IRC log of pointerevents on 2013-11-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:59:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc
15:59:10 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log public
15:59:19 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
15:59:19 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
15:59:19 [ArtB]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0056.html
15:59:19 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
15:59:19 [ArtB]
Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:59:25 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:59:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
15:59:48 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has joined #pointerevents
16:00:25 [Zakim]
RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:32 [Zakim]
+Art_Barstow
16:02:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.770.402.aaaa
16:02:23 [ArtB]
zakim, aaaa is Jacob
16:02:23 [Zakim]
+Jacob; got it
16:02:30 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:02:31 [Zakim]
+Cathy
16:03:06 [ArtB]
Present+ Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu
16:03:18 [ArtB]
Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon
16:03:21 [Zakim]
+rbyers
16:03:30 [ArtB]
Present+ Rick_Byers
16:04:01 [ArtB]
Topic: Tweak agenda
16:04:07 [ArtB]
AB: any change requests for the proposed agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0056.html?
16:04:13 [ArtB]
AB: Since Sangwhan sent regrets, perhaps we should not cover the "Compatibility Events" topic and defer discussion to the list or add it to the next call if there is no "conclusion" on the list.
16:04:15 [Asir]
Asir has joined #pointerevents
16:04:28 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to dropping Compatibility Events?
16:04:36 [ArtB]
[ none ]
16:04:47 [ArtB]
AB: ok, we'll drop that and please followup on the list
16:04:54 [ArtB]
AB: any other change requests?
16:05:34 [ArtB]
JR: bug 22891 was from Sangwhan
16:05:41 [ArtB]
… perhaps we should drop that too
16:05:44 [ArtB]
RB: agree
16:05:52 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to JR's proposal?
16:05:55 [ArtB]
[ none ]
16:06:14 [ArtB]
Topic: How should touch-action apply to multiple fingers?
16:06:26 [ArtB]
AB: Rick raised this question on November 6 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0050.html
16:06:45 [ArtB]
RB: I was initially assuming this was out of scope
16:07:00 [ArtB]
… but since panning is potentially more than one finger
16:07:11 [ArtB]
… then I think we should talk about how that works with touch-action
16:07:23 [scott_gonzalez]
scott_gonzalez has joined #pointerevents
16:07:26 [ArtB]
… Spec seems to assume touch-action will only have one touch point
16:07:36 [ArtB]
… need to think about multiple touch points too
16:07:50 [ArtB]
… Would like to understand IE's behaviour
16:08:08 [ArtB]
JR: for IE, behavior depends on other gestures
16:08:28 [Zakim]
+Scott_Gonzalez
16:08:54 [ArtB]
… if add pinch/zoom, can support multiple fingers
16:08:58 [ArtB]
… f.ex. if panning
16:09:08 [ArtB]
… don't think of panning and zooming as separate gestures
16:09:20 [ArtB]
… whether or not there are multiple fingers is an artifact
16:09:34 [ArtB]
… Not sure how to be more specific for action model
16:09:40 [ArtB]
… Tried to be gesture-agnostic
16:09:56 [ArtB]
RB: what about touch-action auto and none
16:10:12 [ArtB]
… if have auto on a and none on b
16:10:17 [rbyers]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:10:18 [ArtB]
… and then touch both a and be elements
16:10:28 [Zakim]
rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Art_Barstow (4%), Jacob (95%), [Microsoft] (29%)
16:10:29 [ArtB]
.. .what is done
16:11:03 [ArtB]
RB: in Rick's case, depends on which gestures the UA supports
16:11:15 [ArtB]
… the gestures that are triggered depend on the UA
16:11:23 [ArtB]
RB: what if 1 finger is pan x
16:11:29 [ArtB]
… and another finger is pan y
16:11:44 [ArtB]
… saying only panning is allowed
16:12:04 [ArtB]
JR: so want to say only pan x
16:12:19 [ArtB]
RB: if browser implements nothing more than what we supply
16:12:28 [ArtB]
… can the UA just support what the spec states
16:12:50 [ArtB]
JR: not sure how to do that without compromising other things in the spec
16:12:59 [ArtB]
… could have diff combos of fingers
16:13:41 [ArtB]
RB: re scope, could say t-a model looks at all possible intersection and says that's the way it works
16:14:23 [ArtB]
s/RB: in Rick's/JR: in Rick's/
16:14:27 [rbyers]
Would it be in scope, for example, if we wanted to say that the touch-action processing model was as follows:
16:14:47 [rbyers]
look at the touch-action under each active touch point and use the intersection to determine what action is permitted
16:14:50 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:14:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
16:15:02 [rbyers]
i.e. we're not really comparing pointers at all, just using multiple touch-action values
16:15:23 [ArtB]
JR: I think we could describe something like that
16:15:33 [ArtB]
… but not sure if it solves the fundamental problem
16:15:42 [ArtB]
… of not understanding IE's behavior
16:15:45 [Zakim]
-Cathy
16:15:54 [ArtB]
… If have one element that has a rule to pan-x
16:16:03 [ArtB]
… now if have 2 fingers
16:16:15 [ArtB]
… is pan in x direction allowed
16:16:35 [ArtB]
… for some browsers, 2 finger pan-x works
16:16:49 [Zakim]
+Cathy
16:17:04 [ArtB]
RB: I think we'll have different behavior for same gestures
16:17:43 [ArtB]
… for the purposes of this group, are we saying that anything with more than 1 finger is out of scope?
