W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Draft minutes: 26 February 2013 call

From: Scott Gonzαlez <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:14:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAO8i3icsqdN5Z=hBvu-JsKmaHTNEHKz47mv-69F3KEGQ2HuiZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
At the end of the pointerId discussion, I mentioned compatibility with JS
objects. Specifically, I mentioned that users may use a JS object with the
pointerId as a key and using an object for pointerId would result in
"[object Object]" being the key. Alex mentioned that if we use an object we
can provide a custom toString(), which would solve this issue without
relying on ES6 maps.


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> The draft minutes from the February 26 voice conference are available at <
> http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-**pointerevents-minutes.html<http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-pointerevents-minutes.html>>
> and copied below.
>
> WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them
> to the public-pointer-events mail list before 5 March 2013. In the absence
> of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.
>
> -Thanks, Art
>
>    [1]W3C
>
>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                                - DRAFT -
>
>                    Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
>
> 26 Feb 2013
>
>    [2]Agenda
>
>       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0153.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0153.html>
>
>    See also: [3]IRC log
>
>       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-**pointerevents-irc<http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-pointerevents-irc>
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>           Art_Barstow, Olli_Pettay, Scott_Gonzalez, Cathy_Chan,
>           Asir_Vedamuthu, Jacob_Rossi, Doug_Schepers,
>           Matt_Brubeck, Alex_Russell
>
>    Regrets
>           Rick_Byers
>
>    Chair
>           Art
>
>    Scribe
>           Art
>
> Contents
>
>      * [4]Topics
>          1. [5]Getting started
>          2. [6]Spec feedback by Alex Russell
>          3. [7]Tweaking wording in Introduction by Rick Byers
>          4. [8]pointerType extensibility by Rick Byers
>          5. [9]Should pointerId be an integer by Rick Byers
>          6. [10]Click and contextmenu events by Rick Byers
>          7. [11]Testing Pointer Events v1 spec
>          8. [12]Any other Business
>      * [13]Summary of Action Items
>      ______________________________**____________________________
>
>    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
>
>    <scribe> Scribe: Art
>
>    <smaug> Zakim: who is noisy
>
> Getting started
>
>    AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday
>    [14]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-**pointer-events/2<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2>
>    013JanMar/0153.html. Any change requests?
>
>      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0153.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0153.html>
> .
>
>    JR: I enjoyed talking about PE last week @ W3Conf
>
>    … we can talk about that during AoB
>
>    AB: ok, we'll add that to AoB
>
> Spec feedback by Alex Russell
>
>    AB: Alex submitted 7-8 bullets in his comments
>    [15]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-**pointer-events/2<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2>
>    013JanMar/0110.html and they were submitted before the LC was
>    published.
>    ... we agreed during our February 12 call Alex's comments would
>    be considered as LC comments
>    [16]http://www.w3.org/2013/02/**12-pointerevents-minutes.html#**ite<http://www.w3.org/2013/02/12-pointerevents-minutes.html#ite>
>    m02.
>    ... We could do a deep dive on some set of Alex's points or let
>    the Editors reply first. I note one of Alex's comments is about
>    the issue Rick raised about the semantics of pointerID which is
>    on the agenda.
>
>      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0110.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0110.html>
>      [16] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/12-**pointerevents-minutes.html#**
> item02 <http://www.w3.org/2013/02/12-pointerevents-minutes.html#item02>.
>
>    JR: I have a draft about half done re Alex's comments
>
>    AB: sounds good
>
> Tweaking wording in Introduction by Rick Byers
>
>    <slightlyoff> apologies for not seeing this earlier. Wasn't
>    aware there was a meeting
>
>    AB: Rick had some comments re the Introduction
>    [17]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-**pointer-events/2<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2>
>    013JanMar/0127.html
>    ... the LC already addresses at least some of Rick's comments
>    but it appears there is also a request to embellish some set of
>    the existing examples and/or add new example(s).
>
>      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0127.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0127.html>
>
>    JR: 2 things
>
>    … I made most of the changes in the LC
>
>    … there is a bug I introduced that needs to be fixed
>
>    … and I'll do that
>
>    … Not sure what you mean by examples
>
>    AB: ok, I'll re-read that thread and reply accordingly
>
> pointerType extensibility by Rick Byers
>
>    AB: On Feb 19, Rick started a new thread about pointerType
>    extensibility
>    [18]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-**pointer-events/2<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2>
>    013JanMar/0134.html.
>    ... is this a request to change the API defined in LC for v1 or
>    is this more a question about what we might want to do in v2?
