IRC log of pointerevents on 2015-11-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:01:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
16:01:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:01:10 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
16:01:19 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
16:01:19 [ArtB]
Scribe: ArtB
16:01:19 [ArtB]
Meeting: Pointer Events WG + Touch Events CG Voice Conference
16:01:19 [ArtB]
16:01:25 [ArtB]
Chair: Art, Rick
16:01:32 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:01:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:01:50 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
16:01:53 [jrossi]
jrossi has joined #pointerevents
16:03:13 [smaug]
ArtB: can't hear you
16:04:08 [patrick_h_lauke]
gotta love webex...
16:04:18 [smaug]
how does this work...
16:04:19 [smaug]
+present Olli_Pettay
16:04:24 [smaug]
maybe not
16:04:45 [chongz]
chongz has joined #pointerevents
16:04:46 [dtapuska]
dtapuska has joined #pointerevents
16:05:02 [rbyers]
+present Rick_Byers
16:05:13 [mustaq]
+present Mustaq_Ahmed
16:05:15 [patrick_h_lauke]
+ present patrick_h_lauke
16:05:19 [dtapuska]
+present Dave_Tapuska
16:05:20 [chongz]
+present Chong_Zhang
16:05:45 [jrossi]
present+ jrossi
16:05:46 [sangwhan]
+present Sangwhan_Moon
16:05:58 [smaug]
audio only, given that I don't apparently have devices to use the Java stuff
16:05:58 [jrossi]
+present jrossi
16:06:07 [jrossi]
16:06:15 [ArtB]
Present: Jacob_Rossi, Rick_Byers, Mustaq_Ahmed, Ted_Dinlocker, Scott_González, Chong_Zhang
16:06:21 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #pointerevents
16:06:25 [patrick_h_lauke]
and me :)
16:06:31 [smaug]
and me
16:06:36 [rbyers]
present+ Dave_Tapuska
16:06:42 [ArtB]
Present+ Patrick_H_Lauke, Olli_Pettay, Doug_Schepers
16:06:58 [ArtB]
Topic: Agree on agenda
16:07:05 [ArtB]
AB: welcome (back) everyone!
16:07:11 [ArtB]
AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday <>. The first part is PEWG and then TECG, led by Rick. Rick requested adding pointer events PR#24 to the agenda and that's fine with me.
16:07:27 [mbrubeck]
Present+ Matt_Brubeck
16:07:28 [ArtB]
AB: any other agenda change requests?
16:07:40 [ArtB]
Topic: Pointer Events: v2 spec status
16:07:46 [ArtB]
AB: Would the editors please give us a quick "state of the spec"? <>; <>)
16:07:51 [sangwhan]
zakim, agenda?
16:07:51 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
16:08:18 [ArtB]
RB: we've landed a bunch of tweaks
16:08:27 [ArtB]
… not many major issues
16:08:39 [ArtB]
… but Chrome and the block issues and we can talk about that later
16:08:59 [ArtB]
JR: main Q is correlating spec to issue status
16:09:11 [ArtB]
… lots of things on the list/gh that need to be discussed
16:09:34 [ArtB]
RB: some issues need discussing; 15 are open
16:09:42 [ArtB]
… most are minor and not blocking impls
16:10:12 [patrick_h_lauke]
"blame the cloud"
16:10:43 [ArtB]
JR: would be nice to do some triage; mark Editorial vs. New/Experimental
16:10:49 [ArtB]
… such as 3D mice
16:11:06 [ArtB]
RB: some are big issues and urgent
16:11:12 [ArtB]
… and blocking implementation
16:11:27 [ArtB]
… f.ex. #8
16:11:46 [ArtB]
… that is biggest issue for Chrome
16:11:56 [ArtB]
JR: if can create a new Lable that would be good
16:12:01 [patrick_h_lauke]
+1 for label "v2blocking"
16:12:05 [ArtB]
RB: ok, will create "blocking v2"
16:12:09 [mbrubeck]
We could also use a "milestone"
16:12:14 [mbrubeck]
for v2
16:12:22 [ArtB]
JR: any other blockers?
16:12:46 [ArtB]
s/JR: any other/RB: any other/
16:14:50 [rbyers]
In my opinion, we shouldn't work explicitly on force without Apple participation
16:15:08 [ArtB]
JR: I expect 3rd party hardware to expose pressure/force
16:15:21 [ArtB]
… so eventually will become more urgent to discuss
16:15:47 [ArtB]
PL: there is a different event model for force and pressure
16:15:53 [ArtB]
… not sure how it might impact us
16:16:07 [ArtB]
JR: can affect how mouse events are fired
16:16:57 [smaug]
going up now !
