- From: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 18:48:26 +0000
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
I owe folks a short apology. It seems that alarm clocks do not properly work without electricity. :-) Why the circuit breaker in flipped and turned off my alarm clock remains a mystery. But nonetheless, sorry I missed this morning. Looks like things carried on well without me. I'll respond to the one thread about the touch-action processing model.
-Jacob
-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:59 AM
To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
Subject: Draft minutes: 4 June 2013 call
The draft minutes from the June 4 voice conference are available at <http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-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 11 June 2013. 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
04 Jun 2013
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0164.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-pointerevents-irc
Attendees
Present
Olli_Pettay, Rick_Byers, Asir_Vedamuthu, Scott_Gonzalez,
Art_Barstow
Regrets
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Tweak agenda
2. [6]Bug 21951
3. [7]Answers to questions in new points.js polyfill
4. [8]An update on the Chrome team's stance on
implementing pointer events in Chrome
5. [9]Justification for the touch-action processing model
6. [10]Testing: status and plans;
7. [11]Any other Business
* [12]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Tweak agenda
AB: I posted a draft agenda last Friday
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0164.html. Any change requests?
... would someone please scribe today's call? I think most of
the topics are going to be relatively quick.
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0164.html.
Bug 21951
AB: Bug 21951 is labeled "CR" and titled "pointermove
dispatching when button state changes";
[14]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951
... based on the text of the bug, it appears this will require
a short clarification so probably nothing we need to discus but
wanted to verify that.
[14] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21951
RB: yes, I think it is just a minor clarification
... that Jacob can handle
AV: yes, agree it is a clarification
Answers to questions in new points.js polyfill
AB: we have a thread about points.js and some other related
libs and polyfills
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0148.html. It's good to see the interest
... is there anything we need to discuss today or any followup
actions?
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0148.html.
RB: I think I owe Rich a reply
... we had a good discussion re tradeoffs
... I think we have consensus on how to tradeoff performance on
in/out semantics
... preventDefault will be tricky, though
... I need to think and experiment on that
... I've had some other discussions about how we can test this
... and trying to have one polyfill we can recommend
... we should have design discussions on the list
... I think implementers are ready to start hacking on this
AV: yes, need to continue discussions
... not sure if there are any issues that need WG attention
... I don't think so
RB: agree no WG attention needed
... we need to get a high fidelity polyfilll
... but I don't think we need any spec changes
AV: ok, good; I haven't seen any issues that require spec
changes
RB: we could add some non-normative notes to the spec
... it is good for the group to participate in the tradeoffs
... and we should continue those on the list
SG: jQuery is working on a polyfill
... we'd rather not have to do so
... but something is needed e.g. old IE
... we have been working with MS Open Tech
<smaug> (it can't be really polyfill, given that old IEs don't
even have DOM events)
... of all the events to polyfill, this is one of the hardest
... hope we don't get random inconsistencies
RB: shouldn't need jQuery specific parts for the polyfill
SG: would prefer to just recommend something else
... (and not create our own)
... If we write our own, it will be jQuery specific
RB: may be possible to work with other polyfills
... e.g. Polymer
... the Polymer pollyfill is separable
... not aware of any technical issues why it couldn't support old
IE
... I'm sure they would appreciate help, if it doesn't create any
perf issues
... I could talke to Daniel Freedman
SG: we've talked to him
... the discussion kinda' died
RB: I can help here, talking to Daniel
... tough to invest when testing is hard
AV: Scott, how did it go when you talked to MS Open Tech people
SG: the conclusion was to create jQuery specific
... ? hand.js ?
AV: I can followup too
<asir> You got the name right
RB: is there a good addEventListener for old IE?
SG: I'm not aware of any
... not aware of a good polyfill for addEvListener for old IE
AV: what version is "old IE"
SG: jQuery UI is IE 7
RB: so that could add significant complexity to polymer to go
way back with IE
... wondering about how far back the polyfills need to go
SG: want to eventually stop using mouse events completely
RB: in the short term, there will be some tradeoffs
... going to be hard to polyfill everything and get good
performance
SG: two sides: people trying to use PE directly; people that
are still using mouse events
... want to get people to stop writing to mouse events
RB: polyfill could have a switch re use touch events or not
SG: things like preventDefault and touch-action will be tricky
RB: ok, I'll reach out to the Polymer guys
... worst case is we must have a separate IE6 polyfill
... if we need that, we should work with MS Open Tech
AV: yes, agree
An update on the Chrome team's stance on implementing pointer events in Chrome
AB: Rick provided an update re Chrome's PE implementation
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0155.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0155.html
AB: there is also the video Rick and Boris Smus gave at G-IO
<[17]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DujfpXOKUp8>.
