<patrick_h_lauke> belated regrets from me, sorry. something came up just in the last few minutes (must dash off early to pick up little one from childminder now)

Agree on agenda

<patrick_h_lauke> i WAS intending to take part, had it not been for this last second change of plan. sorry

AB: I posted a draft agenda on February 11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0073.html. We have a few regrets so we may need to factor that in for some discussions. Other than that, are there any change requests?

adding an informative note re touch events?

AB: Patrick started this thread on January 31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0064.html.
... Rick replied http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0065.html and I did too, suggesting Patrick create a concrete proposal we can discuss. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0066.html
... any comments?
... I'll create an action for Patrick

<scribe> ACTION: Patrick create a proposal re informative note re PointerEvent and TouchEvent compatibility. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Create a proposal re informative note re pointerevent and touchevent compatibility. [on Patrick Lauke - due 2014-02-18].

<smaug> yup

ACTION-68: Proposed text for "contextmenu issue"

AB: Rick proposed text for Action-68 on January 28; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0061.html.
... any comments or can we approve Rick's proposal "as is"?

JR: works for me

AB: anyone else?

MB: looks ok

RESOLUTION: group agrees with the text Rick proposed re Action-68

<scribe> ACTION: Jacob update spec to reflect 11-Feb-2014 discussion of Action-68 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Update spec to reflect 11-feb-2014 discussion of action-68 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-02-18].

Exception usage

AB: Anne raised this issue on February 3; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0067.html. Anne recommends the PE spec use the JavaScript built-in RangeError rather than DOMException with a new name of "InvalidPointerId".
... so far, no one has replied. There is a consistency argument here but this change would also presumably break implementations so there is also a cost to consider.

JR: I could be out of date on the latest from DOM and Web IDL

… I don't have any data re an impact of the proposed change

… Not sure RangeError is correct

… If an invalid id is used, not really a range error per se

… more of a state error

… I need to think about this some more

OP: agree we need something other Range

JR: what do you think about what's in the spec now Olli?

… do you think that should change?

OP: if the plan is to not add new DOM Exception and to use builit in we shold consider it

MB: I don't see any other builtin exceptions that are a good match

… based on looking at ES spec

… Think we should reply to Anne

JR: latest info I saw was from Cameron on Jan 28

<jrossi> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21740

… don't want to move to something just because it is "trendy"

MB: need to understand what changes are coming

DS: and we need to understand the level of consensus for the proposed change

<scribe> ACTION: Matt reply to Anne's "Exception usage" e-mail of Feb 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Reply to anne's "exception usage" e-mail of feb 3 [on Matt Brubeck - due 2014-02-18].

MB: I think we need some more data

<mbrubeck> ECMA-262 defines Error, EvalError, RangeError, ReferenceError, SyntaxError, TypeError and URIError.

AB: encourage others to followup too
... that's a short list and I agree, not clear better match

Topic Feedback on pointer events

AB: Anne submitted 8 additional comments from him and Boris on February 3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0069.html.
... there's an implicit Action for everyone to review the comments and reply accordingly. We can discuss some set of the comments now or defer discussion on the list.

JR: some are easy, along the line of "spec mechanics"

… #5 appears to just be a typo

… since there is no default action to be canceled

… #1, think I just need to add a reference

MB: #6 is tricky since we don't define default behavior

… touches on touch-action algorithm

… we might need to change our language to the proposed form

JR: my proposal is for me to make changes for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in a single ED update

… and I'll send that changeset to the list

<scribe> ACTION: Jacob propose changes for 1-5 of Anne's e-mail of Feb 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Propose changes for 1-5 of anne's e-mail of feb 3 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-02-18].

MB: what about the other items?

JR: discuss on the list

MB: I can take an action re #6

… think #7 is a "ship has sailed" deal

… Need to think more about #8

OP: not clear about #7 and the devices not tied to a screen

… not clear its better than Navigator

JR: agree; I have a device like that

MB: not sure we can make a change at this point

<scribe> ACTION: Matt reply to #6 of Anne's Feb 3 comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Reply to #6 of anne's feb 3 comments [on Matt Brubeck - due 2014-02-18].

<scribe> ACTION: olli reply to #7 of Anne's Feb 3 comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-74 - Reply to #7 of anne's feb 3 comments [on Olli Pettay - due 2014-02-18].

MB: not sure what about #8

JR: we don't define overall dispatch model in PE spec

… we just describe behavior for each event

… not sure where we would define what is proposed

<scribe> ACTION: jacob reply to #8 of Anne's Feb 3 e-mail [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-75 - Reply to #8 of anne's feb 3 e-mail [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-02-18].

AB: it's good to get the feedback

Focus/blur?

AB: Patrick started this thread on February 4 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0071.html
... any comments?

OP: think the focus/blur handling should continue to be defined in HTML spec

… not sure PE spec can say anything useful about this

JR: agree with that

<scribe> ACTION: olli reply to Patrick's Focus/blur? e-mail of Feb 4 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-76 - Reply to patrick's focus/blur? e-mail of feb 4 [on Olli Pettay - due 2014-02-18].

Pointer cancel event dispatching

AB: this thread was started Nikolay Lebedev on February 4 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0072.html.
... would someone please followup?

MB: Nick is part of MS Open Tech and he is implementing PE in Gecko

AV: I think this is just an e-mail seeking clarification

JR: yes agree

… I can reply with "yes, that's OK"

<scribe> ACTION: Jacob reply to Nikolay's e-mail of Feb 4 re "Pointer cancel event dispatching" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Reply to nikolay's e-mail of feb 4 re "pointer cancel event dispatching" [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-02-18].

Testing status

AB: any new testing status since we discussed testing during our last call http://www.w3.org/2014/01/28-pointerevents-minutes.html#item10?
... I think we are waiting for some colleagues of Jacob

<asir> who is automated tester?

JR: I think some internal changes will make this easier and we can expect an update soon

AB: that would be great

DS: in case people didn't notice, Opera recently released their Presto tests [to Github]

… I don't know if they included anything useful for us

<smaug> asir: that AutomatedTester who just left this channel is from Mozilla, I think

AB: my recollection is Sangwhan reported they would not backport PE to Presto and would use Blink's impl moving forward

DS: yes, that might be correct

<asir> ok

CR implementation updates

AB: any new testing status since we discussed implementation during our last call http://www.w3.org/2014/01/28-pointerevents-minutes.html#item11?

MB: we are still reviewing patches

OP: patches are landing `all the time`

AV: do you mean patches from Oleg?

MB: yes, patches from Oleg and Nikolay

DS: wasn't there some WebKit news?

<mbrubeck> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105463

<mbrubeck> was resolved WONTFIX

AoB

AB: anything else for today?

DS: during the 2nd week of April, there is a "mini TPAC" by eBay in San Jose

… does this group want to try to meet there?

AB: I'll be there

DS: HTMLWG and WebAppsWG will be there

AV: will we have agenda items to discuss?

JR: we should be done by then

AB: I don't think we'll have an urgent need to meet then

DS: ok, I just wanted to let people know

AB: any other topics for today?
... please address your open Actions
... meeting adjourned

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/testing/implementation/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: ArtB
Inferring Scribes: ArtB
Present: Art_Barstow Doug_Schepers Jacob_Rossi Matt_Brubeck Olli_Pettay Asir_Vedamuthu
Regrets: Rick_Byers Cathy_Chan Scott_González Patrick_Lauke
Got date from IRC log name: 11 Feb 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-pointerevents-minutes.html
People with action items: jacob matt olli patrick reply spec update

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.