See also: IRC log
proposed agenda was: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2016JulSep/0316.html
we don't have anybody from Mozilla on just yet. waiting another minute or so
<scribe> Scribe: patrick_h_lauke
Rick: we have TPAC in 2 weeks,
let's prep for that
... as said in F2F, hopefully by TPAC we can compare
outstanding data and resolve v2 blocking list, debates that
would keep chrome from shipping
we feel like we're ready to ship, been on dev channel, feel confident
we don't need to wait for REC, but want to make sure rest of group is comfortable with our implementation
decide if we can merge reduced hit-test spec to master, and ship
doesn't mean can't change post ship, but would reduce compat concerns
Ted: that sounds fair
Patrick: any concerns about merging reduced hit-test branch?
not hearing any objections, but would be good to send to list with a "speak now or hold your peace until after TPAC"
Rick: Ted please take it to your team to just double-check
Ted: i should have a machine running our build that should patch that spec for TPAC
Shepazu: do we think we'll need both TPAC days? Mon/Tues?
Rick: what was the arrangement with TPAC?
Patrick: we have the room for both days, but fluid how much advantage we take of that
Shepazu: we have observer request, so they need to know
Rick: let's come up with a proposed schedule now and let observers know
Patrick: probably easier to do on email than in call
Rick: agree let's do on list
then we can let observers know
Patrick: we have observer request from Wacom, which is great
[general discussion on "should we do morning on Monday, afternoon on Tuesday" etc]
Rick: should we use w3c wiki, or github wiki
<scribe> ACTION: rick and patrick to set up wiki page, discussion to happen on list about proposed times/clashes with other groups, etc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/07-pointerevents-irc]
<rbyers> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/29
Rick: we're doing an intent to ship, everybody agrees it's right. if the spec goes out w/out this it would be shame, but we'd then just document it
so let's take it off v2-block. objections?
Patrick: not hearing objections.
Rick: realistically people who would most likely object are Mozilla/Firefox, but we can discuss further at TPAC
<rbyers> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/6
Ted: what about https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/6
Rick: important to us, as devs solve problems with touch events that they can't with pointer events
only thing missing is just test
i expect by TPAC this should be closed as dtapuska has submitted PR that just needs review
<rbyers> Implicit capture: https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/8
this is big one, as it's related to reduced hit-testing (branch)
from F2F we agreed to collect additional data to resolve this
this likely to be a topic at TPAC too
we have outstanding issue https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/61 but as far as issue 8, we have branch and want to check compat impact
we discussed pointer capture API, which we now have
we're hoping for an experiment in chrome beta relating to this, to gather data
[discussion about data of websites in wild and how many use pointer events]
based on initial dev-channel data, less than 1% of sites use PE
also agreed at F2F to have flag in chrome to switch implicit capture behavior to match edge
NavidZ (?): hoping to have this flag in for TPAC
Rick: that's it for action items from F2F. other action was on MS to have machine with updated build in time for TPAC
for people not on call, i'll include summary and give status update in our pre-TPAC email
Rick: getting back to list, we hope to resolve 6, and that will leave 8 and 61 as only v2-blockers for TPAC
and we hope to resolve (or have concrete plan to resolve) at end of TPAC
Mustaq: [more mention of https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/61]
Ted: will discuss with Jacob, but we seem to warm to this
Rick: back to main topic, there are many small issues, but nothing that seems to have compat risk
wider question: are there any issues currently not marked as v2-blocking that have real compat risk
Ted: nothing i'm aware of
Rick: after TPAC we should switch to clean-up mode to make sure smaller issues resolved, but for now let's focus on blockers and compat risks
and get to stage where we can ship
Mustaq: Chrome has minor bug fixes, but nothing of major concern, so confident we can go to stable soon
Rick: we're running most tests automated now
NavidZ: some of the tests are new/different from what we had before, as they need different environment/devices, but this is being resolved
dtapuska: still more to do for pinch-zoom, web platform tests to be added to chromium tree, we already have approved intent to ship
and directional touch-action
Patrick: if there's no other topics, I'd say action on me/Rick to sort out TPAC logistics. will set up a wiki page on the w3c wiki (as that's more appropriate for administrivia relating to the group, rather than being spec-specific the way GH is). want to get this out by end of this week, to give observers / potential observers enough time to work out when/where we'll be
Call next week, or skip as it's only another week then until TPAC?
Rick: if any of the email threads coming out of today's call get any major discussion that can't be resolved on list, let's do call, otherwise let's plan NOT to have call next week
Ted: sounds good
Patrick: agreed
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/we can't ship/can't change post ship/ Found Scribe: patrick_h_lauke Inferring ScribeNick: patrick_h_lauke Present: patrick_h_lauke Mustaq_Ahmed Rick_Byers teddink shepazu Navid_Zolghadr scott_gonzalez Got date from IRC log name: 07 Sep 2016 People with action items: patrick rick WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]