtB]
AB: any other impl data to share?
15:24:38 [ArtB]
Topic: Test Suite status
15:24:46 [ArtB]
AB: the general topic is what needs to be done to make the test suite sufficient to test an implementation of the CR.
15:25:00 [asir]
s/what about Presto?/what did you say about Presto? Because I could not hear the full summary/
15:25:01 [ArtB]
AB: and, more specifically, I think it would be useful if we had an understanding about Who is going to do What and by When.
15:25:13 [ArtB]
AB: Matt proposed an overall testing process in and earlier today I codified quite a bit of that in
15:26:32 [ArtB]
AB: let's start with an inventory
15:26:46 [ArtB]
... We have Scott's pointerdown file as "approved" so it is now mirrored and thus can be run directly in a browser via
15:27:33 [ArtB]
AB: Last April, there were some TTWF submissions and they are not in the pointerevents repo
15:27:56 [ArtB]
AB: how do we get review on those submissions
15:28:55 [ArtB]
SM: those are put in new repos, they are not PRs
15:29:11 [ArtB]
MB: correct, they were created before we had the pointerevents repo
15:29:21 [ArtB]
SG: I can ask Dave to make a PR to the new repo
15:29:43 [scott_gonzalez]
15:29:46 [ArtB]
AB: that would be great; then we need PRs for the other submissions
15:30:21 [ArtB]
SG: I think Dave needs to do a merge and then after that is done to make a PR for the pointerevents repo
15:31:01 [ArtB]
ACTION: scott follow up with Dave to get a PR from the April TTWF to the pointerevents repo
15:31:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-44 - Follow up with Dave to get a PR from the April TTWF to the pointerevents repo [on Scott González - due 2013-08-06].
15:31:10 [ArtB]
SM: please let me know when that PR is made
15:31:12 [ArtB]
15:32:58 [ArtB]
AB: re notifications, I think it would be useful for people to send an email to the list after they submit a PR
15:33:36 [ArtB]
AB: do we need to chase the other submitters or is Dave doing that?
15:33:52 [ArtB]
SG: Dave's PR will include a merge of the other submissions
15:34:31 [ArtB]
AB: one of the next Qs is about coverage/breath and then depth
15:34:40 [mbrubeck]
sangwhan: Where/who should I ask for write access to that repo?
15:34:52 [ArtB]
… wrt coverage, the Test Assertion table is a good way to get a handle on that
15:35:02 [ArtB]
AB: Cathy, is the Test Assertions table complete?
15:35:10 [jrossi]
mbrubeck: Mike Smith gave me my write access
15:35:27 [ArtB]
CC: there could be a couple of sections that still need some work
15:35:33 [sangwhan]
mbrubeck: Tobie/Mike/Robin
15:35:34 [ArtB]
… f.ex. the CSS property
15:35:42 [ArtB]
… other than that, I think I'm done
15:36:50 [ArtB]
AB: so one Q is if the TAs are sufficient to qualify an impl re the CR
15:37:02 [ArtB]
JR: I think we now have sufficient breadth
15:37:13 [ArtB]
… the feature coverage seems adequate
15:37:20 [ArtB]
… The depth Q is different
15:37:25 [ArtB]
… I would need to do a path
15:37:32 [ArtB]
… but I think what we have is pretty good
15:37:35 [jrossi]
15:37:40 [ArtB]
… Microsoft will contribute some tests
15:37:50 [ArtB]
… I need to prep then and create a PR
15:37:57 [ArtB]
… and that will cover more assertions
15:38:40 [ArtB]
SM: re TouchEvents, there is some variability when running them, hope we can do better with PointerEvents
15:39:09 [ArtB]
SG: agree we should be more clear here, especially why some tests are not run
15:39:52 [ArtB]
… we need to describe what we expect to happen and then what actually happens
15:40:32 [scott_gonzalez]
If possible, we should generate a failing test if we can detect that a block of event assertions never ran.
15:40:43 [ArtB]
AB: Jacob, when can we expect those tests?
15:40:50 [ArtB]
JR: within the next two weeks.
15:40:53 [scott_gonzalez]
But we may not be able to reliably determine that based on differing pointer types.
15:41:22 [scott_gonzalez]
At a minimum, we should have a short description of what we expected to happen so the tester can easily determine if all assertions have run.
