IRC log of pointerevents on 2014-03-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:34 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents

15:00:34 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/25-pointerevents-irc

15:00:38 [Zakim]

RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started

15:00:45 [Zakim]

+Scott_Gonzalez

15:00:49 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make log public

15:01:00 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

15:01:15 [Zakim]

+Art_Barstow

15:01:17 [smaug]

Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay

15:01:17 [Zakim]

+Olli_Pettay; got it

15:01:26 [smaug]

Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay

15:01:26 [Zakim]

ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay

15:01:35 [rbyers]

rbyers has joined #pointerevents

15:01:39 [Zakim]

+Asir_Vedamuthu

15:01:46 [Cathy]

Cathy has joined #pointerevents

15:01:54 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

15:01:54 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

15:01:54 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0194.html

15:01:54 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

15:01:54 [ArtB]

Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

15:01:54 [Zakim]

+[Microsoft]

15:02:09 [Zakim]

+rbyers

15:02:16 [ArtB]

Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon, Patrick_Lauke

15:02:21 [jrossi]

Zakim, Microsoft is jrossi

15:02:21 [Zakim]

+jrossi; got it

15:02:24 [asir]

asir has joined #pointerevents

15:02:41 [Zakim]

+Cathy

15:03:20 [ArtB]

Present: Arthur_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu, Scott_Gonzalez, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Olli_Pettay

15:03:57 [ArtB]

Topic: Tweak Agenda

15:04:02 [ArtB]

AB: any change requests to the draft agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0194.html?

15:04:23 [ArtB]

Topic: Bug 24923: What should happen to the mouse events if pointer event listener removes the target ...

15:04:30 [ArtB]

AB: we discussed but 24923 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24923> on March 11 <http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#item07> and didn't reach consensus on what to do (or not do). There has been no followup in the bug or on the list since that call.

15:05:12 [ArtB]

OP: think we should follow IE

15:05:20 [ArtB]

… and put that behavior in the spec

15:05:27 [ArtB]

RB: would be good to get details from Jacob

15:05:30 [ArtB]

… and he did that

15:05:31 [Zakim]

+Matt_Brubeck

15:05:34 [ArtB]

… now we need to spec it

15:05:39 [ArtB]

JR: agree we want that in the spec

15:06:08 [ArtB]

… not sure how I would insert this into the spec

15:06:24 [Zakim]

+Doug_Schepers

15:06:28 [ArtB]

… could be better for me to create a changeset and for people to discuss that

15:06:33 [ArtB]

JR: sounds good

15:06:43 [rbyers]

s/JR/RB/

15:07:04 [ArtB]

ACTION: jacob create a changeset for bug 24923 and sent it to the list for review

15:07:04 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-98 - Create a changeset for bug 24923 and sent it to the list for review [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-04-01].

15:07:09 [ArtB]

AB: ok, thanks Jacob

15:07:18 [ArtB]

Topic: Bug 24971: Should got/lostpointercapture be dispatched asynchronously or synchronously

15:07:32 [ArtB]

AB: we discussed bug 24971 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24971> on March 11 <http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#item08> and didn't reach consensus on what to do (or not do). There has been no followup in the bug or on the list since that call.

15:07:50 [ArtB]

JR: I can add some info to the bug

15:08:12 [ArtB]

… Olli had a related Q re the order

15:08:33 [ArtB]

… in our imp when calll setptrcapture, we set a pending capture node

15:09:09 [ArtB]

[ Jacob gives details of IE impl … ]

15:09:22 [ArtB]

… So this is similar to what Olli says in comment #2

15:10:29 [ArtB]

[ Jacob gives details about Olli's comment #4 ]

15:10:43 [ArtB]

OP: that gives a surprising result

15:10:56 [Zakim]

-Asir_Vedamuthu

15:11:43 [ArtB]

[ Olli gives a scenario that could result in surprising results ]

15:12:25 [ArtB]

JR: if get gotcapture, we guarantee you get a lostptrcapture

15:12:56 [ArtB]

… I agree we need to update the spec

15:13:00 [Zakim]

+[Microsoft]

15:13:24 [ArtB]

… Similar to one of Anne's comments

15:13:55 [ArtB]

