- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:51:32 -0400
- To: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the September 23 voice conference are available
at the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-pointer-events mail list before September 30. 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
23 Sep 2014
Agenda
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0130.html>
See also:IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-irc>
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Olli_Pettay, Patrick_Lauke, Scott_Gonzαlez,
Asir_Vedamuthu, Jacob_Rossi, Rick_Byers, Matt_Brubeck,
Philippe_Le_Hegaret
Regrets
Sangwhan_Moon
Chair
ArtB
Scribe
ArtB
Contents
* Topics <http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#agenda>
1. Tweak and agree on agenda
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item01>
2. PR-1121; SVG touch-action tests
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item02>
3. PR-1220; Assertions 4.3 and 5.3
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item03>
4. PR-1245; Properly check for async events related to capture
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item04>
5. PR-1249; PointerEvents Test Assertions 15.11, 15.18-15.20
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item05>
6. Open Actions
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item06>
7. Bug 26809; IE11 on Win8.1 fires a click event after pointer has
moved when element has touch-event: none
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item07>
8. Bug 26888 (Add "pointerleave" to "9.1 The touch-action CSS
property")
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item08>
9. Amazing set/releasePointerCapture
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item09>
10. Plan to move Pointer Events back to LC and then Proposed
Recommendation
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item10>
11. AoB <http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#item11>
* Summary of Action Items
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: ArtB
<patrick_h_lauke> i may need to shoot off a bit early...just to forewarn you
Tweak and agree on agenda
AB:I posted a draft agenda
yesterdayhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0130.html.
... Since then, Bug-26888 (Add "pointerleave" to "9.1 The touch-action
CSS property") was submitted so I propose we add that bug to the
agendahttps://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26888.
... any objections to that addition?
[ None ]
AB:we also now have PR-1249 (PointerEvents Test Assertions 15.11,
15.18-15.20) so I propose we discuss that during our Pull Request topic
and drop the related item from agenda topic #4.
... any objections to that change?
[ None ]
AB:any other agenda change requests?
<patrick_h_lauke> very selfishly: could we talk about the bugs first as
i may need to leave early?
PR-1121; SVG touch-action tests
AB:PR-1121https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1121was blocked
on Doug's Action-116https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/116
... Doug replied today and completed his action.
... having seen no objections to the PR itself, I propose someone merge
this PR. Any objections to that?
... or comments?
<scribe>*ACTION:*Jacob merge PR-1121 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Merge pr-1121 [on Jacob Rossi - due
2014-09-30].
PR-1220; Assertions 4.3 and 5.3
AB:PR-1220https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1220.Is this
blocked on a review by someone other than Microsoft?
... there is also Action-122 "Follow up with Artem re pr-1220" on Jacob
;https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/122. Jacob - it
appears this can now be closed, is that correct?
... what's the next step for PR-1220?
JR:need to only review 5.3 test case
and then merge after review
AB:would someone agree to review that test case?
CC:I'll do that
<scribe>*ACTION:*Cathy review test 5.3 for PR-1220 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Review test 5.3 for pr-1220 [on Cathy
Chan - due 2014-09-30].
AB:Cathy, please let Jacob know if the PR is OK so he can merge it
CC:will do
AB:thanks you two!
PR-1245; Properly check for async events related to capture
AB:PR-1245https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1245;it appears
this PR addresses
Action-126https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/126.Need
someone to review this PR. Volunteer, please?
CC:I can do that
AB:thanks Cathy
JR:I can help out too
AB:who submitted this?
JR:Scott
I can review it
<scribe>*ACTION:*Jacob review PR 1245 and merge it if it is OK [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Review pr 1245 and merge it if it is ok
[on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
PR-1249; PointerEvents Test Assertions 15.11, 15.18-15.20
AB:yesterday Jacob submitted PR-1249 and it adds tests for assertions
15.{11,18-20}https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1249.We need
someone to review this PR and merge it if it is OK. Would someone please
volunteer review this PR?
... Cathy already agreed to review 15.20
so we need someone to review 15.11, 15.18 and 15.19 tests
any volunteers?
