Draft minutes: 19 November 2013 call

The draft minutes from the November 19 voice conference are available at 
the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-pointer-events mail list before November 26. 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

19 Nov 2013


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0056.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/19-pointerevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Jacob_Rossi,

           Sangwhan_Moon, Scott_Gonzαlez, Doug_Schepers




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak agenda
          2. [6]How should touch-action apply to multiple fingers?
          3. [7]touch-action hit testing
          4. [8]Bug 22890
          5. [9]Status of PR324 updates
          6. [10]Need touch-action tests
          7. [11]Gaps in coverage
          8. [12]CR implementation updates
          9. [13]AoB
      * [14]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

Tweak agenda

    AB: any change requests for the proposed agenda
    ... Since Sangwhan sent regrets, perhaps we should not cover
    the "Compatibility Events" topic and defer discussion to the
    list or add it to the next call if there is no "conclusion" on
    the list.
    ... any objections to dropping Compatibility Events?

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0056.html?

    [ none ]

    AB: ok, we'll drop that and please followup on the list
    ... any other change requests?

    JR: bug 22891 was from Sangwhan

    … perhaps we should drop that too

    RB: agree

    AB: any objections to JR's proposal?

    [ none ]

How should touch-action apply to multiple fingers?

    AB: Rick raised this question on November 6

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0050.html

    RB: I was initially assuming this was out of scope

    … but since panning is potentially more than one finger

    … then I think we should talk about how that works with

    … Spec seems to assume touch-action will only have one touch

    … need to think about multiple touch points too

    … Would like to understand IE's behaviour

    JR: for IE, behavior depends on other gestures

    … if add pinch/zoom, can support multiple fingers

    … f.ex. if panning

    … don't think of panning and zooming as separate gestures

    … whether or not there are multiple fingers is an artifact

    … Not sure how to be more specific for action model

    … Tried to be gesture-agnostic

    RB: what about touch-action auto and none

    … if have auto on a and none on b

    … and then touch both a and be elements

    scribe: .what is done

    JR: in Rick's case, depends on which gestures the UA supports

    … the gestures that are triggered depend on the UA

    RB: what if 1 finger is pan x

    … and another finger is pan y

    … saying only panning is allowed

    JR: so want to say only pan x

    RB: if browser implements nothing more than what we supply

    … can the UA just support what the spec states

    JR: not sure how to do that without compromising other things
    in the spec

    … could have diff combos of fingers

    RB: re scope, could say t-a model looks at all possible
    intersection and says that's the way it works

    <rbyers> Would it be in scope, for example, if we wanted to say
    that the touch-action processing model was as follows:

    <rbyers> look at the touch-action under each active touch point
    and use the intersection to determine what action is permitted

    <rbyers> i.e. we're not really comparing pointers at all, just
    using multiple touch-action values

    JR: I think we could describe something like that

    … but not sure if it solves the fundamental problem

    … of not understanding IE's behavior

    … If have one element that has a rule to pan-x

    … now if have 2 fingers

    … is pan in x direction allowed

    … for some browsers, 2 finger pan-x works

    RB: I think we'll have different behavior for same gestures

    … for the purposes of this group, are we saying that anything
    with more than 1 finger is out of scope?

    JR: if I take a broad understanding of the group's scope, then
    yes, I agree

    <jrossi> [17]http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/

    … (anything beyond one finger is out of scope)

    <jrossi> "Gestures. Examples of out-of-scope gesture
    functionality and APIs include, but are not limited to, the
    following: Comparisons between pointers to determine an action
    (e.g., panning for scrollable regions, pinch for zooming,
    press-and-hold for a mouse right-click)."

    RB: ok, I can understand that

    … I do need to think more about what this means

    … f.ex. need to gather some data

    JR: think most content will be for auto

    … think we'll get good interop without being more specific

    … The more advanced cases will require a broader scope

    RB: pinch is a common scenario

    … everyone will need to do it

    AB: yes, we do need to consider the scope (and there could be
    some IP concerns)

touch-action hit testing

    AB: Rick started this thread on November 14

      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0055.html

    RB: the algorithm as written today is misleading

    … t-a proc model needs to be more specific

    … especially as hit testing is related to CSS

    JR: there is no spec that defines hit testing

    … thus the general definition

    … There have been some efforts to define it

    RB: CSS Object Model touches on this

    JR: but that just defines the IDL

    RB: without defining how it works, can we say @@

    JR: think we can add some text about block elements

    RB: yes, think we need some clarifications re block elements

    JR: think that can be done as an informative note

    RB: that would be fine with me

    … need to define "touched element" or at least clarify it

    … f.ex. has the following properties ...

    … Don't want surprises

    JR: agree need some clarifications

    … and eventually define 'hit testing'

    <AutomatedTester> ArtB: I raised
    [19]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23825 re hit
    testing in CSSOM

      [19] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23825

    RB: I can propose some text

    JR: I can propose some text via the list

    RB: some of testing led to this topic getting released

    AB: RESOLUTION: multi-finger: we will not define additional
    behavior for multiple fingers because of scope concerns
    ... any objections?

