- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:51:02 -0400
- To: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the October 22 voice conference are available at <http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-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 October 29. 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 22 Oct 2013 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0014.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-irc Attendees Present Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Scott_Gonzαlez, Asir_Vedamuthu, Matt_Brubeck, Olli_Pettay Regrets Doug_Schepers, Jacob_Rossi Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Tweak agenda 2. [6]CR implementation updates 3. [7]Review status of PR-324 4. [8]maxTouchPoints on platforms that have less granular information 5. [9]Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec; 6. [10]AoB * [11]Summary of Action Items __________________________________________________________ <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB <scribe> Scribe: Art <smaug> uhuh <smaug> totally missed the fact that we have call Tweak agenda AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2 013OctDec/0014.html. ... since then, Sanghwan posted "Compatibility Events" [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2 013OctDec/0018.html. Given this is a bit late for today's meeting, perhaps we should discuss this on the list and not add it to today's agenda. ... any objections to that? [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0014.html. [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0018.html. [ None ] AB: so please followup Sangwhan's email on the list ... any change requests for agenda? RB: re Vivek's comment, I replied and don't think we need to discuss it AV: I agree AB: any objections to deleting that proposed agenda topic? [ None ] CR implementation updates AB: any new information re implementations? OP: no updates from me RB: nothing new to talk about; still active AV: do you want to talk about maxTouchPoints? RB: we have a patch for Navigator.maxTouchPoints good to get this added to Blink the patch came from MS Open Tech AV: you are still working on touch-action? RB: yes and some polyfill work needs to be done We are actively moving it forward Can't give a specific `done date` SG: update re Polymer and jQuery polyfill can run in `old IE` some things aren't quite to spec f.ex. writing properties setting pointer capture in old IE is problematic so works on IE 6, 7, 8 RB: anyone from IBM here? AB: no SG: yeah, I want to talk to DoJo people RB: yes, that would be good SG: I will followup with DoJo RB: could argue that 2 separate production quality polyfills is good provided they give the same behaviour <scribe> ACTION: barstow invite IBM to join Pointer Events WG [recorded in [14]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#act ion01] <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Invite ibm to join pointer events wg [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-29]. AV: re Mozilla, there is a public build avialable that includes most of PE the touch-action is a WIP by other engineers OP: yes, there are some patches that need review nothing is shipping yet MB: an engineer has a private build OP: we want to get touch-action implemented before landing the patch afaik, it is moving slowly RB: this requires fundamental changes to the event model thus everyone is being slow and careful Review status of PR-324 AB: I think about 2/3 of PR324 has been reviewed so we need people to commit to reviewing the remaining 8 files [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2 013OctDec/0019.html. ... need volunteers [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0019.html. RB: I can do review of my files by next week <mbrubeck> [16]http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45 [16] http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45 <mbrubeck> has the initial division AB: [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2 013OctDec/0019.html [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0019.html RB: I'll take 1-5 SG: I'll take 6-8 (pointerLeave) AB: can you do your review by next week Scott? SG: yes AV: we have been reviewing comments and will start working on them this week or next AB: great AV: thanks for the comments AB: great, thanks everyone ... anything else on testing? AV: we are still working on touch-action tests Hope to send them to the group soon We are also looking at Cathy's Test Assertion table vis-a-vis the gaps Want to encourage everyone to review the table and look for gaps and supply missing tests maxTouchPoints on platforms that have less granular information AB Rick submitted this comment on 10-Oct-2013 [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2 013OctDec/0010.html [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0010.html RB: during our Android impl of PE, we ran into this problem get 1 of 5 states so basically buckets of touch points Can get ballpark type results like "at most 2" or "at most 4" touch points RB: need some reliability f.ex. "definitely have at least 2 touch points" We might need a note if the platform cannot give specific results MB: agree we need to do something don't think maxTouchPoints is a good name for this AV: seems more like a platform impl detail rather than something we want to include in the spec RB: but authors need to know about this <sangwhan> But applications need to know how many touch points they can use RB: think the spec needs some clarify for these scenarios AV: I need to talk with Jacob about this <sangwhan> Otherwise every developer has to assume the worst case scenario AB: agree getting more input is good do we capture an issue now? AV: think we should discuss on the list first AB: any objections to continue discussion on list and postpone creating a formal CR Issue? RB: no, I think that's fine AV: this is some non-normative text we want to add? RB: yes, I think so [ Rick describes a scenario where this is problematic ] MB: we could acknowledge this is a range and then define a lower bound and keeping maxTouchPoints defined as is <rbyers> The main question is does maxTouchPoints return the guaranteed maximum across all digitizers and platform-specific ranges <rbyers> I.e. can it be used by apps as an upper bound on the size of data structures, etc. AB: so, everyone, please provide feedback on Rick's initial thread via the mail list <rbyers> OR should it be used by apps to indicate when additional UI (eg. zoom controls) are necessary Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec; AB: Steve Hickman submitted this comment on 30-Sep-2013 [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2 013JulSep/0050.html ... we deferred discussion during the last meeting. I think I am the only one to have replied and I added it the post CR comment and issue tracking doc [20]http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/CR-pointerevents-20130 509 ... any comments, feedback? [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0050.html [20] http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/CR-pointerevents-20130509 OP: I think EMMA spec should be changed it is missing touch don't think PE spec needs to be changed RB: not sure how important this is <sangwhan> Do any browser implementations actually implement anything related to EMMA/MMI? OP: I agree AV: agree this isn't a high prio and think Art's response was good <sangwhan> I haven't seen one so far, so I personally think the point is fubar if there is no real interop problem, not sure we have to do anything OP: the MMI architecture is very different than what we are doing don't we should care much about this RB: we have implementations of PE already shipping so I think that trumps the EMMA work in progress AB: draft Resolution: we do not consider PE and EMMA interop a substantial issue until there is clear data to show otherwise ... any objections? [ None ] RESOLUTION: we do not consider PE and EMMA interop a substantial issue until there is clear data to show otherwise <scribe> ACTION: barstow update PE CR tracking doc re EMMA comment to reflect 22-Oct-2013 Resolution [recorded in [21]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#act ion02] <trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Update pe cr tracking doc re emma comment to reflect 22-oct-2013 resolution [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-29]. AoB AB: anything else for today? ... we'll have our next meeting when we have a sufficient agenda for a call. <sangwhan> How about a plenary meeting for the CG during tpac? AB: meeting adjourned <rbyers> Sorry sangwhan - we just hung up. Last we talked, not too many of us were planning on being at TPAC I think... Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: barstow invite IBM to join Pointer Events WG [recorded in [22]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#act ion01] [NEW] ACTION: barstow update PE CR tracking doc re EMMA comment to reflect 22-Oct-2013 Resolution [recorded in [23]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#act ion02] [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 16:00:57 UTC