<scribe>*ACTION:*barstow look for a commitment to review tests
15.{11,18,19} in PR-1249 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Look for a commitment to review tests
15.{11,18,19} in pr-1249 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-09-30].
AB:once these PRs are merged, we're all done right?
SG:I have some open actions too
Open Actions
AB:Action-119; Review the test for 15.20 when it is available and let us
know if it covers the high priority manipulation scenarios;
Cathy;https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/119; now that
we have PR-1249, Cathy please review this.
... Action-124; Create tests for assertions 11.3 and 13.4 ; Scott
;https://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/124
... Scott - what is the ETA for these tests?
SG:I need some clarification from Jacob
[ Jacob clarifies ]
SG:I'll send a PR today
that is, I'll submit PRs for both tests today
JR:I'll be happy to review those
<scribe>*ACTION:*Jacob review PRs for test assertions 11.3 and 13.4
(once available from Scott) [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-131 - Review prs for test assertions 11.3 and
13.4 (once available from scott) [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
AV:once Scott's PRs are submitted and approved and the other PRs are
reviewed and merged, the test suite will be complete
<asir> VOW!
AB:yes, that's my understanding too
Bug 26809; IE11 on Win8.1 fires a click event after pointer has
moved when element has touch-event: none
AB:Bug-26809https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26809has had
some comments including Patrick's followup on the list on Sept
15http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0125.html
... and Jacob replied to that thread too
... kinda feels like we might just need to make a few non-normative
tweaks to the spec
PL:not necessarily a bug
more of a misunderstanding
think it can be closed
but this discussion did raise a question about UAs and gestures
PL:if have touch-*ACTION:*none, final click still fired
even if have moved
Could add a bit more non-normative text
but I don't feel strongly
<patrick_h_lauke>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0137.html
JR:let me see what we already have
<patrick_h_lauke> The user agent has determined (via methods out of
scope for this specification) that touch input is to be consumed for a
touch behavior
[ Patrick reads relevant part of spec
]
could add something more about UA-specific behavior
JR:not clear what we would need to add
my gut feel is to leave it as is
but would like to get a specific proposal from Patrick
PL:looking at it again, I think what we have now is OK
AB:so do we have a Resolution to close this as WONTFIX?
JR:I'm ok with that
PL:same here
*RESOLUTION: close bug 26809 as WONTFIX and include a link to
23-Sep-2014 discussion in the bug*
<scribe>*ACTION:*Jacob close bug 26809 as WONTFIX and include a link to
23-Sep-2014 discussion in the bug [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-132 - Close bug 26809 as wontfix and include a
link to 23-sep-2014 discussion in the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
Bug 26888 (Add "pointerleave" to "9.1 The touch-action CSS property")
AB:Jacob created this bug
yesterdayhttps://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26888.The bug
includes an explicit change proposal. Any comments?
... seems to be related to discussion around Bug-26809 but not sure?
<patrick_h_lauke> this is just a case where the addition of
pointerenter/pointerleave was missed out in some parts of the spec
RB:this is just another instance of a missing out event
think this is a trivial fix
<patrick_h_lauke> so this is just a case where we only have pointerout,
but we need to just add pointerleave too
we need to search the spec
<patrick_h_lauke> action on me to search the spec
<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at
<http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/users>.
<http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/users%3E.>
<patrick_h_lauke> happy to do that
AB:do we all agree the proposed text is OK?
any objections to the proposed text?
<patrick_h_lauke> oops sorry didn't mean to issue a trackbot action. but
yeah if we want somebody to go through the spec, i'm happy to do it
JR:I'll make another pass of the spec for similar bugs
if I find any, I'll notify the group
RB:the intro is a place to check
but that's minor (because of use of "etc.")