… Need to make the spec clearer but need to make sure we all agree on the behavior for these scenarios

15:14:09 [ArtB]

OP: wonder if this is just a bit too complicated and just fire synch events

15:14:32 [ArtB]

… synch handling would make the algorithm simpler

15:14:47 [ArtB]

JR: we had probs with apps when we had synch firing of the events

15:14:59 [ArtB]

… we could say that's bad app behavior

15:15:11 [ArtB]

… i.e. tight loops of setting capture

15:15:36 [ArtB]

RB: would like to understand what the apps were trying to do in those cases

15:16:04 [ArtB]

JR: that would require some investigation (been a few years)

15:17:14 [ArtB]

SG: are storage events synch (like localStorage)

15:17:30 [ArtB]

JR: if there are no other synch events, we probably don't want to address this

15:18:02 [ArtB]

… if people have to deal with synch with click, then doing something like that could be ok

15:18:32 [ArtB]

OP: if multiple clicks on same target, don't have to handle all

15:18:38 [ArtB]

JR: so similar problem then

15:18:49 [jrossi]

s/JR/RB

15:19:00 [Zakim]

-Matt_Brubeck

15:19:17 [ArtB]

… we could say calling setptrcapt from within the context of gotptrcapt handle isn't legal

15:19:30 [smaug]

just a sec

15:19:48 [ArtB]

… If I understand Olli, with click, the spec prevents that (to stop recursive issues)

15:19:59 [ArtB]

JR: not sure which is better

15:20:04 [smaug]

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#run-synthetic-click-activation-steps

15:20:57 [Zakim]

+Matt_Brubeck

15:21:05 [ArtB]

Present+ Matt_Brubeck

15:21:54 [ArtB]

OP: I kind of like this behavior because it prevents endless loops

15:22:16 [ArtB]

RB: would be nice if we could say we have the same prob as click event

15:22:32 [ArtB]

JR: I can look into this

15:22:45 [ArtB]

… Seems sensible to make it behave like click

15:23:00 [ArtB]

… I can look up the motivation for asynch and add to the bug

15:23:11 [ArtB]

JR: would be good to have a site that uses asynch

15:23:19 [ArtB]

s/JR:/RB:/

15:23:29 [ArtB]

s/JR/RB/

15:24:12 [ArtB]

JR: I'll check on the IE bugs that caused this behavior and add information to our bug

15:24:56 [ArtB]

ACTION: Jacob investigate IE behavior re bug 24971 and add that info to the bug

15:24:56 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-99 - Investigate ie behavior re bug 24971 and add that info to the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-04-01].

15:25:15 [ArtB]

Topic: Sub-pixel coordinate granularity

15:25:24 [ArtB]

AB: Rick's March 18 e-mail  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0190.html> was a followup to a thread he started in December 2013 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0074.html.

15:25:43 [ArtB]

AB: we discussed Rick's December e-mail during our January 7 call http://www.w3.org/2014/01/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#item06 and Jacob agreed to add a related non-normative note https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/62.

15:26:01 [ArtB]

AB: however, it appears Rick's March 18 e-mail could be touching on different but related issues.

15:26:33 [ArtB]

RB: the Q about when fractional coords can be returned is an open Q

15:26:43 [ArtB]

… MSDN has some doc about this

15:26:57 [ArtB]

JR: we are consistent

15:27:04 [ArtB]

RB: do you do that for mouse events too?

15:27:13 [ArtB]

JR: yes, I believe so

15:27:25 [ArtB]

RB: is that causing any issues?

15:27:41 [ArtB]

JR: not positive (we have a CSSOM switch)

15:28:03 [Zakim]

-asir

15:29:03 [ArtB]

RB: we are going to try to change blink to use float

15:29:09 [ArtB]

… and see what sites break

15:29:17 [ArtB]

JR: please let us know the results

15:29:36 [ArtB]

AB: so where are we then?

