15:01:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:01:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-irc
15:01:23 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
15:01:35 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
15:01:35 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
15:01:35 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0014.html
15:01:35 <ArtB> Chair: Art
15:01:35 <ArtB> Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:01:36 <rbyers_> rbyers_ has joined #pointerevents
15:01:43 <Zakim> +??P22
15:01:50 <ArtB> Regrets: Doug_Schepers, Jacob_Rossi
15:02:00 <rbyers_> Zakim, who is here?
15:02:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see Matt_Brubeck, Scott_Gonzalez, Art_Barstow, [Microsoft], ??P22
15:02:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see rbyers_, RRSAgent, scott_gonzalez, smaug, Zakim, mbrubeck, shepazu, rbyers, AutomatedTester, ArtB, trackbot, slightlyoff, dfreedm, sangwhan
15:02:10 <Zakim> +Cathy
15:02:20 <rbyers_> Zakim, ??P22 is me
15:02:20 <asir> asir has joined #pointerevents
15:02:20 <Zakim> +rbyers_; got it
15:02:26 <Cathy> Cathy has joined #pointerevents
15:02:29 <rbyers_> Zakim, who is here?
15:02:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see Matt_Brubeck, Scott_Gonzalez, Art_Barstow, [Microsoft], rbyers_, Cathy
15:02:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see Cathy, asir, rbyers_, RRSAgent, scott_gonzalez, smaug, Zakim, mbrubeck, shepazu, rbyers, AutomatedTester, ArtB, trackbot, slightlyoff, dfreedm, sangwhan
15:02:33 <smaug> uhuh
15:02:38 <ArtB> Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Scott_González, Asir_Vedamuthu, Matt_Brubeck
15:02:50 <smaug> totally missed the fact that we have call
15:02:54 <ArtB> Topic: Tweak agenda
15:03:00 <ArtB> AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0014.html.
15:03:07 <rbyers_> Zakim, ??P22 is Rick_Byers
15:03:07 <Zakim> I already had ??P22 as rbyers_, rbyers_
15:03:13 <ArtB> Present+ Olli_Pettay
15:03:15 <ArtB> AB: since then, Sanghwan posted "Compatibility Events" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0018.html. Given this is a bit late for today's meeting, perhaps we should discuss this on the list and not add it to today's agenda.
15:03:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:56 <ArtB> AB: any objections to that?
15:03:57 <smaug> Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
15:03:57 <Zakim> +Olli_Pettay; got it
15:04:01 <ArtB> [ None ]
15:04:16 <ArtB> AB: so please followup Sangwhan's email on the list
15:04:18 <smaug> Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
15:04:19 <Zakim> ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
15:04:27 <ArtB> AB: any change requests for agenda?
15:04:49 <ArtB> RB: re Vivek's comment, I replied and don't think we need to discuss it
15:04:52 <ArtB> AV: I agree
15:05:06 <ArtB> AB: any objections to deleting that proposed agenda topic?
15:05:08 <ArtB> [ None ]
15:05:20 <ArtB> Topic: CR implementation updates
15:05:27 <ArtB> AB: any new information re implementations?
15:05:40 <ArtB> OP: no updates from me
15:05:55 <ArtB> RB: nothing new to talk about; still active
15:06:24 <ArtB> AV: do you want to talk about maxTouchPoints?
15:06:39 <ArtB> RB: we have a patch for Navigator.maxTouchPoints
15:06:48 <ArtB> … good to get this
15:06:54 <ArtB> … added to Blink
15:07:01 <ArtB> … the patch came from MS Open Tech
15:07:10 <ArtB> AV: you are still working on touch-action?
15:07:12 <ArtB> RB: yes
15:07:23 <ArtB> … and some polyfill work needs to be done
15:07:53 <ArtB> … We are actively moving it forward
15:08:02 <ArtB> … Can't give a specific `done date`
15:08:13 <ArtB> SG: update re Polymer and jQuery
15:08:24 <ArtB> … polyfill can run in `old IE`
15:08:38 <ArtB> … some things aren't quite to spec
15:08:49 <ArtB> … f.ex. writing properties
15:09:10 <ArtB> … setting pointer capture in old IE is problematic
15:09:33 <ArtB> … so works on IE 6, 7, 8
15:10:25 <ArtB> RB: anyone from IBM here?
15:10:29 <ArtB> AB: no
15:10:43 <ArtB> SG: yeah, I want to talk to DoJo people
15:10:49 <ArtB> RB: yes, that would be good
15:11:06 <ArtB> SG: I will followup
15:11:11 <ArtB> … with DoJo
15:11:27 <ArtB> RB: could argue that 2 separate production quality polyfills is good
15:11:36 <ArtB> … provided they give the same behaviour
15:12:40 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow invite IBM to join Pointer Events WG
15:12:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Invite ibm to join pointer events wg [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-29].