OP:enter and leave are diff than over and out
so do be careful
<patrick_h_lauke> having a quick skim over the spec now searching for
pointerout, i think the one
inhttps://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26888is the only omission
[ Olli listed some other cases ]
<smaug> :)
OP:the spec should be consistent throughout
RB:think Olli was suggesting the proposed text isn't quite right
AB:Jacob, please enter the new proposed text in IRC
<rbyers> In particular instead of "a pointerout and pointerleave event"
it should be "a pointerout event and pointerleave events"
<jrossi2> proposed text: "The user agent must fire a pointer event named
pointercancel (and subsequently a pointerout event and pointerleave
events) whenever all of the following are true, in order to end the
stream of events for the pointer:"
AB:does anyone object to the proposed text Jacob just entered into IRC?
OP:LGTM
<rbyers> No, also wouldn't object to Jacob making this change anywhere
else that's following a similar pattern
RB:looks ok
PL:could say "
one or more ..."
JR:that's fine with me
<patrick_h_lauke> splitting hairs, but yeah :)
RB:that's fine
AB:ok, so I think we have a resolution
*RESOLUTION: re bug 26888, the text Jacob proposed in IRC plus Patrick's
small correction is acceptable*
<jrossi2> "The user agent must fire a pointer event named pointercancel
(and subsequently a pointerout event and one or more pointerleave
events) whenever all of the following are true, in order to end the
stream of events for the pointer:"
<scribe>*ACTION:*Jacob update the spec for bug 26888 to reflect
resolution recorded on 23-Sep-2014 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-133 - Update the spec for bug 26888 to reflect
resolution recorded on 23-sep-2014 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
<rbyers> Note this pattern does occur elsewhere. Eg. in 5.2.5 "For input
devices that do not support hover, a user agent must also fire a pointer
event named pointerover followed by **a pointer event named
pointerenter** prior to dispatching the pointerdown event."
RB:there are similar bugs in the spec
JR:I can send a proposal to the list or file a bug
AB:my preference is to just send a link to a changeset to the list
<scribe>*ACTION:*Jacob review the spec for bugs like 26888 and send
changeset to the list [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-134 - Review the spec for bugs like 26888 and
send changeset to the list [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-09-30].
Amazing set/releasePointerCapture
AB:Maksim Lebedev submitted this e-mail on Sept
12;http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JulSep/0118.htmland
there has been no followup.
... do we discuss today or defer to the list?
OP:I discussed this with Maksim, there are some unclear scenarios
... we need to go through the algorithms and check for all of these cases
<patrick_h_lauke> sorry folks, gotta drop off now...
AB:seems like rather than go thru this e-mail now, everyone should
review it and reply to the list
... anything else on this?
RB:agree to defer discussion to the list
Plan to move Pointer Events back to LC and then Proposed
Recommendation
AB:as previously agreed, our Plan of Record (PoR) is essentially to
first: fix all spec bugs; complete the test suite; run interop testing;
update specs and or implementations accordingly.
Second, when we have two or more independent implementations that pass
all test cases: publish a LCWD and assuming there are no substantive
comments during the 3-week LC comment period, we propose to the Director
publishing a Proposed Recommendation (and thus not publish an explicit
Candidate Recommendation).
AB:although we have had a number of developments since we agreed to this
PoR, I don't believe there have been any substantive "new info/data" to
change that plan.
... any comments?
RB:sounds good to me
AV:same to me
PLH:you have a D3E spec
that spec is not moving forward
so that could be a problem
AB:we have not discussed the D3E reference
PLH:need to know if the D3E features PE refernces are also specified in
D2E REC
JR:the dependencies are Event constructors and Dictionaries
they are not in D2E
but they are implemented widely
PLH:I think w-p-t has some relevant test to check "it is implemented
broadly"
JR:the test case we have for event constructors would fail if hadn't
implemented D3E part correctly
PLH:that's good
just know this will be an issue during the Proposed Rec Director's call
we do have tests and test results for the DOM spec
RB:I think we did talk about this a while ago
early in 2014 (perhaps Feb)
AB:any other refernces that "red flagged" for you PLH?
<plh>http://w3c.github.io/test-results/dom/less-than-2.html#test-file-1
PLH:no, I didn't notice anything else
we have a dedicated DOM constructor test
it appears a lot more work isn't needed
<plh>http://w3c.github.io/test-results/dom/all.html#test-file-4
but we do need to create a "story"
<jrossi> status.modern.ie/domeventconstructors
<jrossi>http://status.modern.ie/domeventconstructors
<scribe>*ACTION:*barstow work with Doug and PLH and the group on the D3E
reference story [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-135 - Work with doug and plh and the group on
the d3e reference story [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-09-30].