16:18:06 [ArtB]
JR: if I take a broad understanding of the group's scope, then yes, I agree
16:18:08 [jrossi]
http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/
16:18:16 [ArtB]
… (anything beyond one finger is out of scope)
16:18:17 [jrossi]
"Gestures. Examples of out-of-scope gesture functionality and APIs include, but are not limited to, the following: Comparisons between pointers to determine an action (e.g., panning for scrollable regions, pinch for zooming, press-and-hold for a mouse right-click)."
16:18:26 [ArtB]
RB: ok, I can understand that
16:18:38 [ArtB]
… I do need to think more about what this means
16:18:46 [ArtB]
… f.ex. need to gather some data
16:19:00 [ArtB]
JR: think most content will be for auto
16:19:24 [ArtB]
… think we'll get good interop without being more specific
16:19:43 [ArtB]
… The more advanced cases will require a broader scope
16:19:51 [ArtB]
RB: pinch is a common scenario
16:19:58 [ArtB]
… everyone will need to do it
16:21:37 [ArtB]
AB: yes, we do need to consider the scope (and there could be some IP concerns)
16:22:30 [ArtB]
Topic: touch-action hit testing
16:22:35 [ArtB]
AB: Rick started this thread on November 14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0055.html
16:22:49 [ArtB]
RB: the algorithm as written today is misleading
16:23:01 [ArtB]
… t-a proc model needs to be more specific
16:23:12 [ArtB]
… especially as hit testing is related to CSS
16:23:24 [ArtB]
JR: there is no spec that defines hit testing
16:23:33 [ArtB]
… thus the general definition
16:23:47 [ArtB]
… There have been some efforts to define it
16:24:05 [ArtB]
RB: CSS Object Model touches on this
16:24:12 [ArtB]
JR: but that just defines the IDL
16:24:26 [ArtB]
RB: without defining how it works, can we say @@
16:24:46 [ArtB]
JR: think we can add some text about block elements
16:24:58 [ArtB]
RB: yes, think we need some clarifications re block elements
16:25:07 [ArtB]
JR: think that can be done as an informative note
16:25:13 [ArtB]
RB: that would be fine with me
16:25:36 [ArtB]
… need to define "touched element" or at least clarify it
16:25:47 [ArtB]
… f.ex. has the following properties ...
16:25:54 [ArtB]
… Don't want surprises
16:26:01 [ArtB]
JR: agree need some clarifications
16:26:09 [ArtB]
… and eventually define 'hit testing'
16:26:15 [AutomatedTester]
ArtB: I raised https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23825 re hit testing in CSSOM
16:26:18 [ArtB]
RB: I can propose some text
16:26:26 [ArtB]
JR: I can propose some text via the list
16:26:58 [ArtB]
RB: some of testing led to this topic getting released
16:27:56 [ArtB]
AB: RESOLUTION: multi-finger: we will not define additional behavior for multiple fingers because of scope concerns
16:28:03 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
16:28:09 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: multi-finger: we will not define additional behavior for multiple fingers because of scope concerns
16:29:28 [ArtB]
AB: RESOLUTION: hit testing: Jacob will draft proposed Note to clarify details of hit testing is out of scope, we will clarify properties UA's must adhere to for hit testing
16:29:52 [ArtB]
RB: change "we" to "and"
16:30:02 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: hit testing: Jacob will draft proposed Note to clarify details of hit testing is out of scope, and we will clarify properties UA's must adhere to for hit testing
16:30:26 [ArtB]
Topic: Bug 22890
16:30:33 [ArtB]
AB: bug 22890 was filed by Olli on Augus6 6 "It is not clear why navigator.pointerEnabled is needed" https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22890
16:30:57 [ArtB]
JR: we talked about this issue before
16:31:08 [ArtB]
… not necessary from a technical view
16:31:39 [ArtB]
… concerned about removing this for compat reasons
16:32:00 [ArtB]
… If we want to mark this "At Risk", we would have to go back to LC->CR
16:32:12 [rbyers]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:32:14 [ArtB]
… we wouldn't remove it from our impl
16:32:20 [ArtB]
… at least not initially
16:32:22 [Zakim]
rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Art_Barstow (9%), Jacob (89%), Asir (16%), rbyers (4%)
16:32:31 [ArtB]
… we could remove it from our docs
16:32:41 [ArtB]
… A question is what the group wants to do about it
16:33:04 [ArtB]
… I think this would be the only substantive change to the spec
16:33:38 [ArtB]