16:17:35 [patrick_h_lauke]
to me this is orthogonal to PE though
16:17:50 [ArtB]
AB: can we get someone to create a related issue here?
16:17:54 [smaug]
sangwhan: do you happen to know how they deal that all in Safari
16:18:01 [patrick_h_lauke]
or it would affect user agents that want to support BOTH touch events + special apple force touch stuff AND PE
16:18:14 [ArtB]
RB: there are a couple of related issues
16:18:26 [sangwhan]
smaug: the safari model is a bit strange
16:18:28 [sangwhan]
16:18:29 [ArtB]
… there are pressure-sensitive touch screens
16:18:38 [ArtB]
… and stylus pressure
16:18:47 [ArtB]
… think force touch is the difficult one
16:18:56 [ArtB]
… we can talk to Apple about it
16:19:16 [ArtB]
… but without them being a member of the WG, not sure they will engage
16:19:33 [ArtB]
… Jacob, can you file an issue?
16:19:44 [ArtB]
TD: I'll work with Jacob to create the issue
16:19:47 [ArtB]
AB: thanks Ted
16:19:56 [ArtB]
Topic: Pointer Events: State of deployment
16:19:59 [patrick_h_lauke]
personally, i think the issue may be more force touch vs touch events v2, rather than pointer events v2
16:20:04 [ArtB]
AB: I'd like to get a sense of which sites are using PointerEvents and how the level of traction  PEs are getting
16:20:26 [ArtB]
JR: I don't have any numbers for now
16:20:32 [ArtB]
… but can send some figures to the list
16:20:42 [ArtB]
RB: I got a few numbers, bit of a heuristi
16:20:54 [ArtB]
… checking http archive, found 10% mention pointerdown
16:21:02 [ArtB]
… 63% mention touchend
16:21:20 [ArtB]
… checking touchstart isn't reliable because it is used for feature detection
16:21:38 [rbyers]
Sites in httparchive (top 450k) - as of Oct 2015, desktop UA
16:21:38 [rbyers]
touchstart: 72% (70% last year)
16:21:38 [rbyers]
touchend: 63% (50% last year)
16:21:38 [rbyers]
pointerdown: 10% (4% last year)
16:21:38 [rbyers]
MSPointerDown: 31% (34% last year)
16:21:47 [smaug]
that last one is a lot
16:21:57 [ArtB]
AB: Jacob, if you have some data to send to the list, that would be great
16:22:27 [ArtB]
TD: we can run some queries and send the group some data
16:22:28 [smaug]
I wonder if all this data is based on event support in some script libraries
16:22:31 [rbyers]
sangwhan: I know Beth a little. She worked with Dean Jackson and Benjamin Poulin on the design, I know them better.
16:22:46 [ArtB]
ACTION: Ted send some pointer event usage data to the list
16:22:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-154 - Send some pointer event usage data to the list [on Ted Dinklocker - due 2015-11-10].
16:23:13 [ArtB]
Topic: Pointer Events: Interoperability issues
16:23:20 [ArtB]
AB: are there any interoperability issues (especially those that originate back to the spec, such as Pointer Events + Mouse Events + Touch Events)?
16:23:37 [patrick_h_lauke]
re interop: i see lots of activity on PEP
16:23:41 [rbyers]
JR: We should be able to get use-counter data that will be better than Rick's simple static analysis
16:24:17 [ArtB]
RB: I don't have any visibility since we aren't engaging with devlopers re PE now
16:24:40 [ArtB]
JR: when we first started implementing PE and TE we had problems but nothing in a long time
16:24:52 [ArtB]
TD: agree, no related issues for months
16:25:16 [ArtB]
JR: what's your current thinking with TE and Mouse?
16:25:25 [ArtB]
JR: there is a toggle to pick the mode
16:25:43 [ArtB]
… it is gesture based
16:25:56 [patrick_h_lauke]
in about:flags - Mouse events for touchFire compatible mouse events in response to the tap gesture
16:25:58 [ArtB]
TD: only have TE on by default on Mobile
16:26:12 [ArtB]
JR: yes, that's right
16:26:15 [rbyers]
s/JR: what's your/RB: what's your/
16:26:21 [ArtB]
TD: touch events are off on desktop
16:26:34 [ArtB]
JR: if TE enabled expects gesture model
16:26:56 [ArtB]
… so on surface, TE not on by default
16:27:31 [ArtB]
TD: with continum products have some unique probs
16:28:01 [ArtB]
SG: does IE plan to have TE disabled on desktop?
