15:00:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:00:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/01-pointerevents-irc
15:00:42 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
15:00:53 <scott_gonzalez> Zakim, aaaa is me
15:00:53 <Zakim> +scott_gonzalez; got it
15:00:54 <Zakim> +Matt_Brubeck
15:01:34 <Zakim> + +1.519.513.aabb
15:01:37 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
15:01:43 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
15:01:53 <rbyers> Zakim, who is here?
15:01:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], Art_Barstow, scott_gonzalez, Matt_Brubeck, +1.519.513.aabb
15:01:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, jrossi2, slightlyoff_, sangwhan, ArtB, AutomatedTester, mbrubeck, shepazu, scott_gonzalez, trackbot, rbyers
15:01:58 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0048.html
15:02:01 <Cathy> Cathy has joined #pointerevents
15:02:03 <ArtB> Chair: Art
15:02:09 <ArtB> Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:02:31 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
15:02:45 <Zakim> +Cathy
15:02:55 <ArtB> Present: Art_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Scott_González, Matt_Brubeck, Asir_Vedamuthu, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers
15:03:11 <rbyers> can anyone see this?  IRC seems to be acting up...
15:03:20 <sangwhan> rbyers: I can see your messages
15:03:50 <ArtB> Present+ Sangwhan_Moon(IRC_only)
15:04:00 <ArtB> Topic: Tweak agenda
15:04:05 <ArtB> AB: I posted a Draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0048.html. Any change requests?
15:04:07 <Cathy> Present+ Cathy_Chan
15:04:11 <rbyers> rbyers has joined #pointerevents
15:04:19 <sangwhan> Present+ Sangwhan_Moon
15:04:20 <ArtB> AB: after the Draft agenda was submitted, a question was asked re the relationship between the PE spec's pointerType and EMMA spec http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0050.html. We can add this to the end of meeting provided we have time or reply on the list.
15:04:28 <Asir> Asir has joined #pointerevents
15:05:04 <ArtB> AB: any preference?
15:05:21 <ArtB> JR: I'd like to read it before discussing
15:05:27 <ArtB> RB: same here
15:05:44 <ArtB> JR: your suggestion Art probably makes sense
15:05:51 <jrossi> http://www.w3.org/TR/emma11/
15:06:01 <ArtB> … I'm not sure of the impl status
15:06:04 <ArtB> AB: good question
15:06:36 <ArtB> … pointerType ref is new in EMMA 1.1 (does not occur in the EMMA 1.0 REC)
15:06:46 <ArtB> … ok, so let's leave that for the list
15:07:07 <ArtB> RB: should we pay attention to this spec?
15:07:15 <ArtB> … or is it orthoganal
15:07:20 <ArtB> JR: I don't have any context
15:07:26 <ArtB> AV: same with me
15:07:30 <ArtB> AB: same here
15:07:45 <ArtB> JR: it could overlap with PE
15:08:03 <ArtB> JR: not sure if they use an event model like PE does
15:08:34 <ArtB> AB: please everyone read up on this EMMA vs PE question
15:08:44 <ArtB> Topic: CR implementation status
15:08:49 <ArtB> AB: any new news re implementations of the Pointer Events CR?
15:09:07 <ArtB> RB: re Chrome
15:09:16 <ArtB> … no big `landings`
15:09:28 <ArtB> … still need to re-architect gestures
15:09:35 <ArtB> … think we have consensus
15:09:58 <ArtB> … still need to `prove in code`
15:10:04 <ArtB> … it's a big job
15:10:18 <ArtB> … within a few weeks think we can land an impl of touch-action
15:10:35 <ArtB> AV: can you give any dates?
15:10:42 <ArtB> RB: depends on the reviewers
15:10:53 <ArtB> … my best guess is on the order of  "3 weeks"
15:11:09 <ArtB> … Without this change, would have interop problems
15:11:29 <ArtB> … so we are being careful here re interop
15:12:04 <ArtB> AV: do you think you'll be ready for testing by end of October?