RB: if we were going to make this change, then we should consider other substantive changes like hit testing
16:34:00 [ArtB]
JR: I think the hit testing change could be done with out a substantive normative change
16:34:13 [ArtB]
… but the new text would need to be testable
16:34:21 [ArtB]
RB: I don't have a strong opinion
16:34:40 [ArtB]
… if left in the spec and FF and Blink don't implement it, what are consequences
16:34:57 [ArtB]
… If no one else implements it, we can't get out of CR
16:35:08 [ArtB]
JR: I'm comfortable with making this change
16:35:43 [ArtB]
… if we need to go back to LC/CR, we could try to scope the review to just changes since the last LC/CR
16:35:57 [ArtB]
… that helps preventing a bunch of new comments
16:36:02 [ArtB]
RB: makes sense
16:36:09 [rbyers]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:36:20 [Zakim]
rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jacob (40%), Asir (25%)
16:36:32 [rbyers]
Zakim, mute Asir
16:36:32 [Zakim]
Asir should now be muted
16:36:38 [rbyers]
Zakim, unmute Asir
16:36:38 [Zakim]
Asir should no longer be muted
16:36:45 [rbyers]
sorry, trying to address the noise
16:38:18 [ArtB]
AB: if we make any substantive changes, we will need to go back to LC/CR
16:39:40 [Zakim]
-Jacob
16:39:42 [ArtB]
… my recommendation is to first complete the test suite and get 2 impls before going to LC/CR
16:42:24 [ArtB]
AB: another option is to get the Impl Report done before LC#2
16:42:46 [ArtB]
… and then we can skip CR and go right to Proposed Recommendation after the 3-week LC review period is complete
16:42:57 [ArtB]
AV: what is the minimum LC review period?
16:43:01 [ArtB]
AB: 3 weeks
16:43:33 [ArtB]
AB: do we have a resolution for bug 22890 that we want to fix this bug?
16:43:48 [ArtB]
RB: yes, I think we need to do this to get 2 impls to pass the tests
16:43:57 [ArtB]
AV: yeah, I agree
16:44:09 [ArtB]
RB: if we remove it, think we will get to REC faster
16:44:15 [ArtB]
AV: yes, I think that is true
16:45:01 [rbyers]
note that the impls may still someday add this API for compat with IE, but only if substantial compat testing showed it was necessary - so if we wanted to count on that it would probably delay getting to REC...
16:45:02 [ArtB]
… think we should focus on Testing and Impl and the process steps will then follow
16:45:24 [ArtB]
AB: RESOLUTION: agree that navigator.pointerEnable should be removed from the spec
16:45:29 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
16:45:32 [ArtB]
[ None ]
16:45:39 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: agree that navigator.pointerEnable should be removed from the spec
16:45:53 [ArtB]
Topic: Status of PR324 updates
16:46:01 [ArtB]
AB: what's the status of processing PR324 comments? https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324
16:46:08 [ArtB]
AV: we are reviewing comments
16:46:12 [ArtB]
… I don't have a ETA
16:46:17 [ArtB]
… but we are working on them
16:46:42 [ArtB]
RB: if you want to give me feedback on my comments, please let me know
16:46:57 [ArtB]
… not clear how much value there is for comments during the test case review
16:47:08 [ArtB]
AV: if we have any issues, we'll let you know
16:47:14 [ArtB]
… comments are always welcome
16:47:17 [ArtB]
Topic: Need touch-action tests
16:47:27 [ArtB]
AB: since the draft agenda was posted, Jacob announced Microsoft added some touch-action tests to PR324 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0059.html. The new commit is https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/commit/886568a445cded3b5aa01f0c8befb48e0534fed6
16:47:51 [ArtB]
AB: it appears there are several new tests
16:47:55 [ArtB]
… this is excellent
16:47:59 [ArtB]
RB: yes, this is good
16:48:06 [ArtB]
AV: you should be able to use them Rick
16:48:14 [ArtB]
… if you have feedback, please let me know
16:48:19 [ArtB]
RB: I can review them
16:48:38 [ArtB]
AB: if anyone else wants to review them, that would be great
16:48:48 [ArtB]
CC: I'll review them
16:48:51 [ArtB]
AB: great
16:49:16 [ArtB]
RB: as I'm working on our impl of touch-action, I will do testing
16:49:33 [ArtB]
… would like to share them with the group
16:49:54 [ArtB]
… but probably need to keep the blink tests separated
16:50:03 [ArtB]
AV: I'll assign actions to Rick and Cathy
16:50:24 [ArtB]
ACTION: Rick review touch-action tests
16:50:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-54 - Review touch-action tests [on Rick Byers - due 2013-11-26].