16:28:03 [ArtB]
JR: yes
16:28:30 [ArtB]
s/does IE plan to/does IE plan to continue to/
16:29:10 [ArtB]
JR: the problem with TE on desktop was far greater than TE on mobile
16:29:36 [ArtB]
RB: I don't see TE going away any time soon, especially on mobile
16:29:51 [ArtB]
… perhaps on desktop they can go away (eventually)
16:30:05 [ArtB]
SG: future devleopers should never even have to know about TEs
16:30:17 [ArtB]
… especially on desktop
16:30:28 [patrick_h_lauke]
sangwhan PEP *may* help here
16:30:30 [ArtB]
Topic: Pointer Events: v2 Implementation status
16:30:38 [ArtB]
AB: is there any new information regarding v2 implementation both for desktops and mobiles? In particular Chrome, FF, IE/Edge, and others.
16:31:29 [ArtB]
CZ: for Chrome [missed status]
16:31:51 [ArtB]
RB: we have done some work; but not capture start which is not easy
16:32:00 [ArtB]
… after that, we will start on hit testing
16:32:06 [rbyers]
16:32:35 [rbyers]
s/hit testing/capture support and the open question of implicit capture/
16:32:46 [ArtB]
OP: currently PEs are disabled because of one crashing bug
16:32:56 [ArtB]
… once that is fixed, we intend to enable it again
16:33:14 [mustaq]
Chrome impl status: basic event firing is almost done: done for touches, almost done for mouse. Pointer capture is untouched, hope to start soon.
16:33:32 [ArtB]
OP: yes we do support pointer capture
16:33:43 [ArtB]
MB: FF passes all of the v1 test suite
16:33:56 [e_hakkinen]
e_hakkinen has joined #pointerevents
16:33:59 [sangwhan]
s/[missed status]/basic event firing is almost done: done for touches, almost done for mouse. Pointer capture is untouched, hope to start soon.
16:33:59 [ArtB]
… that is when the flag is enabled
16:34:13 [ArtB]
TD: we are tracking v2
16:34:35 [ArtB]
… but we don't have firm impl plans yet
16:34:49 [ArtB]
… f.ex. we have not implemented the new touch-action values
16:35:43 [ArtB]
RB: we have implemented the new touch-action value but they are not shipping yet (must turn on flag)
16:35:53 [ArtB]
Topic: Pointer Events WG Charter
16:36:01 [ArtB]
AB: the current charter expires November 9 <>. What, if anything, should be done? Options include re-charter, request extension, close the WG, create a new CG, merge with TECG, ...)?
16:37:00 [ArtB]
AB: what is your inclination Doug?
16:37:09 [ArtB]
DS: no strong opinion
16:37:22 [ArtB]
… until we have something to publish, it doesn't matter that much
16:37:40 [ArtB]
… we can continue to operate as is
16:37:59 [ArtB]
… having a WG might help keep the work moving forward
16:38:18 [ArtB]
… if we want to publish docs, we need a WG or a CG
16:38:39 [ArtB]
… I created a draft charter for a WG
16:38:39 [shepazu]
16:38:53 [shepazu]
16:39:06 [shepazu]
16:39:07 [ArtB]
… it was helpful because it focuses on "what EXACTLY do we want to accomplish"
16:40:03 [ArtB]
RB: the most important thing for me is getting convergence
16:40:22 [ArtB]
… we need to get some issues resolved before we can ship
16:40:32 [ArtB]
… spec needs to be republished
16:40:51 [ArtB]
… think it will be at least 6 months before the v2 spec and impls are aligned
16:41:12 [ArtB]
… if we want to merge the groups, that's fine with me too
16:41:22 [patrick_h_lauke]
+1 agree merging groups
16:41:42 [ArtB]
MB: we are affectively running like one group
16:42:03 [mbrubeck]
16:42:36 [ArtB]
TD: seems like it would make sense to get an extension of the WG to give us time to decide if we should merge, or get a new WG extension
16:42:57 [ArtB]
… our attorneys probably have an opinion, especially regarding merging the two groups
16:43:22 [ArtB]
DS: this group has already had one extension
16:43:33 [ArtB]
… it can be problematic to keep getting extensions
16:43:48 [ArtB]
… if we aren't publishing documents, there is no need for a group
16:44:44 [ArtB]
… Recharter if adding new features
16:44:52 [ArtB]
… v2 is not in initial charter
16:45:06 [ArtB]
… so one can argue the v2 work is already outside of the group's charter
16:45:26 [ArtB]
… thus getting an extension doesn't feel like the right thing to do
16:46:18 [ArtB]
… we certainly can let the group expire, move to a CG and then create a new WG charter if/when we want to start publishing v2
16:46:32 [ArtB]
RB: what about resources for CGs?