<jrossi> well dang, site seems to be having issues
JR:re Event constructors, the relevant portion is implemented by at
least 2 browsers and the PE Event constructor will be implemented by 2
or more browsers
but not sure about the time of the IE shipping
PLH:the group can define "the bar"
JR:ok, think this case is pretty straight forward
re discussing this with the Director
PLH:the group needs to create its rationale for the Director
it appears you will be ok
*RESOLUTION: the Plan of Record we discussed on 23-Sep-2014 re moving to
LC and Proposed REC is agreed*
PLH:note the DOM spec is about to move to Proposed REC
in that case, if PE spec refs DOM spec, there would be no issues
<smaug>https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html#pointerevent-interface
AB:one additional task I think we should add is to do a short-ish (f.ex.
1-2 week) "pre LC Request for Comments" and target specific people
and/or groups such as Anne van Kesteren, public-script-coord, www-dom, TAG.
<plh> PLH: we'll need to check the mouse events constructor
AB:any comments about adding that additional step?
<scottgonzalez> I have to drop off the call. I have another call
starting now.
RB:seems reasonable to me
PLH:+1
AoB
AB:as is SOP for this group, if it appears a call would be helpful next
week, I'll send a draft agenda at least a day in advance; otherwise
there will be no call and I'll make such an announcement.
... anything else for today?
JR:we have a couple of weeks of spec work ahead of us
and our charter expires end of October
we have had discussions about a v2 spec
not sure if we want to extend our charter just to finish v1 or to add v2
PLH:charter extensions are purely admin
if want to expand scope, then the group must re-charter i.e. new charter
JR:is work on v2 considered an extension or is a new charter needed?
PLH:that's a bit of a grey line
several things to consider
f.ex. the length of the extension
also need to consider errata that could be needed
AV:what is the max extension?
PLH:could be 3 mos, through up to 2 years
AV:I think we have some bugs or features marked "v2"
JR:yes, they are in a wiki
seems like we should start the work to extend the charter
say 6 mos
and that would give us time to complete v1
and then talk about the v2 features
and figure if an extension #2 would be needed or a new charter
PLH:that sounds reasonable to me
<scribe>*ACTION:*barstow work with Doug and Philippe on extending PEWG's
charter to get the group through v1 and allow discussions for what to do
about v2 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-136 - Work with doug and philippe on extending
pewg's charter to get the group through v1 and allow discussions for
what to do about v2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-09-30].
AB:anything else?
JR:re TPAC
I'm wondering who's going?
I'll be there
if anyone want to talk about PE and/or TE, that would be great
AB:I'll be at TPAC
JR:me too
AB:anyone else?
[ Silence ]
<smaug> probably not
AB:do you know how you are going to organize such a meeting?
JR:not sure yet
PLH:if you have a meeting, please include IndieUI group
AB:meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
*[NEW]**ACTION:*barstow look for a commitment to review tests
15.{11,18,19} in PR-1249 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action04]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*barstow work with Doug and Philippe on extending PEWG's
charter to get the group through v1 and allow discussions for what to do
about v2 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action10]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*barstow work with Doug and PLH and the group on the D3E
reference story [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action09]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*Cathy review test 5.3 for PR-1220 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*Jacob close bug 26809 as WONTFIX and include a link to
23-Sep-2014 discussion in the bug [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action06]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*Jacob merge PR-1121 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*Jacob review PR 1245 and merge it if it is OK [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*Jacob review PRs for test assertions 11.3 and 13.4 (once
available from Scott) [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action05]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*Jacob review the spec for bugs like 26888 and send
changeset to the list [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action08]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*Jacob update the spec for bug 26888 to reflect
resolution recorded on 23-Sep-2014 [recorded
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-pointerevents-minutes.html#action07]
[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2014 16:52:07 UTC