Draft minutes: 30 July 2013 call

The draft minutes from the July 30 voice conference are available at 
<http://www.w3.org/2013/07/30-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 August 2013. In 
the absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.

-Thanks, ArtB

W3C <http://www.w3.org/>

  - DRAFT -

  Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

    30 Jul 2013


See also:IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2013/07/30-pointerevents-irc>


    Art_Barstow, Matt_Brubeck, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu, Cathy_Chan,
    Olli_Pettay, Scott_Gonzαlez, Doug_Schepers, Sangwhan_Moon


  * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2013/07/30-pointerevents-minutes.html#agenda>
     1. Tweak agenda
     2. CR implementation status
     3. Test Suite status
     4. AoB <http://www.w3.org/2013/07/30-pointerevents-minutes.html#item04>
  * Summary of Action Items


<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

      Tweak agenda

AB:Welcome back everyone ;-)!

<jrossi> Congrats, Cathy!

AB:I published a draft agenda 
change requests?

[ No change requests for the agenda ]

      CR implementation status

AB:let's talk about CR implementation status.
... Rick submitted an update re 
... Rick says a few weeks for touch-actions

JR:and Rick said a few months before the impl is complete

AS:the "few months" from Rick was about the touch-action-delay

MB:re Firefox, a Microsoft person (?) submitted a Gecko patch

<mbrubeck> Microsoft contributed patches to Gecko, currently being 


… still a WIP

OP:that is in my review queue

… that patch was about the PE events and not the CSS property

… but I expect that person to implement that too

<mbrubeck> The contributor, Oleg Romashin ("romaxa") is a long-time 
Firefox developer.

<jrossi> Oleg Romashin <Oleg.Romashin@microsoft.com>

AB:thanks Matt and Olli

OP:I think there needs to be some work on mouse and pointer events 

… we need some tests to work on that

… Oleg is working on that

MB:Wes Johnson is interested in doing some work too

… he mentioned that to Oleg

AB:is there a timeframe for FF/Gecko?


OP:no, events stuff is "easy" but the CSS property is not

AB:Scott, any news from jQuery?

SG:working on Polymer. The goal is to use Polymer and not our own 

<sangwhan> Opera 14+ is a ditto of Rick's status update

AB:Jacob, Asir, what about IE?

JR:we release IE11 Preview a few weeks ago

… it includes updated MSPointerEvents

… it is still member-prefixed

… We will ship IE 11 without prefixes

… we will announce this on our blog later this week

… We think the compat hit will be minimal

AB:when can we expect that to hit the street?

JR:we don't have an announced date

… other than we expect IE11 to be in Windows 8.1

AB:thanks Jacob

<jrossi> Windows 8.1 will be available before the end of the calendar year

JR:one thing to note is that now we don't expect to build support for 
the constructor

… we need to do that across the board

… not clear if that will be in IE11

DS:that's not a problem per se from the standarization PoV, but if that 
constructor is in the spec, we will need 2 impls that do support the 

… Will we get that?

JR:think it will be supported by Blink and Firefox

OP:I expect us to support it in Gecko

DS:ok, thanks

AB:Sangwhan, what about Opera?

SM:our impl will depend on Rick (Chromium's) work

… Opera's Presto - it seems unlikely we will add PE support

… unless there becomes lots of content that use it and we have an 
interop problem

AS:so Opera's work depends on Chromium?


AS:what did you say about Presto? Because I could not hear the full summary

<sangwhan> Bottom line is Opera's work now depends on Chromium

<sangwhan> As the rendering engine is now using Blink starting from 
Opera (Mobile) 14+

<sangwhan> Nothing else from Opera

AB:any news about Polymer?

SG:one place is a deviation is the touch-action attribute

… they've done a lot of work to remove it

… not sure where that stands now


JR:Rick mentioned Polymer in his status report

AB:anything about WebKit?

… as I understand it, Microsoft submitted a patch for WebKit. Is that true?

AS:our patches are all online

… I don't have any new info

AB:any other impl data to share?