15:13:27 <ArtB> AV: re Mozilla, there is a public build avialable that includes most of PE
15:13:36 <ArtB> … the touch-action is a WIP by other engineers
15:13:44 <ArtB> OP: yes, there are some patches
15:13:49 <ArtB> … that need review
15:14:08 <ArtB> … nothing is shipping yet
15:14:37 <ArtB> MB: an engineer has a private build
15:14:55 <ArtB> OP: we want to get touch-action implemented before landing the patch
15:15:08 <ArtB> … afaik, it is moving slowly
15:15:33 <ArtB> RB: this requires fundamental changes to the event model thus everyone is being slow and careful
15:15:48 <ArtB> Topic: Review status of PR-324
15:15:55 <ArtB> AB: I think about 2/3 of PR324 has been reviewed so we need people to commit to reviewing the remaining 8 files http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0019.html.
15:16:16 <ArtB> AB: need volunteers
15:16:41 <ArtB> RB: I can do review of my files by next week
15:17:20 <mbrubeck> http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45
15:17:25 <mbrubeck> has the initial division
15:17:49 <ArtB> AB: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0019.html
15:18:11 <ArtB> RB: I'll take 1-5
15:18:22 <ArtB> SG: I'll take 6-8 (pointerLeave)
15:18:39 <ArtB> AB: can you do your review by next week Scott?
15:18:41 <ArtB> SG: yes
15:18:51 <ArtB> AV: we have been reviewing comments
15:18:58 <ArtB> … and will start working on them this week or next
15:19:01 <ArtB> AB: great
15:19:22 <ArtB> AV: thanks for the comments
15:19:41 <ArtB> AB: great, thanks everyone
15:19:57 <ArtB> AB: anything else on testing?
15:20:04 <ArtB> AV: we are still working on touch-action
15:20:07 <ArtB> … tests
15:20:17 <ArtB> … Hope to send them to the group soon
15:20:29 <ArtB> … We are also looking at Cathy's Test Assertion table
15:20:35 <ArtB> … vis-a-vis the gaps
15:21:04 <ArtB> … Want to encourage everyone to review the table
15:21:08 <ArtB> … and look for gaps
15:21:15 <ArtB> … and supply missing tests
15:21:45 <ArtB> Topic: maxTouchPoints on platforms that have less granular information
15:21:53 <ArtB> AB Rick submitted this comment on 10-Oct-2013 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0010.html
15:22:17 <ArtB> RB: during our Android impl of PE, we ran into this problem
15:22:28 <ArtB> … get 1 of 5 states
15:22:37 <ArtB> … so basically buckets of touch points
15:23:11 <ArtB> … Can get ballpark type results like "at most 2" or "at most 4" touch points
15:24:18 <ArtB> RB: need some reliability
15:24:31 <ArtB> … f.ex. "definitely have at least 2 touch points"
15:24:44 <ArtB> … We might need a note if the platform cannot give specific results
15:24:51 <ArtB> MB: agree we need to do something
15:24:53 <asir> q+
15:25:03 <ArtB> … don't think maxTouchPoints is a good name for this
15:25:28 <ArtB> AV: seems more like a platform impl detail
15:25:47 <ArtB> … rather than something we want to include in the spec
15:25:54 <ArtB> RB: but authors need to know about this
15:26:15 <sangwhan> But applications need to know how many touch points they can use
15:26:47 <ArtB> RB: think the spec needs some clarify for these scenarios
15:27:04 <ArtB> AV: I need to talk with Jacob about this
15:27:06 <sangwhan> Otherwise every developer has to assume the worst case scenario
15:27:31 <ArtB> AB: agree getting more input is good
15:27:36 <ArtB> … do we capture an issue now?
15:27:49 <ArtB> AV: think we should discuss on the list first
15:28:19 <ArtB> AB: any objections to continue discussion on list and postpone creating a formal CR Issue?
15:28:26 <ArtB> RB: no, I think that's fine
15:28:37 <ArtB> AV: this is some non-normative text we want to add?
15:28:41 <ArtB> RB: yes, I think so
15:29:35 <ArtB> … [ Rick describes a scenario where this is problematic … ]
15:29:47 <ArtB> MB: we could acknowledge this is a range
15:29:55 <ArtB> … and then define a lower bound
15:30:07 <ArtB> … and keeping maxTouchPoints defined as is
15:31:16 <rbyers> The main question is does maxTouchPoints return the guaranteed maximum across all digitizers and platform-specific ranges
15:31:46 <rbyers> I.e. can it be used by apps as an upper bound on the size of data structures, etc.