[17] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DujfpXOKUp8%3E.
RB: we will need touch-action or something like
... it is probably the hardest part of PE
... want to get it working with TouchEvents (TE)
... would make polyfills easier
... I have a design doc for Chrome
... ATM, I see this as experimental
... May need a new property for compatibility with TE
... I landed one CL and another is in progress (touch-action)
... I think we have a couple of months ahead
... before we can turn this on by default
... I talked to Matt about our design and he thinks it is
reasonable and applicable for FireFox
... I reached out to Safari people and have to followup with them
... Talking to Scott at MS Open Tech
... Slow progress but it's moving forward
Justification for the touch-action processing model
AB: this topic has a couple of threads, one is
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0163.html.
... there is also a thread titled "Is touch-action implicitly
applied to any elements?"
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0156.html
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0163.html.
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0156.html
<rbyers> By the way, to follow Chrome's touch-action support,
follow crbug.com/241964
AB: do we discuss now or keep discussions on the list?
RB: I think using the list is fine
... I've been getting Qs and I'm passing them on to the list
AV: I think Jacob replied
RB: he did and then I had a followup
... I'm not arguing for a change but more trying to understand
the "Whys" of the processing model
... If/when I get a Q like "why is this so different than
everything else?", I'd like to have some background and context
to reply
<rbyers> ... In particular, making sure my reasons for why I
like the design as it is are consistent with the original
design goals...
AB: please continue the discussion on the list [Art notes Jacob
wasn't on the call]
Testing: status and plans;
AB: yesterday, Matt proposed a submission and approval process
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013AprJun/0167.html and there has been quit
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013AprJun/0167.html
... quite a bit of followup on the list
AB: he also indicated he is willing to move tests from hg into
the GitHub PE directory
[21]https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/point
erevents
[21] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/pointerevents
... and that's good
AB: there a few sub-issues here ...
... one is, do we create our own repo or re-use the
.../w3c/web-platform-tests/?
SG: my comments were more about W3C policy
... I think we should just follow the W3C policy
... my comments were those driving W3C testing effort
AB: ok, thanks for that clarification
... another is how to manage the "notification hell"
... and since, Tobie replied and is gathering requirements on how
to address that
AB: we definitely need a solution to that issue
AV: do we need a separate mailing list for testing?
AB: good Q
... my feel now is not yet
AV: I would expect the set of tests to not be as large as other
groups
AB: I agree with your expectation
... any comments on Matt's proposal?
AV: I want to thank Matt!
... Matt asked about using the list to signal reviews
... I like the idea to make that email mandatory
... Re fixing/updating tests, how is that done?
... I would expect a PR to be made
... just like a submission
OP: yes, agree
AV: so need to be clear that test updates need to go through
the same process
... there front page is missing some information
... e.g. copyrights, obligations, etc.
AB: agree the update process should use the same mechanics as
submissions
... and if there is some missing documentation in the home page,
then yes, we need to fix that
... if have general OWP questions, issues, feedback, send to
public-infr-test
AV: I want to talk to my team about Matt's proposal
AB: ok, sounds good
AV: I think we all need to make a commitment to review the
tests
AB: yes, I definitely agree with that
... and it's up to us to define the review and approval process
AV: Matt suggested #2 be mandatory i.e. to notify the group of
all submissions and ask for reviews
AB: I agree we should use the list for explicit "call for
reviews" of test cases
... anything else on testing for today?
... Scott, did you volunteer to help Matt manage the PE tests?
SG: sure
AB: OK, thanks Scott
Any other Business
AB: any new Implementation status to share?
OP: I need to talk to romaxa to get implementation status
RB: Olli - if romaxa has feedback on my design doc, that would
be great
... could make sense for FF to implement touch-action first,
independent of PE spec
... that could facilitate a pollyfill experience
AB: anything else for today?
... so we'll have the next call when we have sufficient topics
... If you see a need for a call let me know
AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 18:49:51 UTC