16:01:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
16:01:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-pointerevents-irc
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> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2015AprJun/0111.html
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 http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-pointerevents-minutes.html 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> lol
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 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-touchevents/2015Nov/0003.html>. 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"? <https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/>; <https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues>)
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> smaug: https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/mac/documentation/AppleApplications/Conceptual/SafariJSProgTopics/RespondingtoForceTouchEventsfromJavaScript.html
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> s/CZ/MA/
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 <http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/>. 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 http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/pointer-events-2015.html
16:38:39 <shepazu> http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/pointer-events-2015.html
16:38:53 <shepazu> https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/blob/gh-pages/pointer-events-2015.html
16:39:06 <shepazu> http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/
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> s/affectively/effectively/
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 f.eg. 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 <https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/24>
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 http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/pointer-events-2015.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-pointerevents-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-pointerevents-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
17:18:27 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ted send some pointer event usage data to the list [1]
17:18:27 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-pointerevents-irc#T16-22-46