- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:41:30 -0400
- To: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the September 10 voice conference are available
at <http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-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 September 17. In the
absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.
-Thanks, ArtB
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
10 Sep 2013
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0022.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu, Rick_Byers,
Doug_Schepers, Olli_Pettay, Matt_Brubeck, Cathy_Chan,
Sanghwhan_Moon(IRC-ony)
Regrets
Scott_Gonzαlez
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Tweak agenda
2. [6]CR implementation status
3. [7]Test Suite status
4. [8]Bug 22890 - It is not clear why
navigator.pointerEnabled is needed
5. [9]Bug 22891 - Mechanism to differentiate pointer
input from multiple users/devices missing
6. [10]detecting browser capabilities
7. [11]AoB
* [12]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<smaug> coming
<rbyers> I'm on my way - having telco issues
Tweak agenda
AB: I posted a draft agenda on September 9
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013JulSep/0022.html.
... Olli suggested in IRC we include bugs 22890 and 22891 today
and that seems like a good addition. I propose we take them
after Implementation status and Testing.
... Any objections?
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0022.html.
[None]
AB: any other change requests for today's agenda?
CR implementation status
AB: the last time we discussed impl status was 30 July
[14]http://www.w3.org/2013/07/30-pointerevents-minutes.html#ite
m02
... Since the draft agenda was published, we got a short update
re Polymer from Daniel Freedman and good news from Jacob.
... Let's start with Jacob
[14] http://www.w3.org/2013/07/30-pointerevents-minutes.html#item02
JR: if folks want to test but don't have access, there will be
update for Win 7 but no annouced date
supports PE for mouse just like Win 8.1
AB: Matt, Olli, what's the latest on Gecko?
OP: touch action part we are waiting
not yet done
RB: there was a thread in Bugzilla re touch actions
is there consensus on Mozilla side?
OP: we are looking at it
RB: we found this is the hard part
at least in Blink
OP: agree this is hard
RB: does touch action apply to touch event?
OP: we haven't discussed that
RB: we need to think about compat for these two
I put a link to my design in Moz bugzilla bug
I propose a new CSS property
but it hasn't been implemented
but that's in scope for Web Events WG
we need to implement our proposal and test before bringing to
standardization
<rbyers> regarding touch action in mozilla: in particular the
issue is what the performance implications are - what blocks
the main thread...
RB: re Blink, to get touch action work need a reliable touch
system
the hard part is the hit testing on the off thread
we had an impl but it's busted
I am now getting some more resources for touch action
I think we have hit testing in a good place
Now we need to rearchitect gestures and then start on touch
action
<rbyers> yikes
RB: there was some discussion about adding YA property to
Navigator
for PE v2, think we want to think about a device query system
JR: you mean maxTouchPoints
RB: yes, that's right
JR: agree we need a longer-term way of handling this
<rbyers> maxTouchPoints approved for shipping in blink:
[15]https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-
dev/ayzxdztUlOQ/rd-z_Jo3ocIJ
[15] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-dev/ayzxdztUlOQ/rd-z_Jo3ocIJ
DS: can we Agenda+ this
AB: ok with me
AV: what about polymer?
RB: Daniel posted some info
we need to get status from jQuery
we continue to use Polymfer in our projects
a big question is how to handle IE6
Scott and others said they would submit patches
but they haven't done that yet
AV: when do you expect touch action to be done Rick?
RB: not sure; depends on "land"
need to go thru reviewers, etc.
at least a month away
Test Suite status
AB: yesterday Jacob committed some tests
[16]https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324 mirrored
to
[17]http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/submissions/324/poin
terevents/ and he updated the Assertion table
[18]http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions
... Thanks Jacob!
... who can commit to reviewing Microsoft's tests?
[16] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324
[17] http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/submissions/324/pointerevents/
[18] http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions
should we split them up?
DS: that makes sense
AB: about 20 or so files
JR: we will submit a few more files
MB: I can review some
OP: I can't commit now
CC: I can do some
RB: I can review some too
AB: and I'll take some
<scribe> ACTION: matt Divide up Msft's tests for review by
Rick, Cathy, Art and Matt [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Divide up msft's tests for
review by rick, cathy, art and matt [on Matt Brubeck - due
2013-09-17].
AV: are there other PRs?
JR: is there an easy way to know the set of PRs for pointer
events
<scribe> ACTION: barstow followup with Tobie re getting
notifications for PE tests [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Followup with tobie re getting
notifications for pe tests [on Arthur Barstow - due
2013-09-17].