15:12:20 <ArtB> RB: that's probably pushing it
15:12:33 <ArtB> … probably won't be feature complete re touch-action by end of October
15:13:11 <rbyers> Bug to follow progress on chromium event flow re-architecture necessary for touch-action: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=294239
15:13:22 <ArtB> MB: in Gecko, still have some Mozilla people + Msft Open Tech working on impl
15:13:33 <ArtB> … for touch-action still mostly talking about design
15:13:42 <ArtB> … we don't have any dates for completion yet
15:13:59 <ArtB> AB: is Rob O'Callahan part of the discussion?
15:14:01 <ArtB> MB: yes
15:14:27 <ArtB> Topic: Test Suite status and plans
15:14:33 <ArtB> AB: Matt submitted some comments re Microsoft's tests PR324 https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324.
15:14:42 <mbrubeck> On a side note, I'm working on a Firefox feature that would be much easier to build if we had touch-action implemented already: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=915328
15:14:43 <ArtB> AB: a few of us (me, Matt, Cathy, Rick) agreed to review the tests based on a division by Matt.
15:14:47 <rbyers_> rbyers_ has joined #pointerevents
15:15:07 <rbyers_> Zakim, who is here?
15:15:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], Art_Barstow, scott_gonzalez, Matt_Brubeck, +1.519.513.aabb, [Microsoft.a], Cathy
15:15:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see rbyers_, Asir, rbyers, Cathy, RRSAgent, Zakim, jrossi, slightlyoff_, sangwhan, ArtB, AutomatedTester, mbrubeck, shepazu, scott_gonzalez, trackbot
15:15:14 <rbyers_> Zakim, aabb is me
15:15:14 <Zakim> +rbyers_; got it
15:15:17 <mbrubeck> issue 45?
15:15:19 <ArtB> MB: I added the split/division to Tracker
15:15:23 <mbrubeck> issue 45
15:15:26 <ArtB> AB: ah, ok, good
15:15:33 <ArtB> action-45?
15:15:33 <trackbot> action-45 -- Matt Brubeck to Divide up msft's tests for review by rick, cathy, art and matt -- due 2013-09-17 -- CLOSED
15:15:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45
15:16:00 <ArtB> AB: my status  is that the PE review was trumped by a commitment to review Web IDL tests
15:16:03 <ArtB> … but that is done
15:16:12 <ArtB> … so I will Q up PE review next
15:16:23 <ArtB> RB: I just started looking
15:16:31 <ArtB> … I have some questions about the process
15:16:41 <ArtB> … As we review, should we run them?
15:16:50 <ArtB> … i.e. to test the tests or just review
15:17:00 <ArtB> … Would love to test with Polymer or something
15:17:20 <ArtB> … I'd feel more comfortable if I can run the test
15:17:26 <ArtB> MB: yes, I agree need to run them
15:17:31 <ArtB> AB: I agree
15:17:44 <ArtB> AV: can run with Polymer and Chrom
15:18:51 <ArtB> JR: if wait until Oct 18, IE11 on Windows 8.1 will be available
15:20:08 <ArtB> … expect banners to "get Windows 8.1 for free"
15:20:27 <ArtB> RB: should people then wait until Oct 18 to test?
15:20:41 <ArtB> JR: check my e-mail; notes IE11 preview for Windows 7
15:21:04 <Zakim> -Matt_Brubeck
15:21:32 <Zakim> +Matt_Brubeck
15:22:04 <ArtB> JR: the tests we submitted were run against IE for Windows 8.1
15:22:11 <ArtB> AV: are there other submissions?
15:22:36 <ArtB> AB: yes and Scott is blocking on the review of Microsoft's tests is complete
15:22:41 <ArtB> SG: yes, that's true
15:23:11 <ArtB> CC: I'll try to test them on Windows 7 and IE11 Preview
15:23:19 <ArtB> … what about Windows Phone?
15:23:28 <ArtB> … what can we expect there?
15:23:46 <ArtB> JR: Windows Phone has the prefixed version of PE
15:24:32 <ArtB> MB: the TestTWF tests, what are we doing with them?