>
>      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0134.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0134.html>
> .
>
>    JR: I talked to Rick about this last week
>
>    … we talked about diff ideas
>
>    … they all have + and -
>
>    … My conclusion is that there are 2 scenarios
>
>    … one is providing a better path for new devices
>
>    … we want them to have some compat with PEs
>
>    <slightlyoff> just joined the call
>
>    … the other issue, even if we do that there can be some
>    scenarios where knowing the real device id is important
>
>    … I think we can solve the first problem by adding some more
>    semantics
>
>    … We could have an API change if we go with the inheritance
>    chain proposal
>
>    … could then do instanceof ...
>
>    … and then new devices are instance of a former device
>
>    … that would solve the extensibility prob but still think there
>    is a need of pointer type
>
>    … and need to know the actual device type
>
>    … Might be a bit weird to add it to a future spec
>
>    … I think Rick is comfortable with followoing up on this later
>
>    AB: we still have 3 weeks of LC
>
>    OP: I agree we should solve this problem later
>
>    … we can't predict future extensibility
>
>    JR: there was a lot of talk about leap motion
>
>    … at W3Conf
>
>    <jrossi> [19]https://www.leapmotion.**com/<https://www.leapmotion.com/>
>
>      [19] https://www.leapmotion.com/
>
>    JR: this came up at edgeconf
>
>    DS: has anyone talked to them?
>
>    <slightlyoff> ...because one of the folks on the panel seemed
>    to be a representative
>
>    JR: I have expressed interest
>
>    DS: I played with Joshua Davis' device; pretty cool
>
>    <slightlyoff> I'm gonna cede the floor on this
>
>    <slightlyoff> I owe the list email
>
>    <slightlyoff> and don't think we can make serious progress by
>    phone
>
>    <jrossi> slightlyoff: are you just on IRC?
>
> Should pointerId be an integer by Rick Byers
>
>    AB: Rick started a thread about the type of pointerID
>    [20]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-**pointer-events/2<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2>
>    013JanMar/0146.html
>    ... Alex mentioned this issue too
>    [21]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-**pointer-events/2<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2>
>    013JanMar/0110.html.
>
>      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0146.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0146.html>
>      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0110.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0110.html>
> .
>
>    <slightlyoff> jrossi: no, on the call, but don't want to queue
>    in just to say "not today" = )
>
>    <slightlyoff> why?
>
>    <jrossi> just curious
>
>    JR: I'll reply to the pointerID thread
>
>    AR: why do people not want to make it opaque?
>
>    JR: I found UCs for it being an integer
>
>    … in one painting demo with multitouch, used integer to pick
>    from a random number of colors
>
>    … perhaps not a great UC
>
>    … Do you have a proposal for opaque?
>
>    AR: think object identity should be sufficient
>
>    … can't guarnatee integer stability
>
>    … having multiple mouse isn't common
>
>    … One objection is only having one mouse and making it 0
>
>    … Don't think we want an integer for a specific device
>
>    … Breaks down when new pointer types are added
>
>    … Don't want to set bad expectations
>
>    JR: Rick mentioned some issues with using integers
>
>    … e.g. when comparing
>
>    … May need to add some more context about the integers
>
>    … Can achieve good level of interop with integers
>
>    … and make sure people's "false assumptions" are addressed
>
>    … Think this would be a problem for our impl
>
>    … if we had to switch to opaque types
>
>    … I am willing to consider it, but would prefer to keep this
>    integer
>
>    … and to add some more information and context
>
>    … One pain point is supporting touch events which used integer
>
>    AR: given that, I think it would be ok if using integers was
>    fleshed out better
>
>    … that would be better than creating an interop problem
>
>    JR: do you have a proposal?
>
>    AR: opening move is to write down the IE behavior
>
>    … then we have something to discuss
>
>    DS: is part of your rationale pattern searching?
>
>    AR: if integers, it permits indexing to arrays
>
>    … and that works ok if the impl moves through the integer space
>    in a reasonable way
>
>    … but if a different impl moves through the integer space
>    differently, there will be interop problems
>
>    … Don't want confusion for the app devs
>
>    … if the id is overloaded
>
>    DS: so, need to define the semantics of the integer e.g.
>    before/after
>
>    AR: need to make sure impls handle integers the same way
>
>    OP: I prefer a random behavior
>
>    AR: and that would meet my opapue requirement
>
>    <jrossi> Roughly speaking, IE10 reserves 1 for mouse. Then 2+
>    values are used for other inputs. With each newly recognized
>    pointer, the ID is increased. But there's some max at which we
>    wrap back around to 2. I'd have to check with the Windows
>    kernel folks for clarity.
