- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 06:42:18 -0400
- To: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
On 5/7/13 12:45 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> The draft minutes from the May 7 voice conference are available at
> <http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-irc> and copied below.
>
> (RRAgent, didn't create the "normal" minutes so these minutes are a
> pretty-printed IRC log for the first 28 mins and then a copy from my
> Adium log.)
The "normal" minutes are now available
<http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html> and copied below.
-AB
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
07 May 2013
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0138.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu,
Scott_Gonzαlez, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers
Regrets
Rick_Byers
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Getting started
2. [6]Developers confuse the original MS PE submission
for the current spec
3. [7]Tracking Comments during Candidate Recommendation
4. [8]pointermove dispatching when button state changes
5. [9]MSPointer implementation only dispatches mousemove
when hovering
6. [10]Testing
7. [11]Any other Business
* [12]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<jrossi2> Art: I'm muted hang on...
Getting started
AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0138.html.
... since Rick sent regrets for today, I propose we drop item
#3 in the draft ("Impact of pointer capture on
pointerover/pointerout events") and replace it with a short
discussion about tracking comments during Candidate
Recommendation. Any objections to that?
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0138.html.
[ none ]
AB: any other change requests?
[ none ]
Developers confuse the original MS PE submission for the current spec
AB: Rick Byers started this thread
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0118.html
... I believe Doug agreed to work with Jacob to take care of
this. Is that correct Doug?
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0118.html
JR: the action is on me to provide an updated doc via Michael
Champion
one open question is can we update the existing Submission or
not
and just add a link to the group's spec
<scribe> ACTION: jacob work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating
the PE Member Submission [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Work with Microsoft's AC rep on
updating the PE Member Submission [on Jacob Rossi - due
2013-05-14].
Tracking Comments during Candidate Recommendation
AB: since the time we agreed to publish a CR, a few comments
have been submitted and we should consider them CR comments.
... regardless of the state of the spec, the group is always
obligated to reply all comments.
and we've done a great job of that already
AB: during CR, I don't think we are _required_ to create a
Disposition of Comments like we did for LC but we need to be
diligent to address all comments, in some form.
JR: I think it would be helpful to be more diligent on Issues
helpful to look at issues and Bugzilla
nice to look at the issues that were raised
AB: so, do we want to create a bug if the spec changes as a
result of a comment?
JR: yes
AV: if we create a CR target on Bugzilla, it make it easy to
target bugs against the CR
AB: do we need to create some type of label?
AV: there is a field for tracking docs
perhaps Doug know about how to do that with Bugzilla?
DS: I haven't used it for that purpose
JR: I think we need to add versions
<scribe> ACTION: barstow get a "CR" version created for the
Pointer Events CR [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Get a "CR" version created for
the Pointer Events CR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-05-14].
DRAFT RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments
that result in spec changes
AB: any comments on that Draft?
RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that
result in spec changes
AB: anything else re admin tasks for CR, Doug?
DS: no, I don't think so
we need to do Impl Report and Tests and we already know about
that
we haven't marked anything "At Risk"
we've already talked about v2
so I think things our "pretty standard"
JR: that all sounds right
pointermove dispatching when button state changes
AB: Scott started this thread
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0134.html and Jacob replied
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0141.html.
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0134.html
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0141.html.
SG: seems unclear there is no move when a button is clicked
JR: yeah, I think the sentence in ptrmove is ambiguous
need to take care of the case where there is no up or down
event
SG: should we just add a sentence that adds the exception?
JR: yes
SG: if move cause down, need to clarify
JR: yes, I can make that change
AB: so, you'll create a bug for this Jacob?
JR: yes, I'll do that
MSPointer implementation only dispatches mousemove when hovering
AB: Scott started this thread
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0135.html
... it appears to identify a bug in IE
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0135.html
JR: yes, it's a bug
we still fire the hover event
expect to align with the spec
SG: agree, we don't need to discuss here
AB: any need for spec tightening?
SG: no, I don't think so
I was looking for clarification (they have a hover event
which is not in the spec)
Testing
AB: CfC to move tests to GitHub
[20]https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/point
erevents passed.
[20] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/pointerevents
SG: I have a question about the GH repo
there is a PR from Nokia
<jrossi2> regarding pointermove and property changes:
[21]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951
[21] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951
not sure about the status of that
What is the process for review, merge, etc.?
Not sure how this PR is handled?
