Re: Draft minutes: 7 May 2013 call

On 5/7/13 12:45 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> The draft minutes from the May 7 voice conference are available at 
> <> 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 
<> and copied below.




                                - DRAFT -

                    Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

07 May 2013



    See also: [3]IRC log



           Art_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu,
           Scott_Gonzαlez, Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers





      * [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
    ... 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?


    [ none ]

    AB: any other change requests?

    [ none ]

Developers confuse the original MS PE submission for the current spec

    AB: Rick Byers started this thread
    ... I believe Doug agreed to work with Jacob to take care of
    this. Is that correct Doug?


    JR: the action is on me to provide an updated doc via Michael

    … one open question is can we update the existing Submission or

    … 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

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Work with Microsoft's AC rep on
    updating the PE Member Submission [on Jacob Rossi - due

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

    <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

    … 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
    013AprJun/0134.html and Jacob replied


    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

    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
    ... it appears to identify a bug in IE


    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)


    AB: CfC to move tests to GitHub
    erevents passed.


    SG: I have a question about the GH repo

    … there is a PR from Nokia

    <jrossi2> regarding pointermove and property changes:


    … 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

    … 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

    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


    … 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

    AV: this doc has a section on Submit that mentions specific WG

    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

    <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


    … 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?
    013AprJun/0128.html. I've heard some support. Any comments,
    feedback, concerns, etc.?


    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

    AB: any implementation news or status?

    <jrossi2> New polyfill:


    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
    [NEW] ACTION: jacob work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating
    the PE Member Submission [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: matt make a proposal re how to accept Pull
    Requests and merge them to the master [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 10:42:49 UTC