Draft minutes: 5 February 2013 call

The draft minutes from the February 5 voice conference are available at 
<http://www.w3.org/2013/02/05-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 12 February 2013. In 
the absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.



       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                    Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

05 Feb 2013


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0061.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/05-pointerevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Scott_Gonzalez, Matt_Brubeck,
           Doug_Schepers, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu, Cathy_Chan

           Rick_Byers, Olli_Pettay




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda
          2. [6]Making click/contextmenu use PointerEvent interface
          3. [7]Mapping for devices that don't support hover and
             CSS :hover; bug 20222
          4. [8]Transformed Pointer Coordinates?
          5. [9]PE spec comments by Cathy
          6. [10]Pointer events  active buttons state & pen
          7. [11]Pointer Events Open Bugs
          8. [12]Any other Business
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    Date: 5 February 2013

    <mbrubeck> Good morning, Art.


    AB: I posted a draft agenda a couple of days ago
    013JanMar/0061.html. Since then there has been a relatively
    significant amount of activity on various agenda topics.
    ... we could now try to sort out what needs to be dropped,
    changed, added; or, it could be more time efficient to just
    stick with the draft agenda and adjust it accordingly as we
    ... we can also add a discussion about LC plans to the AoB
    ... is that OK? Any other proposed additions

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0061.html.

    JR: want to walk through some of my e-mails

    AB: sure, that's fine

Making click/contextmenu use PointerEvent interface

    AB: this topic was raised by Rick a few weeks ago
    013JanMar/0024.html and we talked about it last week
    ... it appears we still need feedback from Rick so I propose we
    postpone this topic and I can assign an Action to  Rick to
    reply to this thread. OK?

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0024.html
      [16] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/29-pointerevents-minutes.html#item02.

    JR: I think that's fine

     I raised this issue and if it takes some more time that's

     I dont think it will require changes to PE spec

     but perhaps some spec in HTML and/or WebApps

    <scribe> ACTION: Rick reply to the "Making click/contextmenu
    use PointerEvent interface" thread [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Reply to the "Making
    click/contextmenu use PointerEvent interface" thread [on Rick
    Byers - due 2013-02-12].

Mapping for devices that don't support hover and CSS :hover; bug

    AB: the hover issue is documented in bug 20222
    [18]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20222 and
    Rick started a related thread
    ... an issue is whether or not the current text regarding hover
    is overly restrictive (given hover's  usage `in the wild`). And
    there is also an issue about making sure v1 doesn't preclude us
    from doing

      [18] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20222
      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0041.html.

     something about this in v2

    AB: we postponed this topic last week because Rick was not
    present. He followed up yesterday
    013JanMar/0067.html and then Jacob replied.
    ... it appears the way forward is: a) to leave text as is for
    v1; and b) to add hover to the list of potential features for

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0067.html

    JR: I stated the right approach on the list

     think some experimentation is still needed here

     want a general solution

     Rick and I agree this is a tough problem to solve generally

     and that doing something in v2 may be the right thing to do

    <mbrubeck> I also support punting any changes to v2.

    MB: I support leaving current text as is and potentially doing
    something in v2

    SG: agree

    DS: fine with that but it should be called out because it is an
    Accessiblity issue

    JR: that's fair

     I can add a related note

     identify the problem but note we don't have a solution

     Hover has always been an a11y issue

     It is worth noting PE doesn't fix this issue nor make it

    AB: so Jacob will add some non-normative text

     and also close 20222

     is that correct?

    JR: yes

    <scribe> ACTION: Jacob close bug 20222 per the 5-Feb-2013
    resolution [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Close bug 20222 per the
    5-Feb-2013 resolution [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-02-12].

    <scribe> ACTION: Jacob add some non-normative text for 20222
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Add some non-normative text for
    20222 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-02-12].

Transformed Pointer Coordinates?

    AB: Doug Schepers  started the conversation via
    013JanMar/0046.html. Based on that discussion, Jacob opened a
    bug for the CSSOM View
    [24]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20832 spec.
    ... it appears there is nothing we need to do for the PE spec.
    Is that correct?

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0046.html.
      [24] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20832

    DS: yes, that's correct

     the result is that people have some ideas

     they agree it is not a PE issue but an issue for CSSOM spec

    RESOLUTION: the "Transformed Pointer Coordinates" issue will be
    addressed in other specs (not the Pointer Events spec)

PE spec comments by Cathy

    AB: Cathy asked some question about the PE spec
    ... Jacob replied yesterday
    013JanMar/0072.html. He suggests two comments are mostly
    editorial and he added two new bugs:
    ... 1.  "PREVENT MOUSE EVENT flag should be per pointer type"
    ... 2.  "Pointercancel should also implicitly release capture"

      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0057.html
      [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0072.html.
      [27] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20872
      [28] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20873

    JR: this was good feedback

     I can walk through them

     #1 how many pointers can be the primary pointer at once

     there can in theory be many devices

     but in reality, don't see many devices used at once

     End up having mouse events fighting each other

     We considered device arbitration

     but we didn't go that route

    DS: if a game has a tablet and 2 people and each person has an
    input device - does this work?