15:29:58 [Zakim]

+Asir_Vedamuthu

15:30:07 [ArtB]

RB: I would like to hear more about IE but I don't think our spec needs to change

15:30:23 [ArtB]

JR: yes, I agree no PE spec change needed but I can get some more info

15:30:32 [asir]

/me my connection keeps dropping today :)

15:31:01 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: the group agrees there is no need to change the spec re the "Sub-pixel coordinate granularity" topic

15:31:16 [ArtB]

Topic: Touch-action to SVG elements

15:31:23 [ArtB]

AB: Jacob's March 21 e-mail <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0191.html> was a followup to an e-mail in January from Samsung. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/att-0016/00-part>.

15:31:38 [ArtB]

AB: Jacob included a proposal in his e-mail. If we agree with Jacob's proposal one way forward would be to action Jacob to create a bug, submit a changeset and then Resolve/Fix the bug; if anyone objects, they can re-open the bug.

15:32:08 [ArtB]

JR: thanks Jacob for the details

15:32:17 [ArtB]

… your proposal sounds great to me

15:32:23 [ArtB]

s/JR/RB/

15:32:33 [ArtB]

JR: you know Chrome doesn't match it, right?

15:32:43 [ArtB]

RB: yes, and I'll file a bug to get that fixed

15:33:06 [ArtB]

… (probably won't get fixed for 35 but will get a fix for 36)

15:33:16 [ArtB]

JR: Olli, same for FF

15:33:20 [ArtB]

OP: yes

15:33:37 [ArtB]

RB: would be nice to have an ED with this fix

15:33:41 [ArtB]

JR: I can do that today

15:34:05 [ArtB]

RB: if have a web site that is broken, that'd be helpful

15:34:27 [ArtB]

AB: so you'll update the spec then Jacob?

15:34:30 [ArtB]

JR: yes, will do

15:34:58 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: the group agrees Jacob's proposal for "Touch-action to SVG elements "topic is OK

15:35:13 [ArtB]

Topic: Exception usage

15:35:20 [ArtB]

AB: Anne's March 16 followup <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0185.html> and the original thread starts at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0067.html>. Matt has action-73 to followup with Anne https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/73.

15:36:04 [ArtB]

JR: this is a compat problem for IE

15:36:31 [ArtB]

… I also am not convinced what we are doing is really a compat issue

15:36:44 [ArtB]

AB: what about Chrome and FF?

15:36:49 [ArtB]

RB: not sure offhand

15:37:00 [ArtB]

… I'd be surprised if this was a problem for us

15:37:03 [asir_]

asir_ has joined #pointerevents

15:37:17 [ArtB]

OP: I don't think this is an issue for us

15:37:57 [ArtB]

AB: it appears we support the current value

15:38:04 [ArtB]

… and we don't want to change it

15:38:33 [ArtB]

JR: if there was strong consensus to change that's one thing but I don't think there is

15:38:54 [ArtB]

… I feel like we are chasing a moving target

15:39:09 [ArtB]

… and only change if there is clear and convincing evidence we should change

15:39:19 [ArtB]

… Thus I prefer to leave the spec as is

15:39:35 [ArtB]

JR: I agree there doesn't appear to be strong consistency argument

15:39:42 [ArtB]

… so I am ok with leaving spec as is

15:39:47 [rbyers]

s/JR/RB/

15:40:02 [Zakim]

-Asir_Vedamuthu

15:41:00 [ArtB]

AB: DRAFT RESOLUTION: group agrees to keep the spec as is re "Exception Usage" topic

15:41:02 [Zakim]

+ +1.571.426.aaaa

15:41:15 [ArtB]

OP: we could ask Anne about the stability of the decision he is pushing

15:41:42 [ArtB]

AB: how about Matt?

15:41:52 [ArtB]

MB: that action-73 is something different

15:42:25 [mbrubeck_]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0082.html

15:42:31 [ArtB]

AB: so Matt, Olli do we want to continue to discuss this or adopt the Draft Resolution?

15:42:49 [smaug]

smaugannevk: who stable is this DOMException/Error handling stuff http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0185.html

15:42:51 [ArtB]

MB: Anne pointed to an es_discuss thread that didn't appear to have a solid conclusion

15:42:55 [smaug]

annevksmaug: it isn't

15:43:10 [ArtB]

… we could see if anything else has been done there in DOM and/or WebIDL

15:43:26 [ArtB]

… if there is no mature decision about this, I'm OK with leaving the spec as is

15:43:50 [ArtB]

AB: would you please followup with Anne then Matt?