AB: those are all good questions Scott
we need to define our workflow
including, who is going to do what
would like to hear from Matt
MB: I need to do some homework
re W3C's GH repo
I can read up on that
I expect submissions are PRs
comments can be made on the list or in the PRs
JR: work with MikeSmith and Robin re permissions
I think you want to get setup with perms
MB: yes, I'll do that
SG: with Hg, there was submissions
and with GH, that doesn't appear to be used
JR: with GH, branches are used instead of submissions
SG: so, there is no submissions directory on GH
JR: yes, I think so but Matt can help us figure this out
AV: after someone submits, there should be some review but
approval
need to separate WG's workflow from GH's workflow
SG: I agree, PRs can serve as submissions
<mbrubeck> +1
<asir> where PR = Pull Request
AB: need to figure out how to watch for just pointerevents
changes
SG: don't think that can be done directly with GH
will get notifications for all PRs to webplatform-tests
AB: here is Rebecca's doc
[22]http://testthewebforward.org/resources/github_test_submissi
on.html
[22] http://testthewebforward.org/resources/github_test_submission.html
WebApps and HTML WGs will use as a guide
and we should use it too unless we really have some specific
constraints or reqs
AB: Asir mentioned we want to agree on review and approval
process
AV: this doc has a section on Submit that mentions specific WG
processes
JR: this doc doesn't really address how the WG does its reviews
and approvals
that is left to the WG to define
AV: yes, that is correct
JR: the undefined steps are accepting the PR and merging into
the master
we can define that ourselves
but we should learn from what other groups are doing
AB: that makes perfect sense to me
JR: Matt, can you take an action on this?
<scribe> ACTION: matt make a proposal re how to accept Pull
Requests and merge them to the master [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Make a proposal re how to accept
Pull Requests and merge them to the master [on Matt Brubeck -
due 2013-05-14].
AB: one thing I wanted to mention is ATT tests
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-testtwf/2013May/
0000.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-testtwf/2013May/0000.html
and I think DaveM from jQuery has done some work too
AB: Scott will you submit a PR for your HG submission?
SG: yes, I'll do that
and I'll work with DaveM to get his PR to pointerevents repo
AB: anything else on testing?
JR: I don't see AT&T listed as a WG member
do they need to be a member of the group to submit tests?
DS: there are various ways to handle this
indeed being a WG member is easiest
but anyone can submit a test
JR: oh, yeah, there is form for that right?
DS: yes
JR: I recall TTWF participants had to sign that form
AB: ok, so we should be fine then
JR: yes, I think so
Any other Business
AB: Director approved the publication of a Pointer Events
Candidate Recommendation and that CR should be published on
May 9
<asir> Congratulations to the WG!!
AB: F2F meeting @ TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, China Nov 11-15?
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0128.html. I've heard some support. Any comments,
feedback, concerns, etc.?
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0128.html.
AV: if we were to meet, what would we do?
re the agenda and goal?
AB: good question
AV: I think it would be good to meet
but not sure we want to wait until November
e.g. get together for interop and testing work
DS: we could meet in China e.g. to discuss things about v2
AB: I don't feel strongly either way
AV: so if this is about securing a spot, maybe we can think
about this as tentative
DS: yes, there is a bit of that
AB: based on what I know now, I don't think we will have a need
to meet
DS: if we think we will need to talk to other groups, then
meeting at TPAC can be useful
and do we anticipate that need 6 months from now?
groups that we depend on or groups that depend on us
There is some serendipity that happens too at TPAC
The Web Events is one group
but we can contact them other ways
The Indie UI WG is another potential group
and I don't know about the usefulness of meeting with them
Another reason to meet is if we can discuss topics with
people f2f
e.g. manufactures of touch devices
DS: so I leave it up to the group
AV: are such mfgs members of W3C?
DS: not sure but some type of "expo day" could be useful
and we could do that via a presentation e.g. @ TPAC slot
AB: I propose we don't meet and take advantage of the TP
meeting to do a demo about the PE spec
MB: sounds good to me
AV: sounds good to me too
JR: sounds reasonable; it's just too far in advance
SG: it's hard to say if there will be a good reason to meet
but six months out is too far away
JR: and as Doug said, if we find a need to meet earlier, we can
do so
AV: yes, good idea
RESOLUTION: the Pointer Events WG will not meet f2f at the TPAC
2013
AB: any implementation news or status?
<jrossi2> New polyfill:
[26]http://rich-harris.github.io/Points/
[26] http://rich-harris.github.io/Points/
AB: re next meeting, we'll have a call when there are
sufficient topics
Meeting Adjourned
, bye
shepazu - yt? RRSAgent is updating the minutes
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow get a "CR" version created for the
Pointer Events CR [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion02]
[NEW] ACTION: jacob work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating
the PE Member Submission [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion01]
[NEW] ACTION: matt make a proposal re how to accept Pull
Requests and merge them to the master [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion03]
[End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 10:42:49 UTC