AV: I can review tests submitted by others
AB: ok
... Scott can now go through the TTWF tests with Dave
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013JulSep/0022.html aka Action-44
[22]https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/44.
... after Scott has completed his action/analysis, we should
have a reasonable idea of the coverage and holes
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0022.html
[22] https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/44.
AV: there are 2 gaps
assertions with no TAs
features with no tests
AB: anything else on testing for today?
AV: re the TA wiki, some are marked as "X has written" but
there is no link
<scribe> ACTION: barstow followup on the TA assertions to
determine why there are some missing links to PRs/Submissions
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Followup on the ta assertions to
determine why there are some missing links to prs/submissions
[on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-09-17].
Bug 22890 - It is not clear why navigator.pointerEnabled is needed
AB: 22890
[24]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22890 was
submitted by Olli on August 6.
[24] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22890
OP: I think the bug report is clear re the issue
RB: yeah, this comes back to what I said earlier re using
Navigator
I may not get approval to add this if window.PointerEvent can
be used
with v8, can't dynamically add properties
<sangwhan> Any particular usecase that makes the navigator
member useful?
why was pointerEnabled added?
JR: our original plan was to only support PE on Win 8+
so this was created to determine if PE would fire on a
particular platform
later we added PE to Win 7
so the reasoning is a bit moot at this point
With our compat research, we have found pointerEnabled being
used
so if removed, would break some sites
I agree with not putting stuff on Navigator but think it can
be useful in the scenario I mentioned earlier
RB: Chrome's PE plan is to always support them
perhaps we will need to disable in some cases
JR: on XP, follow the same pattern we use
<sangwhan> Chromecast or other TV/STBs comes to mind as one
usecase that may not want to fire PE
RB: at some point Chrome will switch to use PE on Win8
so for Blink, I will probably have a hard time selling
Navigator.pointerEnabled
probably need separate flags
and see which sites break
suspect it will be hard to add
OP: it will be hard to get added to Gecko
AB: it appears we don't have consensus on what to do
do we leave it open?
RB: browsers could leave it out and only add it if really
needed
and we tell devs to use window.PointerEvent
JR: the timing now is problematic
think it will be difficult to remove given some sites depend
on it
if the WG agrees to remove it, we could adjust our guidance
but it will remain in our platform
RB: it's too bad we didn't catch this earlier
<sangwhan> Considering how fast library/framework devs react to
spec changes I'm not sure if this is really going to be a
problem, if there are open libraries that don't change reaching
out doesn't take too much time..
OP: we should make sure documentation says to use
window.PointerEvent (and not Navigator.pointerEnabled
RB: I don't think we will be able to add it until we can
show/prove compat
AB: is there a test for this now?
<jrossi> I think Flipboard.com is an example that breaks
without pointerEnabled
JR: not in our submission, perhaps TTWF submissions
AB: think this will be a problem re testing the CR
OP: should we add something to the spec re this "at risk"?
RB: we could advocate checking window.PointerEvent and then
also check for pointerEnabled
JR: think we need make a call and then update the guidance
MB: do these sites already support the unprefixed version?
JR: yes, there are already some sites using pointerEnabled
<sangwhan> Do we have data on which sites?
MB: these sites using prefixed will need to change anyway
<rbyers> sangwhan: Jacob mentions flipboard.com and indeed I
see that in their code
<scribe> ACTION: barstow add a link to bug 22890 that points to
the 10-Sep-2013 discussion [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-48 - Add a link to bug 22890 that
points to the 10-sep-2013 discussion [on Arthur Barstow - due
2013-09-17].
Bug 22891 - Mechanism to differentiate pointer input from multiple
users/devices missing
AB: 22891
[26]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22891 was
submitted by Sangwhan on August 6.
[26] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22891
<jrossi>
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013JanMar/0223.html\
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0223.html
<jrossi>
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013JanMar/0223.html
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0223.html
RB: we talked about this a couple of times
this is the wii remote case
we agreed we need a solution for this some day
i.e. something we do in v2
JR: I just dropped in links to previous discussions
think this is broader than just PE
perhaps we need a new spec of diff spec like UI Events
<sangwhan> The root problem should probably be handled in the
scope of UIEvents
AB: is there an action for sangwhan to move this bug to UI
Events spec?
<sangwhan> No, but I can do it
<sangwhan> Give me a action, I'll contact Travis
AB: any objections for that resolution? i.e. Sanwhan move 22891
to UI Events?
<rbyers> I'd like to include scenarios like "is there a
physical keyboard attached" - I think it's the same sort of
'input device query' API...