    RESOLUTION: multi-finger: we will not define additional
    behavior for multiple fingers because of scope concerns

    AB: RESOLUTION: hit testing: Jacob will draft proposed Note to
    clarify details of hit testing is out of scope, we will clarify
    properties UA's must adhere to for hit testing

    RB: change "we" to "and"

    RESOLUTION: hit testing: Jacob will draft proposed Note to
    clarify details of hit testing is out of scope, and we will
    clarify properties UA's must adhere to for hit testing

Bug 22890

    AB: bug 22890 was filed by Olli on Augus6 6 "It is not clear
    why navigator.pointerEnabled is needed"

      [20] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22890

    JR: we talked about this issue before

    … not necessary from a technical view

    … concerned about removing this for compat reasons

    … If we want to mark this "At Risk", we would have to go back
    to LC->CR

    … we wouldn't remove it from our impl

    … at least not initially

    … we could remove it from our docs

    … A question is what the group wants to do about it

    … I think this would be the only substantive change to the spec

    RB: if we were going to make this change, then we should
    consider other substantive changes like hit testing

    JR: I think the hit testing change could be done with out a
    substantive normative change

    … but the new text would need to be testable

    RB: I don't have a strong opinion

    … if left in the spec and FF and Blink don't implement it, what
    are consequences

    … If no one else implements it, we can't get out of CR

    JR: I'm comfortable with making this change

    … if we need to go back to LC/CR, we could try to scope the
    review to just changes since the last LC/CR

    … that helps preventing a bunch of new comments

    RB: makes sense

    <rbyers> sorry, trying to address the noise

    AB: if we make any substantive changes, we will need to go back
    to LC/CR

    … my recommendation is to first complete the test suite and get
    2 impls before going to LC/CR

    AB: another option is to get the Impl Report done before LC#2

    … and then we can skip CR and go right to Proposed
    Recommendation after the 3-week LC review period is complete

    AV: what is the minimum LC review period?

    AB: 3 weeks
    ... do we have a resolution for bug 22890 that we want to fix
    this bug?

    RB: yes, I think we need to do this to get 2 impls to pass the

    AV: yeah, I agree

    RB: if we remove it, think we will get to REC faster

    AV: yes, I think that is true

    <rbyers> note that the impls may still someday add this API for
    compat with IE, but only if substantial compat testing showed
    it was necessary - so if we wanted to count on that it would
    probably delay getting to REC...

    … think we should focus on Testing and Impl and the process
    steps will then follow

    AB: RESOLUTION: agree that navigator.pointerEnable should be
    removed from the spec
    ... any objections?

    [ None ]

    RESOLUTION: agree that navigator.pointerEnable should be
    removed from the spec

Status of PR324 updates

    AB: what's the status of processing PR324 comments?

      [21] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/324

    AV: we are reviewing comments

    … I don't have a ETA

    … but we are working on them

    RB: if you want to give me feedback on my comments, please let
    me know

    … not clear how much value there is for comments during the
    test case review

    AV: if we have any issues, we'll let you know

    … comments are always welcome

Need touch-action tests

    AB: since the draft agenda was posted, Jacob announced
    Microsoft added some touch-action tests to PR324
    013OctDec/0059.html. The new commit is
    ... it appears there are several new tests

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0059.html.
      [23] https://github.com/InternetExplorer/web-platform-tests/commit/886568a445cded3b5aa01f0c8befb48e0534fed6

    … this is excellent

    RB: yes, this is good

    AV: you should be able to use them Rick

    … if you have feedback, please let me know

    RB: I can review them

    AB: if anyone else wants to review them, that would be great

    CC: I'll review them

    AB: great

    RB: as I'm working on our impl of touch-action, I will do

    … would like to share them with the group

    … but probably need to keep the blink tests separated

    AV: I'll assign actions to Rick and Cathy

    <scribe> ACTION: Rick review touch-action tests [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Review touch-action tests [on
    Rick Byers - due 2013-11-26].

    <scribe> ACTION: Cathy review touch-action tests [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Review touch-action tests [on
    Cathy Chan - due 2013-11-26].

Gaps in coverage

    AB: we still have some gaps in

      [26] http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/TestAssertions

    <rbyers> eg. if anyone is curious, here's a simple touch-action
    test case I'm landing in blink:

    AV: not sure if Jacob update the wiki yet

    <scribe> ACTION: Jacob update the TestAssertion wiki re
    touch-action tests [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update the testassertion wiki re
    touch-action tests [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-11-26].

    AV: there are 17 test assertions without tests

    … we are working on them

    … some time soon expect to contribute our tests

    … We have 3-4 that need some discussions

    AB: ok, that sounds great

    … are some assertions not clear?

    AV: for some, it's not clear how to test the assertion

    AB: please do followup on the list

CR implementation updates

    AB: any new progress on implementations?

    RB: I've been making progress on touch-action

    <rbyers> Implement simple touch-action support in blinki on the
    main thread:

      [28] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=316735

    … Driving for basic touch-action impl behind a flag by

    … this work uncovered some design issues

    AB: IE11 is now available on Win 7 and up?

    AV: yes

    … re FireFox, we reported a while ago about a FF patch

    … Rick has been part of the discussion thread

    … I don't have a firm ETA

    … other than there is some progress


    AB: are there any other topics for today?

    AV: when will we meet again?

    AB: good Q

    … I'll ping Sangwhan

    AV: we need to make progress on the test suite

    AB: I agree

    … we may have next week, depending on topics and availability

    AV: Rick is out next week and me too

    AB: no meeting on Nov 26

    … so next potential meeting is Dec 3

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Cathy review touch-action tests [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Jacob update the TestAssertion wiki re
    touch-action tests [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Rick review touch-action tests [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 17:20:44 UTC