>
> Click and contextmenu events by Rick Byers
>
>    AB: Rick started a thread about click and contextmenu events in
>    [22]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-**pointer-events/2<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2>
>    013JanMar/0151.html
>    ... Jacob replied
>    [23]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-**pointer-events/2<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2>
>    013JanMar/0152.html.
>    ... is this just a matter of adding a bit of explanatory text?
>
>      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0151.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0151.html>
>      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0152.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0152.html>
> .
>
>    <shepazu> (I think I agree with Alex about pointerId, though I
>    want to think about it)
>
>    JR: there is some explanatory text that needs to be added
>
>    … there is already some related information
>
>    … I think it is safe to add the extra text
>
>    … The other issue is Ricking looking for a defn of "click"
>
>    … There is a defn in D3E
>
>    … Not sure if he missed it; just sent today
>
>    … This could be no change or just some additional non-normative
>    text
>
>    <slightlyoff> still on the call = )
>
>    <slightlyoff> ES6 maps make this go away
>
>    SG: re pointerId, whatever we do we need to make sure it is
>    compatible with JS objects
>
>    <slightlyoff> you can have arbitrary keys
>
>    <jrossi> when ES6 is interoperable :-)
>
>    … we cannot assume everyone is using ES6
>
> Testing Pointer Events v1 spec
>
>    AB: there was some discussion on the list
>    [24]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-**pointer-events/2<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2>
>    013JanMar/0157.html.
>
>      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0157.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0157.html>
> .
>
>    <jrossi> what about polyfills? integers will be easier if
>    trying to polyfill older browsers, I think.
>
>    <scott_gonzalez> By compatible with JS objects, I mean
>    specifically that the pointerId can be used as a unique key in
>    an object.
>
>    AB: any comments re the proposed directory structure?
>
>    JR: looks good
>
>    AB: any comments re how to identify tests as manual vs.
>    automated?
>
>    <scott_gonzalez> If we do use objects to represent pointerId, a
>    custom toString() which returns a unique value would be fine.
>
>    DS: we should use metadata for auto/manual
>
>    … I should bring in Tobie Langel, W3C's test lead
>
>    AB: ok, let's talk about how to schedule that
>
>    <smaug> er, what is the command
>
>    AB: any comments about the need for test assertions e.g.
>    [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/**webevents/wiki/TestAssertions<http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions>?
> Any
>    volunteers to lead or contribute?
>
>      [25] http://www.w3.org/2010/**webevents/wiki/TestAssertions<http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions>
> ?
>
>    <smaug> thanks
>
>    AB: any volunteers?
>
>    CC: I can help get that started
>
>    AB: excellent!
>
>    … thanks Cathy!
>
> Any other Business
>
>    AB: does anyone have any implementation status to share?
>
>    DS: I think Jacob did an excellent job on PE @ W3Conf!
>
>    … it is available on youtube
>
>    <shepazu> [26]http://www.youtube.com/**watch?v=SCfVn4JY5yk<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCfVn4JY5yk>
>
>      [26] http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=SCfVn4JY5yk<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCfVn4JY5yk>
>
>    DS: I will write a blog re PE for webplatform.org
>
>    <jrossi>
>    [27]http://docs.webplatform.**org/wiki/concepts/**PointerEvents<http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/concepts/PointerEvents>
>
>      [27] http://docs.webplatform.org/**wiki/concepts/PointerEvents<http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/concepts/PointerEvents>
>
>    … Msft has some folks creating PE materials
>
>    … they have an overview plus reference material
>
>    <jrossi> Shorcut url: [28]http://bit.ly/pointerdoc
>
>      [28] http://bit.ly/pointerdoc
>
>    DS: they will ask this group for feedback
>
>    … Thanks Microsoft for making that happen!
>
>    JR: I talked to a lot of devs at the conf
>
>    … about 4 other talks mentioned Pointer Events
>
>    … and that's pretty cool
>
>    DS: yes, lots of interest
>
>    <slightlyoff> am not
>
>    AB: re next call, we have 3 more weeks of LC review
>
>    … given that, perhaps we skip next week and next call is March
>    12
>
>    JR: assume we want to record some Resolutions and don't want to
>    get too far behind
>
>    … so it may sense to have a call next week
>
>    AB: good point; let's you and I chat at the end of the week re
>    if a call on March 5 makes sense
>
>    JR: sounds good
>
>    AB: thanks everyone for joining. Meeting adjourned
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>    [End of minutes]
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 17:14:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:17:04 GMT