[ None ]
<scribe> ACTION: moon move 22891 to UI Events [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Move 22891 to ui events [on
Sangwhan Moon - due 2013-09-17].
<smaug> (queries are somewhat privacy sensitive)
RB: I think we have a related entry in our v2 list
<asir> here
[30]http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/UseCasesAndRequirement
s
[30] http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/UseCasesAndRequirements
RB: yeah, that's it
<scribe> ACTION: barstow add a link to the v2 doc to the PE
main page [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - Add a link to the v2 doc to the
pe main page [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-09-17].
AB: Sangwhan, when you move 22891 to UI Events, please include
a link to the v2 UC doc
<sangwhan> Art, will do.
detecting browser capabilities
DS: so this is not a new problem
we anticipated this early on (DOM specs)
the solution at the time was "hasFeature"
I understand it got misused
and there were big probs
one couldn't count on using it (reliably)
if there was even a "little bit" of support for a feature, it
would return "true"
lots of impls said yes when there was no support at all
For D3E, we worked out a proposal to use strings
that can be namespaced and based on support for features
F.ex. to check for attr X, could use dot notation and check
True/False
Is there any way this can really be done in a reliable and
compatable way?
RB: agree we need a general mechanism for feature detection
for the most part, I think what we have today works
can be problems with events
Not clear we want to add a bunch of complexity
there will always be a way to check if an object exists or
not
not convinced the benefit of adding a second system is worth
the cost
DS: there are problems with just checking an object
RB: well in Bink, we don't object an object unless it is
complete
DS: browsers need to be more strict
Some things are tricky to test for
f.ex. modenizer creates objects just to see a feature exists
some features are hard to detect
Has "hasFeature" been deprecated at this point?
JR: not sure if hasFeature is being used for pointer events
RB: we are debating if we need an additional mechanism for
detecting PE or not
if so, do we use Navigator, do we use hasFeature, etc.
I hope we can just use window.PointerEvents
AB: is there a conclusion or followup for someone?
DS: don't think so
RB: think we still are at the question about is pointerEnabled
needed or not
DS: the original design was each spec would define the string
for their feature(s)
but I think we need to decide pointerEnable or not
and then if we need it, consider some more general solution
AoB
DS: W3C has changed its policy re normative references
we have a more pragmatic approach now
rather than looking at a spec in totality, it is now possible
to view the references in parts
A consequence is this means Web Events can move to REC
AV: we are wondering about a f2f meeting
f.ex. to review tests, add tests
what do you think
can people think about that
RB: I am a fan of f2f meeting but we need to think about the
timing
might make more sense to meet after we have more than one
impl avail
AB: those are good points
... It will be difficult for me to meet before TPAC
DS: same for me re logistics
agree f2f meetings for thinks Asir mentioned makes sense
MB: October is hard for us too
RB: if we have `done` impls, would it make sense to get
together then?
MB: yes, I think so
but now we have unlanded patches
AV: well the 8 week notice does cause a problem
DS: anyone going to TPAC?
AB: I plan to go
<jrossi> I'll be at HTML5DevConf :-)
RB: there could be a conference when we could co-locate
<sangwhan> I don't know yet
DS: HTML5DevConf could be a rallying point
even if informal
JR: yes, I could meet in that timeframe, even if informal
RB: we could demo the polymer pollyfill
but that week won't work for me
Blink conf is another possibility
AB: when is Blink conf?
RB: Sept 24-25
AV: so my summary is that we need more than 8 weeks
would be good to try to co-locate with some conf
DS: if we do meet, I would like to have an open meeting for
people outside the meeting
<rbyers> jrossi: nope, it's this:
[32]https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/b
link-dev/blinkon/blink-dev/vKAVn47Cn-k/4mPyBAXsrKsJ
[32] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/blink-dev/blinkon/blink-dev/vKAVn47Cn-k/4mPyBAXsrKsJ
<rbyers> pretty small scale
AB: so next meeting will be when we have sufficient topics
Meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow add a link to bug 22890 that points to
the 10-Sep-2013 discussion [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion04]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow add a link to the v2 doc to the PE main
page [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion06]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow followup on the TA assertions to
determine why there are some missing links to PRs/Submissions
[recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion03]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow followup with Tobie re getting
notifications for PE tests [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion02]
[NEW] ACTION: matt Divide up Msft's tests for review by Rick,
Cathy, Art and Matt [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion01]
[NEW] ACTION: moon move 22891 to UI Events [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion05]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 16:43:13 UTC