W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > July to September 2014

Draft minutes: 2014 Sept 23 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:51:32 -0400
Message-ID: <5421A514.7030605@gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:11 UTC