Draft minutes: 26 February 2013 call

The draft minutes from the February 26 voice conference are available at 
<http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-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 5 March 2013. In the 
absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.

-Thanks, Art


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

                                - DRAFT -

                    Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

26 Feb 2013


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0153.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-pointerevents-irc


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





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Getting started
          2. [6]Spec feedback by Alex Russell
          3. [7]Tweaking wording in Introduction by Rick Byers
          4. [8]pointerType extensibility by Rick Byers
          5. [9]Should pointerId be an integer by Rick Byers
          6. [10]Click and contextmenu events by Rick Byers
          7. [11]Testing Pointer Events v1 spec
          8. [12]Any other Business
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <smaug> Zakim: who is noisy

Getting started

    AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday
    013JanMar/0153.html. Any change requests?

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0153.html.

    JR: I enjoyed talking about PE last week @ W3Conf

     we can talk about that during AoB

    AB: ok, we'll add that to AoB

Spec feedback by Alex Russell

    AB: Alex submitted 7-8 bullets in his comments
    013JanMar/0110.html and they were submitted before the LC was
    ... we agreed during our February 12 call Alex's comments would
    be considered as LC comments
    ... We could do a deep dive on some set of Alex's points or let
    the Editors reply first. I note one of Alex's comments is about
    the issue Rick raised about the semantics of pointerID which is
    on the agenda.

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0110.html
      [16] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/12-pointerevents-minutes.html#item02.

    JR: I have a draft about half done re Alex's comments

    AB: sounds good

Tweaking wording in Introduction by Rick Byers

    <slightlyoff> apologies for not seeing this earlier. Wasn't
    aware there was a meeting

    AB: Rick had some comments re the Introduction
    ... the LC already addresses at least some of Rick's comments
    but it appears there is also a request to embellish some set of
    the existing examples and/or add new example(s).

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0127.html

    JR: 2 things

     I made most of the changes in the LC

     there is a bug I introduced that needs to be fixed

     and I'll do that

     Not sure what you mean by examples

    AB: ok, I'll re-read that thread and reply accordingly

pointerType extensibility by Rick Byers

    AB: On Feb 19, Rick started a new thread about pointerType
    ... is this a request to change the API defined in LC for v1 or
    is this more a question about what we might want to do in v2?

      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0134.html.

    JR: I talked to Rick about this last week

     we talked about diff ideas

     they all have + and -

     My conclusion is that there are 2 scenarios

     one is providing a better path for new devices

     we want them to have some compat with PEs

    <slightlyoff> just joined the call

     the other issue, even if we do that there can be some
    scenarios where knowing the real device id is important

     I think we can solve the first problem by adding some more

     We could have an API change if we go with the inheritance
    chain proposal

     could then do instanceof ...

     and then new devices are instance of a former device

     that would solve the extensibility prob but still think there
    is a need of pointer type

     and need to know the actual device type

     Might be a bit weird to add it to a future spec

     I think Rick is comfortable with followoing up on this later

    AB: we still have 3 weeks of LC

    OP: I agree we should solve this problem later

     we can't predict future extensibility

    JR: there was a lot of talk about leap motion

     at W3Conf

    <jrossi> [19]https://www.leapmotion.com/

      [19] https://www.leapmotion.com/

    JR: this came up at edgeconf

    DS: has anyone talked to them?

    <slightlyoff> ...because one of the folks on the panel seemed
    to be a representative

    JR: I have expressed interest

    DS: I played with Joshua Davis' device; pretty cool

    <slightlyoff> I'm gonna cede the floor on this

    <slightlyoff> I owe the list email

    <slightlyoff> and don't think we can make serious progress by

    <jrossi> slightlyoff: are you just on IRC?

Should pointerId be an integer by Rick Byers

    AB: Rick started a thread about the type of pointerID
    ... Alex mentioned this issue too

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0146.html
      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0110.html.

    <slightlyoff> jrossi: no, on the call, but don't want to queue
    in just to say "not today" = )

    <slightlyoff> why?

    <jrossi> just curious

    JR: I'll reply to the pointerID thread

    AR: why do people not want to make it opaque?

    JR: I found UCs for it being an integer

     in one painting demo with multitouch, used integer to pick
    from a random number of colors

     perhaps not a great UC

     Do you have a proposal for opaque?