15:31:52 <ArtB> AB: so, everyone, please provide feedback on Rick's initial thread via the mail list
15:32:07 <rbyers> OR should it be used by apps to indicate when additional UI (eg. zoom controls) are necessary
15:32:29 <ArtB> Topic: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec;
15:32:41 <ArtB> AB: Steve Hickman submitted this comment on 30-Sep-2013 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0050.html
15:32:51 <ArtB> AB: we deferred discussion during the last meeting. I think I am the only one to have replied and I added it the post CR comment and issue tracking doc http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/CR-pointerevents-20130509
15:33:10 <ArtB> AB: any comments, feedback?
15:33:22 <ArtB> OP: I think EMMA spec should be changed
15:33:28 <ArtB> … it is missing touch
15:33:45 <ArtB> … don't think PE spec needs to be changed
15:33:52 <ArtB> RB: not sure how important this is
15:33:56 <sangwhan> Do any browser implementations actually implement anything related to EMMA/MMI?
15:33:58 <ArtB> OP: I agree
15:34:25 <ArtB> AV: agree this isn't a high prio and think Art's response was good
15:34:33 <sangwhan> I haven't seen one so far, so I personally think the point is fubar
15:34:41 <ArtB> … if there is no real interop problem, not sure we have to do anything
15:34:57 <ArtB> OP: the MMI architecture is very different than what we are doing
15:35:05 <ArtB> … don't we should care much about this
15:35:36 <ArtB> RB: we have implementations of PE already shipping
15:36:02 <ArtB> … so I think that trumps the EMMA work in progress
15:36:57 <ArtB> AB: draft Resolution: we do not consider PE and EMMA interop a substantial issue until there is clear data to show otherwise
15:37:06 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
15:37:11 <ArtB> [ None ]
15:37:20 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: we do not consider PE and EMMA interop a substantial issue until there is clear data to show otherwise
15:37:40 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow update PE CR tracking doc re EMMA comment to reflect 22-Oct-2013 Resolution
15:37:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Update pe cr tracking doc re emma comment to reflect 22-oct-2013 resolution [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-29].
15:37:49 <ArtB> Topic: AoB
15:37:56 <ArtB> AB: anything else for today?
15:38:01 <ArtB> AB: we'll have our next meeting when we have a sufficient agenda for a call.
15:38:08 <sangwhan> How about a plenary meeting for the CG during tpac?
15:38:11 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
15:38:16 <Zakim> -Olli_Pettay
15:38:17 <Zakim> -asir
15:38:18 <Zakim> -Scott_Gonzalez
15:38:20 <Zakim> -rbyers_
15:38:21 <Zakim> -Cathy
15:38:24 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
15:38:30 <Zakim> -Matt_Brubeck
15:38:31 <Zakim> RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
15:38:31 <Zakim> Attendees were Matt_Brubeck, Scott_Gonzalez, Art_Barstow, Cathy, rbyers_, asir, Olli_Pettay
15:38:36 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:38:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
15:38:56 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
15:38:57 <rbyers> Sorry sangwhan - we just hung up.  Last we talked, not too many of us were planning on being at TPAC I think...
15:39:00 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:39:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
15:39:34 <ArtB> sangwhan, I think Rick is correct
15:40:00 <ArtB> AFAIK, the only active people in these two WGs that will be at TPAC are you, me and Doug
15:40:01 <rbyers> It's a shame though - I'd love to get together in person at some point....
15:40:56 <rbyers> We've discussed previously having some sort of in-person meeting once we have implementations in gecko and blink to play with.
15:41:04 <ArtB> and 2 or so years for rbyers!
15:41:13 <sangwhan> rbyers: understandable. I was wishing to join blinkon but we had more attendees there than tpac, which made it difficult for me, we should discuss this soon though.
15:41:46 <sangwhan> Trying to figure out how to interop spatial navigation and caret browsing with PE on blink
15:42:38 <rbyers> sangwhan, yep understood.  Interesting - I haven't though much about spatial nav, but I know some on chrome android have put a bunch of effort into it.
15:42:47 <ArtB> zakim, bye
15:42:47 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pointerevents
15:42:51 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
15:42:51 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
15:42:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow invite IBM to join Pointer Events WG [1]
15:42:51 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-irc#T15-12-40
15:42:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow update PE CR tracking doc re EMMA comment to reflect 22-Oct-2013 Resolution [2]
15:42:51 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-irc#T15-37-40