    JR: absolutely

     primary gives UA a rule for multitouch to determine which
    device wins

    DS: do you have some code to demonstrate this? If yes, that
    would be great to show during W3Conf

    JR: ok; I can look into that
    ... if anyone has feedback on other scenarios like that, please
    send email
    ... ok, Cathy's comment #2

     the spec will need to be changed

     it's a simple change

     filed bug 20872


      [29] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20872

     I proposed changes in

      [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0072.html

    <Cathy> Looks fine to me.

    AB: any comments re Jacob's proposal for #2?

    JR: re Cathy's comment #3 ...

     agree the text is a bit convoluted

     I can clarify this text

     I didn't open up a bug because the fix is relatively easy

    JR: re Cathy's comment #4

     there is a scenario missing from the spec

     for pointer cancel

     I opened bug 20873 for that

      [31] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=208723

     will make a simple text change to fix this

    AB: sounds good to me

    <asir> Correct link is

      [32] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20873

    CC: yes, that's good

Pointer events  active buttons state & pen devices

    AB: Tim Bannister asked about how PEs work with pen devices and
    ... Jacob replied yesterday
    ... it appears this was mostly a request for clarification and
    that no spec change is needed. Is that correct?

      [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0052.html
      [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0069.html.

    JR: yes

     I haven't seen the behaviour Tim described

     the button is just a modifier

    AB: any comments?

     ok, then we consider that resolved

Pointer Events Open Bugs

    AB: the only open bug [35]http://tinyurl.com/Bugs-PointerEvents
    we haven't talked about is 20109 that Jacob reopened yesterday
    ... Jacob's comment

      [35] http://tinyurl.com/Bugs-PointerEvents
      [36] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20109
      [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0073.html

    JR: this is the mouse emulating pressure bug

     we realize that in most pen apps, for max pressure for the
    pen correlates to greather than normal stroke width

     half-pressure would be "normal" pressure

     if use something like Msft Paint, a line is .5 pressure

     We changed the spec about a month ago

     changed from .5 to 1

     Need to think about other properties e.g. tiltX, tiltY,
    width, height

     Can leave it up to impls to decide

     If we emulate one prop, we should emulate the other
    properties too

     We are proposing : mouse should be .5 rather 1 for pressue

     spec now use MAY for width and height and we think it should
    be SHOULD

    MB: if max should be twice default pressure but in Msft doc
    it's 1.5 times

    JR: the documentation is correct, I made an error in my e-mail

    MB: ok, thanks

     I agree with the proposal to change this to SHOULD

     we need consistency with the defaults

     otherwise, get interop problems

     so having consistent defaults is a good idea

    AB: any other comments

    <mbrubeck> Rationale: If developers test only in browsers with
    a default value, they might not realize their program has a
    divide-by-zero bug or other bugs, in browsers without a nonzero

    AB: so do we ask Jacob to change this now?

    JR: I can make the change and then ask Rick and Olli if they
    have any concerns

    <scribe> ACTION: Jacob apply your proposed change to bug 20109
    and ask the group for comments [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Apply your proposed change to
    bug 20109 and ask the group for comments [on Jacob Rossi - due

    <asir> [39]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20217

      [39] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20217

    AB: anything else on the spec before AoB

    JR: re touch-action

    <asir> You can find Rick's response

      [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0067.html

     Rick replied and was OK with the proposal

Any other Business

    AB: re LC, it appears we have 3 open bugs (20109, 20872 and
    20873). If we still want to get a LC published on Feb 19, we
    should be in a position to discuss this transition during our
    Feb 12 call. That means we need proposed fixes for these bugs
    `real soon now`.
    ... I think we are in pretty good shape

    AV: we are still waiting for Rick's input on the context menu

    AB: oh yes, good point

    DS: can someone make sure Rick knows that?

    AB: I already have an action to contact Rick

    DS: would be good to get the bugs fixed as soon as we can

    JR: yes, I'm on it

    AB: if you have any comments regarding the IndieUI: Events 1.0
    013JanMar/0059.html, please send them to
    public-indie-ui-comments @ w3.org.
    ... and news regarding implementations?

      [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0059.html

    AV: call next week?

    AB: yes, to record consensus to publish LC

    DS: re W3Conf ...

     if people have implementation info we can share, that would
    be good

     would be good if JQuery would create a blog about their plans
    related to Pointer Events

     then Jacob could mention that during his presentation

     it would send a good message

    SG: yes, I'll talk to others in jQuery

    DS: are there any especially cool demos that Jacob could
    potentially use during his preso?

    JR: yes, proposals welcome [and slides ;-)]

    DS: think a two-player game would be nice

    <mbrubeck> Air hockey, e.g.

    JR: we worked with Atari on some games like pong and those
    games use pointer events

    AV: what about a call on Feb 19?

    AB: yes, that's fine with me
    ... so we will have a call next week if there is something to
    discuss other than a CfC to publish LC

     if LC is the only topic, I will use email and a short review
    period - like 1 or 2 days

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Jacob add some non-normative text for 20222
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Jacob apply your proposed change to bug 20109 and
    ask the group for comments [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Jacob close bug 20222 per the 5-Feb-2013
    resolution [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Rick reply to the "Making click/contextmenu use
    PointerEvent interface" thread [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 17:09:14 UTC