    AR: think object identity should be sufficient

     can't guarnatee integer stability

     having multiple mouse isn't common

     One objection is only having one mouse and making it 0

     Don't think we want an integer for a specific device

     Breaks down when new pointer types are added

     Don't want to set bad expectations

    JR: Rick mentioned some issues with using integers

     e.g. when comparing

     May need to add some more context about the integers

     Can achieve good level of interop with integers

     and make sure people's "false assumptions" are addressed

     Think this would be a problem for our impl

     if we had to switch to opaque types

     I am willing to consider it, but would prefer to keep this

     and to add some more information and context

     One pain point is supporting touch events which used integer

    AR: given that, I think it would be ok if using integers was
    fleshed out better

     that would be better than creating an interop problem

    JR: do you have a proposal?

    AR: opening move is to write down the IE behavior

     then we have something to discuss

    DS: is part of your rationale pattern searching?

    AR: if integers, it permits indexing to arrays

     and that works ok if the impl moves through the integer space
    in a reasonable way

     but if a different impl moves through the integer space
    differently, there will be interop problems

     Don't want confusion for the app devs

     if the id is overloaded

    DS: so, need to define the semantics of the integer e.g.

    AR: need to make sure impls handle integers the same way

    OP: I prefer a random behavior

    AR: and that would meet my opapue requirement

    <jrossi> Roughly speaking, IE10 reserves 1 for mouse. Then 2+
    values are used for other inputs. With each newly recognized
    pointer, the ID is increased. But there's some max at which we
    wrap back around to 2. I'd have to check with the Windows
    kernel folks for clarity.

Click and contextmenu events by Rick Byers

    AB: Rick started a thread about click and contextmenu events in
    ... Jacob replied
    ... is this just a matter of adding a bit of explanatory text?

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0151.html
      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0152.html.

    <shepazu> (I think I agree with Alex about pointerId, though I
    want to think about it)

    JR: there is some explanatory text that needs to be added

     there is already some related information

     I think it is safe to add the extra text

     The other issue is Ricking looking for a defn of "click"

     There is a defn in D3E

     Not sure if he missed it; just sent today

     This could be no change or just some additional non-normative

    <slightlyoff> still on the call = )

    <slightlyoff> ES6 maps make this go away

    SG: re pointerId, whatever we do we need to make sure it is
    compatible with JS objects

    <slightlyoff> you can have arbitrary keys

    <jrossi> when ES6 is interoperable :-)

     we cannot assume everyone is using ES6

Testing Pointer Events v1 spec

    AB: there was some discussion on the list

      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0157.html.

    <jrossi> what about polyfills? integers will be easier if
    trying to polyfill older browsers, I think.

    <scott_gonzalez> By compatible with JS objects, I mean
    specifically that the pointerId can be used as a unique key in
    an object.

    AB: any comments re the proposed directory structure?

    JR: looks good

    AB: any comments re how to identify tests as manual vs.

    <scott_gonzalez> If we do use objects to represent pointerId, a
    custom toString() which returns a unique value would be fine.

    DS: we should use metadata for auto/manual

     I should bring in Tobie Langel, W3C's test lead

    AB: ok, let's talk about how to schedule that

    <smaug> er, what is the command

    AB: any comments about the need for test assertions e.g.
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions? Any
    volunteers to lead or contribute?

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions?

    <smaug> thanks

    AB: any volunteers?

    CC: I can help get that started

    AB: excellent!

     thanks Cathy!

Any other Business

    AB: does anyone have any implementation status to share?

    DS: I think Jacob did an excellent job on PE @ W3Conf!

     it is available on youtube

    <shepazu> [26]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCfVn4JY5yk

      [26] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCfVn4JY5yk

    DS: I will write a blog re PE for webplatform.org


      [27] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/concepts/PointerEvents

     Msft has some folks creating PE materials

     they have an overview plus reference material

    <jrossi> Shorcut url: [28]http://bit.ly/pointerdoc

      [28] http://bit.ly/pointerdoc

    DS: they will ask this group for feedback

     Thanks Microsoft for making that happen!

    JR: I talked to a lot of devs at the conf

     about 4 other talks mentioned Pointer Events

     and that's pretty cool

    DS: yes, lots of interest

    <slightlyoff> am not

    AB: re next call, we have 3 more weeks of LC review

     given that, perhaps we skip next week and next call is March

    JR: assume we want to record some Resolutions and don't want to
    get too far behind

     so it may sense to have a call next week

    AB: good point; let's you and I chat at the end of the week re
    if a call on March 5 makes sense

    JR: sounds good

    AB: thanks everyone for joining. Meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 17:02:23 UTC