16:50:34 [ArtB]
ACTION: Cathy review touch-action tests
16:50:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-55 - Review touch-action tests [on Cathy Chan - due 2013-11-26].
16:50:45 [ArtB]
Topic: Gaps in coverage
16:50:52 [ArtB]
AB: we still have some gaps in http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions
16:50:54 [rbyers]
eg. if anyone is curious, here's a simple touch-action test case I'm landing in blink: www.rbyers.net/touch-action-simple.html
16:51:11 [ArtB]
AV: not sure if Jacob update the wiki yet
16:51:29 [ArtB]
ACTION: Jacob update the TestAssertion wiki re touch-action tests
16:51:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-56 - Update the testassertion wiki re touch-action tests [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-11-26].
16:51:52 [ArtB]
AV: there are 17 test assertions without tests
16:51:58 [ArtB]
… we are working on them
16:52:14 [ArtB]
… some time soon expect to contribute our tests
16:52:30 [ArtB]
… We have 3-4 that need some discussions
16:52:48 [ArtB]
AB: ok, that sounds great
16:53:13 [ArtB]
… are some assertions not clear?
16:53:25 [ArtB]
AV: for some, it's not clear how to test the assertion
16:53:35 [ArtB]
AB: please do followup on the list
16:53:46 [ArtB]
Topic: CR implementation updates
16:53:54 [ArtB]
AB: any new progress on implementations?
16:54:10 [ArtB]
RB: I've been making progress on touch-action
16:54:25 [rbyers]
Implement simple touch-action support in blinki on the main thread: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=316735
16:55:13 [ArtB]
… Driving for basic touch-action impl behind a flag by mid-December
16:55:24 [ArtB]
… this work uncovered some design issues
16:55:57 [ArtB]
AB: IE11 is now available on Win 7 and up?
16:55:59 [ArtB]
AV: yes
16:56:19 [ArtB]
… re FireFox, we reported a while ago about a FF patch
16:56:36 [ArtB]
… Rick has been part of the discussion thread
16:56:46 [ArtB]
… I don't have a firm ETA
16:56:53 [ArtB]
… other than there is some progress
16:57:19 [ArtB]
Topic: AoB
16:57:25 [ArtB]
AB: are there any other topics for today?
16:57:40 [ArtB]
AV: when will we meet again?
16:57:43 [ArtB]
AB: good Q
16:58:09 [ArtB]
… I'll ping Sangwhan
16:58:18 [ArtB]
AV: we need to make progress on the test suite
16:58:20 [ArtB]
AB: I agree
16:58:38 [ArtB]
… we may have next week, depending on topics and availability
16:58:48 [ArtB]
AV: Rick is out next week and me too
16:58:57 [ArtB]
AB: no meeting on Nov 26
16:59:10 [ArtB]
… so next potential meeting is Dec 3
16:59:19 [ArtB]
AB: meeting adjourned
16:59:32 [Zakim]
-Art_Barstow
16:59:33 [Zakim]
-rbyers
16:59:36 [Zakim]
-Asir
16:59:37 [Zakim]
-Cathy
16:59:37 [Zakim]
-Scott_Gonzalez
16:59:38 [Zakim]
RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
16:59:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were Art_Barstow, +1.770.402.aaaa, Jacob, Cathy, rbyers, Scott_Gonzalez, Asir
16:59:40 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:59:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
17:02:40 [ArtB]
Present: Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu
17:03:01 [ArtB]
Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon, Scott_González, Doug_Schepers
17:03:10 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:03:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
17:03:14 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
17:03:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pointerevents
17:18:07 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
17:18:07 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
17:18:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Rick review touch-action tests [1]
17:18:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc#T16-50-24
17:18:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Cathy review touch-action tests [2]
17:18:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc#T16-50-34
17:18:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jacob update the TestAssertion wiki re touch-action tests [3]
17:18:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc#T16-51-29