15:43:55 [ArtB]

MB: yes, I can do that

15:44:25 [ArtB]

ACTION: Brubeck followup with Anne re the Exception thread

15:44:25 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-100 - Followup with anne re the exception thread [on Matt Brubeck - due 2014-04-01].

15:44:56 [ArtB]

SG: for Node, everything is done with codes

15:45:13 [ArtB]

JR: within WebApps, consensus codes is bad

15:45:22 [ArtB]

… because it requires centralizing

15:45:42 [ArtB]

… and names/strings were supposed to be better in avoiding collisions

15:46:12 [smaug]

annevksmaug: I feel somewhat strongly that new APIs should not mint new DOMException names and preferably just throw TypeError if there's no branching needs, per Allen's preference. and that if people disagree with that, they have a discussion with him

15:46:56 [ArtB]

AB: thanks smaug

15:47:19 [ArtB]

… one question is if PE is "new" API or not given there are sites that are using it

15:47:54 [ArtB]

JR: if there is another UC, that would be helpful

15:48:36 [jrossi]

Issue-65 has been updated (touch-action applies to:) https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html#the-touch-action-css-property

15:48:46 [ArtB]

AB: feels like we should keep this open now

15:49:35 [ArtB]

MB: understand the compat issues for IE

15:50:00 [ArtB]

JR: don't want to change the spec until there is broad agreement from the DOM/ES community

15:50:15 [ArtB]

… but don't want to change the spec until then

15:50:40 [ArtB]

MB: ok, so sounds like we don't want to change the spec now but if DOM or WebIDL spec changes before REC, we could revisit this

15:50:50 [ArtB]

JR: that sounds ok

15:50:58 [ArtB]

AB: sounds ok with me too

15:51:33 [ArtB]

… are we back to a resolution we agree not to change spec based on what we know now

15:51:38 [ArtB]

JR: yes

15:51:41 [ArtB]

RB: agree

15:51:47 [asir]

asir has joined #pointerevents

15:52:16 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: group agrees to keep Exception as is

15:53:06 [ArtB]

Topic: Feedback on pointer events

15:53:15 [ArtB]

AB: Anne's March 17 followup <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0187.html>; original thread starts at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0069.html>

15:54:43 [ArtB]

JR: I owe Anne a reply

15:54:48 [ArtB]

… most is OK

15:55:04 [ArtB]

… one part could be contentious re defaultActions if an event not canceled

15:55:13 [ArtB]

… could add more steps

15:55:43 [ArtB]

… but some events are marked canceleable because their mouse event counterparts are marked cancelable

15:55:56 [ArtB]

… no spec defines that for mouse events

15:56:14 [ArtB]

… So I'm not sure we can get to the level of crispness that Anne wants

15:56:43 [ArtB]

… I think we tried to define this in DOM 3 Events and it was hard

15:56:58 [ArtB]

DS: my recollection is lots of details is very hard

15:57:25 [ArtB]

… I tried with D3E and the feedback was mostly "not good enough"

15:57:34 [ArtB]

Present+ Doug_Schepers

15:58:12 [ArtB]

AB: so it sounds like Jacob will reply

15:58:20 [ArtB]

… and others should join the conversation

15:58:40 [ArtB]

Topic: Testing: Jacob's latest commits for PR 324 needs review

15:58:47 [ArtB]

AB: Jacob's e-mail <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0192.html> says PR 324 has been updated. Rick and Cathy agreed to review the tests they have previously reviewed.

15:59:08 [ArtB]

AB: I don't recall what the means specifically and if that means we also need reviews from others.