      Test Suite status

AB:the general topic is what needs to be done to make the test suite 
sufficient to test an implementation of the CR.
... and, more specifically, I think it would be useful if we had an 
understanding about Who is going to do What and by When.
... Matt proposed an overall testing process 
earlier today I codified quite a bit of that 
... let's start with an inventory
... We have Scott's pointerdown file as 
it is now mirrored and thus can be run directly in a browser 
... Last April, there were some TTWF 
they are not in the pointerevents 
... how do we get review on those submissions

SM:those are put in new repos, they are not PRs

MB:correct, they were created before we had the pointerevents repo

SG:I can ask Dave to make a PR to the new repo


AB:that would be great; then we need PRs for the other submissions

SG:I think Dave needs to do a merge and then after that is done to make 
a PR for the pointerevents repo

<scribe>*ACTION:*scott follow up with Dave to get a PR from the April 
TTWF to the pointerevents repo [recorded 

<trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Follow up with Dave to get a PR from the 
April TTWF to the pointerevents repo [on Scott Gonzαlez - due 2013-08-06].

SM:please let me know when that PR is made


AB:re notifications, I think it would be useful for people to send an 
email to the list after they submit a PR
... do we need to chase the other submitters or is Dave doing that?

SG:Dave's PR will include a merge of the other submissions

AB:one of the next Qs is about coverage/breath and then depth

<mbrubeck> sangwhan: Where/who should I ask for write access to that repo?

… wrt coverage, the Test Assertion table is a good way to get a handle 
on that

AB:Cathy, is the Test Assertions table 

<jrossi> mbrubeck: Mike Smith gave me my write access

CC:there could be a couple of sections that still need some work

<sangwhan> mbrubeck: Tobie/Mike/Robin

… f.ex. the CSS property

… other than that, I think I'm done

AB:so one Q is if the TAs are sufficient to qualify an impl re the CR

JR:I think we now have sufficient breadth

… the feature coverage seems adequate

… The depth Q is different

… I would need to do a path

… but I think what we have is pretty good


… Microsoft will contribute some tests

… I need to prep then and create a PR

… and that will cover more assertions

SM:re TouchEvents, there is some variability when running them, hope we 
can do better with PointerEvents

SG:agree we should be more clear here, especially why some tests are not run

… we need to describe what we expect to happen and then what actually 

<scott_gonzalez> If possible, we should generate a failing test if we 
can detect that a block of event assertions never ran.

AB:Jacob, when can we expect those tests?

JR:within the next two weeks.

<scott_gonzalez> But we may not be able to reliably determine that based 
on differing pointer types.

<scott_gonzalez> At a minimum, we should have a short description of 
what we expected to happen so the tester can easily determine if all 
assertions have run.

AB:thanks Jacob

… can you think of any features that you don't test?

JR:not sure but perhaps the touch-action property

… I will update the wiki with our tests and that will help with 
understanding which features we have coverage

SG:the Test Status data isn't particuarly useful

… they need to be changed to more useful status

… like "Approved"

AB:+1 Scott!

AS:re approval, is there a way they can approved in August?

SG:all of the tests, or those with PRs

AS:I mean all of the coverage we need

SG:I don't think I will be able to review everything by August

… based on history, not sure we will have all of the tests by August

AB:the minimum req is to have at least one person review each test

… and we should certaily strive to do better than that

… and avoid the "fox guarding the chicken coop"

AS:reviewing tests can be really useful, especially for the implementers

SM:how do we handle duplicates?

SG:for Dave's PR, we will take care of that

… unless a test Seattle is more comprehensive

SM:looking at the IE tests, they could be covered by Seattle tests

… who is going to take care of duplicates

JR:it could be helpful to review our submissions versus the Seattle tests

… I think it's OK for PRs to include dups

… and then we remove the dups before being merged to master

SG:perhaps it would be best if Dave waits until Microsoft submits its tests

… if the Seattle tests overlap IE, Dave could just ignore the Seattle tests

AB:so Scott will ask Dave to block until Jacob submits his tests. Is 
this correct?


AB:so I think we have a good plan then

… and Jacob is going to update the TA table re the Microsoft tests

<jrossi> Yes, Cathy's table was a big help!

<asir> Indeed!!!

AB:the TA table is really great Cathy
... anything else on testing for today?

[ No ]


AB:anything else for today?

AS:when is the next call?

AB:is the current process working?

AS:let's meet after Jacob submits his tests

AB:that sounds like a good working assumption
... is the current meeting frequency working OK?

DS:I'd leave it to you Art

<asir> +1

AB:ok, we'll continue along the way we are going

DS:I went to OSCON last week in PDX, PointerEvents was a topic

… and there is an HTML DevConf with Jacob on a PE panel


AB:meeting adjourned

    Summary of Action Items

*[NEW]**ACTION:*scott follow up with Dave to get a PR from the April 
TTWF to the pointerevents repo [recorded 

[End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 16:10:12 UTC