Draft minutes: 22 October 2013 call

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] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                    Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

22 Oct 2013


       [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


           Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Scott_Gonzαlez,
           Asir_Vedamuthu, Matt_Brubeck, Olli_Pettay

           Doug_Schepers, Jacob_Rossi




      * [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
          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
    ... since then, Sanghwan posted "Compatibility Events"
    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

    … provided they give the same behaviour

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow invite IBM to join Pointer Events WG
    [recorded in

    <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

    … 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
    ... 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


      [16] http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45

    <mbrubeck> has the initial division


      [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/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

    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

    <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

    AB: Steve Hickman submitted this comment on 30-Sep-2013
    ... 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
    ... 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

    <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

    OP: the MMI architecture is very different than what we are

    … 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

    <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].


    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
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow update PE CR tracking doc re EMMA comment
    to reflect 22-Oct-2013 Resolution [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 16:00:57 UTC