16:46:51 [ArtB]
DS: think we can get an exception and get resources if we decide to move to a CG
16:47:49 [ArtB]
SG: no strong opinion
16:47:51 [patrick_h_lauke]
+1 CG would suffice for me
16:48:41 [ArtB]
RB: it would be ok with me to close the WG, start a CG and then create a WG in the future
16:48:50 [ArtB]
SM: there are IP implications here
16:49:10 [ArtB]
JR: think a CG gives lesser IP commitment
16:49:30 [ArtB]
… seems like we all want to eventually publish a v2 REC
16:49:46 [ArtB]
… thus having a WG seems like a better path
16:50:04 [ArtB]
… so a re-charter makes sense to me
16:50:24 [ArtB]
… path of least existance
16:50:56 [ArtB]
DS: the overhead for me is about the same for the various options
16:53:26 [ArtB]
JR: CGs are good for really new stuff
16:53:37 [ArtB]
… but v2 of PE is different; work has already started
16:54:09 [ArtB]
… are we OK with a CG, I suspect yes but if we are going to create a REC, need a WG
16:55:45 [ArtB]
… we can create a draft at any time
16:56:08 [ArtB]
AB: no really strong opinion but since we all seem to want to work toward a v2 REC
16:56:17 [ArtB]
… then a new WG seems like the right way to go
16:56:22 [sangwhan]
ArtB, shepazu: Maybe throw out a WBS and find out what everyone thinks?
16:56:35 [ArtB]
… Think people should submit Issues and PRs against Doug's propsosed v2 WG charter
16:57:06 [ArtB]
DS: please send comments
16:57:12 [jrossi]
Strawman: clone the V1 charter, replace the deliverable with the V2 spec, done! :-)
16:57:26 [ArtB]
AB: so I propose we try to get a new charter
16:57:30 [ArtB]
… any objections to that?
16:57:32 [ArtB]
[ None ]
16:57:53 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: we are going to work toward a new charter based on Doug's draft
16:58:21 [ArtB]
Topic: Touch Events
16:58:28 [ArtB]
RB: nothing really urgent
16:58:43 [ArtB]
… Apple is implementing some v2 features force
16:59:08 [ArtB]
… so we have at least WebKit and Chrome for some v2 features
16:59:22 [ArtB]
… The GEHs - they are already implemented
16:59:33 [ArtB]
… Mostly small tweaks and updating impls to match
16:59:59 [ArtB]
Topic: Pointer Events PR#24
17:00:12 [ArtB]
RB: please see <>
17:00:24 [ArtB]
… would like to get Ted and Jacob to review that PR
17:01:09 [ArtB]
Topic: AoB
17:01:47 [ArtB]
AB: please everyone review Doug's PEWG charter and submit PRs and Issues
17:02:07 [ArtB]
DS: Wacom to participate
17:02:30 [ArtB]
JR: if Wacom joins then have all major pen manufactures
17:02:37 [ArtB]
… that would be cool
17:02:53 [ArtB]
RB: the Wacom people I talk to like pointer events!
17:03:10 [ArtB]
AB: thanks all; meeting adjourned!
17:03:19 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:03:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
17:09:03 [ArtB]
Present+ Art_Barstow
17:09:12 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:09:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
17:11:28 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
17:11:28 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Jacob_Rossi, Rick_Byers, Mustaq_Ahmed, Ted_Dinlocker, Scott_González, Chong_Zhang, Dave_Tapuska, Patrick_H_Lauke, Olli_Pettay,
17:11:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pointerevents
17:11:31 [Zakim]
... Doug_Schepers, Matt_Brubeck, Art_Barstow
17:18:22 [patrick_h_lauke]
patrick_h_lauke has left #pointerevents
17:18:27 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, bye
17:18:27 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
17:18:27 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ted send some pointer event usage data to the list [1]
17:18:27 [RRSAgent]
recorded in