15:24:45 <ArtB> SG: Dave and I will meet in two weeks and go work on this
15:24:47 <ArtB> MB: thanks
15:25:11 <ArtB> AB: if you can help with any reviews, please do so
15:25:24 <ArtB> Topic: touch-action comment by ROC
15:25:32 <ArtB> AB: Mozilla's Robert O'Callahan submitted a comment "touch-action on elements that aren't scrolled by their nearest scrollable element ancestor" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0047.html
15:26:00 <ArtB> AB: Matt clarified Rob is working on the Gecko implementation
15:26:23 <ArtB> JR: I think we can dig back to previous discussions with Tab and the CSS WG
15:26:40 <ArtB> … in the specific example, the behavior Rob describes is correct
15:26:50 <ArtB> … but not correct that it can't be prevented
15:27:03 <ArtB> … needs another touch-action rule to address this example
15:27:25 <ArtB> MB: can prevent on the inner most without affecting outter elements
15:27:49 <ArtB> … if touches on innner element never scrooll, touches on other elements should scroll
15:27:56 <ArtB> s/innner/inner/
15:28:20 <ArtB> AB: Jacob, would you please reply to Rob?
15:28:22 <ArtB> JR: sure
15:28:34 <ArtB> MB: discussed on a Mozilla list
15:28:53 <ArtB> … question about if the algorithm
15:29:23 <ArtB> RB: algorithm is defined in terms of the DOM
15:29:41 <ArtB> … is the behavior in IE just dependent on the DOM
15:29:52 <ArtB> … and cannot be changed by altering the CSS
15:29:56 <ArtB> JR: that's correct
15:30:30 <ArtB> RB: with respect to compat, I think we just want to follow what IE did (keeping all things equal)
15:30:51 <ArtB> MB: this came up in the context of scrollable rectangles
15:31:04 <ArtB> … we are fine with either behavior, just want to make it clear
15:31:08 <ArtB> … and documented
15:31:21 <ArtB> JR: we've been thinking about test cases for this scenario
15:31:28 <ArtB> RB: that would be great
15:31:41 <ArtB> … f.ex. "scroll here and X should happen"
15:32:20 <ArtB> ACTION: jacob Reply to Rob O'Callahan's e-mail re touch-action
15:32:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Reply to rob o'callahan's e-mail re touch-action [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-10-08].
15:32:34 <ArtB> Topic: AoB
15:33:20 <ArtB> AB: we have some test cases
15:33:43 <ArtB> RB: I think we still need test cases, especially for touch-action
15:33:53 <ArtB> … don't want people to think we are "in good shape"
15:34:17 <ArtB> AV: we have some touch-action tests that we will submit
15:34:19 <ArtB> AB: great
15:35:13 <ArtB> RB: would be interested in hearing from Scott re Polymer and jQuery
15:35:18 <ArtB> SG: still working on it
15:35:23 <ArtB> … it is complicated
15:35:46 <ArtB> … lots of layers
15:35:54 <ArtB> … and difficult to debug
15:36:08 <ArtB> … best we can do is to test some demos
15:36:19 <ArtB> … error reporting isn't very good
15:36:34 <ArtB> … need to think more on how to make progress
15:36:47 <ArtB> … may have to create a pollyfill for old IE
15:36:57 <ArtB> … (IE 6, 7)
15:37:37 <ArtB> … So far, only one place we had a problem polyfilling and that is the getter
15:38:04 <ArtB> RB: please feel free to create PRs for Polymer
15:38:32 <mbrubeck1> mbrubeck1 has joined #pointerevents
15:38:32 <ArtB> SG: hopefully we will soon have something to send
15:38:44 <ArtB> RB: ok, awesome, thanks for the update
15:38:57 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
15:39:03 <Zakim> -rbyers_
15:39:04 <Zakim> -scott_gonzalez
15:39:04 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:39:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/01-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
15:39:05 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
15:39:08 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
15:39:16 <Zakim> -Matt_Brubeck
15:39:21 <Zakim> -Cathy
15:39:46 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
15:39:48 <Zakim> RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
15:39:48 <Zakim> Attendees were [Microsoft], Art_Barstow, +1.717.578.aaaa, scott_gonzalez, Matt_Brubeck, +1.519.513.aabb, Cathy, rbyers_
15:39:55 <jrossi> jrossi has left #pointerevents
16:00:19 <ArtB> zakim, bye
16:00:19 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pointerevents
16:01:55 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
16:01:55 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/01-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
16:01:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jacob Reply to Rob O'Callahan's e-mail re touch-action [1]
16:01:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/01-pointerevents-irc#T15-32-20