15:59:25 [smaug]

and I lost connection or something

15:59:25 [Zakim]

-Olli_Pettay

15:59:32 [smaug]

yeah, it is 18:00, I guess Zakim kicked me out

15:59:38 [ArtB]

MB: I split them up

15:59:44 [ArtB]

RB: I think 1-5 are mine

15:59:53 [ArtB]

… not sure who reviewed 6-8

16:00:06 [ArtB]

JR: I think the wiki needs some updating

16:00:14 [ArtB]

… f.ex. there are some file name updates

16:00:25 [mbrubeck_]

Previously: http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45

16:00:29 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

16:00:41 [smaug]

Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay

16:00:41 [Zakim]

+Olli_Pettay; got it

16:00:54 [Cathy]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0029.html

16:00:54 [smaug]

Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay

16:00:54 [Zakim]

ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay

16:00:56 [ArtB]

AB: thanks Matt

16:01:12 [ArtB]

… this means review needs to be done by: Rick, Cathy, Art and Matt

16:02:08 [scott_gonzalez]

https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324/files?w=1 will show the diff without whitespace changes.

16:02:16 [ArtB]

RB: were any new files added Jacob?

16:02:20 [scott_gonzalez]

You should be able to add `?w=1` to any diff URL.

16:02:23 [ArtB]

JR: yes, I think so

16:02:39 [ArtB]

… check the diff

16:02:47 [scott_gonzalez]

For example, https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/commit/e872664c81fbcc9d3c53ff5e171ccf48443d066c?w=1 is just the most recent commit without whitespace chages.

16:02:52 [ArtB]

RB: I'll look at anything with "capture"

16:03:06 [ArtB]

JR: could you please check if there are any files without a Reviewer?

16:03:10 [ArtB]

MB: yes, I'll do that

16:03:14 [ArtB]

AB: ok, thanks

16:03:31 [ArtB]

AV: how do we close on the test cases?

16:04:55 [ArtB]

AB: the review should be done by someone that didn't write the tests

16:05:02 [Zakim]

-Scott_Gonzalez

16:05:09 [ArtB]

… all comments should be submitted to GH

16:05:22 [ArtB]

JR: I can merge the request after all comments are addressed

16:05:54 [ArtB]

AB: everyone please review your set of tests and put your reveiw comments on GH

16:06:02 [ArtB]

Topic: CR implementation updates

16:06:22 [ArtB]

s/Topic: CR implementation updates//

16:07:08 [ArtB]

JR: if there are big issues, they should be added as GH Issues

16:08:18 [ArtB]

AB: that makes sense to me

16:08:25 [ArtB]

Topic: CR implementation updates

16:08:29 [ArtB]

AB: any new info re implementations?

16:08:45 [ArtB]

[ None ]

16:08:46 [ArtB]

Topic: AoB

16:09:04 [ArtB]

AB: thanks everything; meeting adjourned

16:09:05 [Zakim]

-Olli_Pettay

16:09:07 [Zakim]

-Doug_Schepers

16:09:10 [Zakim]

-Art_Barstow

16:09:11 [Zakim]

-rbyers

16:09:11 [Zakim]

-Cathy

16:09:19 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

16:09:19 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/25-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB

16:09:24 [Zakim]

-Matt_Brubeck

16:09:41 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make log public

16:09:42 [Zakim]

-jrossi

16:09:57 [jrossi]

Cathy: we just have to enable issues for the repo

16:10:09 [jrossi]

I just enabled this on github.com/internetexplorer/web-platform-tests

16:10:30 [jrossi]

once enabled, a tab appears on the right side called "Issues"

16:10:47 [jrossi]

(next to Pull Requests and Code)

16:11:13 [jrossi]

https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/issues

16:11:19 [Zakim]

- +1.571.426.aaaa

16:11:20 [Zakim]

RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended

16:11:20 [Zakim]

Attendees were Scott_Gonzalez, Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, Asir_Vedamuthu, rbyers, jrossi, Cathy, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers, asir, +1.571.426.aaaa

16:23:30 [ArtB]

zakim, bye

16:23:30 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #pointerevents

17:01:35 [jrossi]

jrossi has joined #pointerevents

17:49:12 [abarsto]

abarsto has joined #pointerevents

18:56:06 [jrossi]

jrossi has joined #pointerevents

20:44:51 [jrossi]

jrossi has joined #pointerevents

20:57:31 [jrossi]

jrossi has joined #pointerevents

21:16:40 [smaug]

smaug has joined #pointerevents

22:06:23 [jrossi]

jrossi has joined #pointerevents

23:05:34 [jrossi]

jrossi has joined #pointerevents