15:41:32 [ArtB]
AB: thanks Jacob
15:41:44 [ArtB]
… can you think of any features that you don't test?
15:41:56 [ArtB]
JR: not sure but perhaps the touch-action property
15:42:27 [ArtB]
… I will update the wiki with our tests and that will help with understanding which features we have coverage
15:42:47 [ArtB]
SG: the Test Status data isn't particuarly useful
15:42:55 [ArtB]
… they need to be changed to more useful status
15:43:01 [ArtB]
… like "Approved"
15:43:12 [ArtB]
AB: +1 Scott!
15:43:47 [ArtB]
AS: re approval, is there a way they can approved in August?
15:43:59 [ArtB]
SG: all of the tests, or those with PRs
15:44:09 [ArtB]
AS: I mean all of the coverage we need
15:44:34 [ArtB]
SG: I don't think I will be able to review everything by August
15:45:00 [ArtB]
… based on history, not sure we will have all of the tests by August
15:46:03 [ArtB]
AB: the minimum req is to have at least one person review each test
15:46:15 [ArtB]
… and we should certaily strive to do better than that
15:46:28 [ArtB]
… and avoid the "fox guarding the chicken coop"
15:47:04 [ArtB]
AS: reviewing tests can be really useful, especially for the implementers
15:48:41 [ArtB]
SM: how do we handle duplicates?
15:48:55 [ArtB]
SG: for Dave's PR, we will take care of that
15:49:09 [ArtB]
… unless a test Seattle is more comprehensive
15:49:32 [ArtB]
SM: looking at the IE tests, they could be covered by Seattle tests
15:49:41 [ArtB]
… who is going to take care of duplicates
15:50:41 [ArtB]
JR: it could be helpful to review our submissions versus the Seattle tests
15:50:58 [ArtB]
… I think it's OK for PRs to include dups
15:51:15 [ArtB]
… and then we remove the dups before being merged to master
15:51:41 [ArtB]
SG: perhaps it would be best if Dave waits until Microsoft submits its tests
15:52:23 [ArtB]
… if the Seattle tests overlap IE, Dave could just ignore the Seattle tests
15:52:56 [ArtB]
AB: so Scott will ask Dave to block until Jacob submits his tests. Is this correct?
15:52:58 [ArtB]
SG: yes
15:53:23 [ArtB]
AB: so I think we have a good plan then
15:53:50 [ArtB]
… and Jacob is going to update the TA table re the Microsoft tests
15:54:07 [jrossi]
Yes, Cathy's table was a big help!
15:54:12 [asir]
15:54:21 [ArtB]
AB: the TA table is really great Cathy
15:54:28 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on testing for today?
15:54:31 [ArtB]
[ No ]
15:54:35 [ArtB]
Topic: AoB
15:54:42 [ArtB]
AB: anything else for today?
15:54:47 [ArtB]
AS: when is the next call?
15:56:00 [ArtB]
AB: is the current process working?
15:56:14 [ArtB]
AS: let's meet after Jacob submits his tests
15:56:26 [ArtB]
AB: that sounds like a good working assumption
15:56:46 [ArtB]
AB: is the current meeting frequency working OK?
15:56:52 [ArtB]
DS: I'd leave it to you Art
15:57:08 [asir]
15:57:17 [ArtB]
AB: ok, we'll continue along the way we are going
15:58:29 [ArtB]
DS: I went to OSCON last week in PDX, PointerEvents was a topic
15:58:49 [ArtB]
… and there is an upcoming conf with Jacob on a PE panel
15:59:04 [ArtB]
s/upcoming conf/HTML DevConf/
15:59:38 [jrossi]
15:59:43 [Zakim]
15:59:44 [Zakim]
15:59:46 [Zakim]
15:59:46 [ArtB]
AB: meeting adjourned
15:59:46 [Zakim]
15:59:47 [Zakim]
15:59:51 [Zakim]
15:59:52 [Zakim]
16:00:01 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:00:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:00:02 [Zakim]
- +1.717.578.aaaa
16:00:03 [Zakim]
RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
16:00:03 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.717.578.aaaa, [Microsoft], Matt_Brubeck, Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, Cathy, Doug_Schepers, sangwhan, asir
16:02:56 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
16:02:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pointerevents
16:08:25 [smaug]
smaug has joined #pointerevents