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

Draft minutes: 10 September 2013 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:41:30 -0400
Message-ID: <522F4BBA.8040209@nokia.com>
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 

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] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                    Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

10 Sep 2013


       [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


           Art_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu, Rick_Byers,
           Doug_Schepers, Olli_Pettay, Matt_Brubeck, Cathy_Chan,





      * [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
    ... 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.


    AB: any other change requests for today's agenda?

CR implementation status

    AB: the last time we discussed impl status was 30 July
    ... 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

    <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

    … 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

    <rbyers> yikes

    RB: there was some discussion about adding YA property to

    … 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

    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
    terevents/ and he updated the Assertion table
    ... 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

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Divide up msft's tests for
    review by rick, cathy, art and matt [on Matt Brubeck - due

    AV: are there other PRs?

    JR: is there an easy way to know the set of PRs for pointer

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow followup with Tobie re getting
    notifications for PE tests [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Followup with tobie re getting
    notifications for pe tests [on Arthur Barstow - due

    AV: I can review tests submitted by others

    AB: ok
    ... Scott can now go through the TTWF tests with Dave
    013JulSep/0022.html aka Action-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

    <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

    … 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

    … 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

    … 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

    … 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

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-48 - Add a link to bug 22890 that
    points to the 10-sep-2013 discussion [on Arthur Barstow - due

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


      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/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

    <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/UseCasesAndRequirements

    RB: yeah, that's it

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow add a link to the v2 doc to the PE
    main page [recorded in

    <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

    … 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 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

    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


    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

    … 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/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
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow add a link to the v2 doc to the PE main
    page [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow followup on the TA assertions to
    determine why there are some missing links to PRs/Submissions
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow followup with Tobie re getting
    notifications for PE tests [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: matt Divide up Msft's tests for review by Rick,
    Cathy, Art and Matt [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: moon move 22891 to UI Events [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 16:43:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:25 UTC