Draft minutes: 2014 November 11 call

The draft minutes from the November 11 voice conference are available at 
the following and copied below:

<http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html>

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-pointer-events mail list before November 18. 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


    11 Nov 2014

Agenda 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014OctDec/0056.html>

See also:IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-irc>


    Attendees

Present
    Art_Barstow, Rick_Byers, Cathy_Chan, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu,
    Olli_Pettay, Doug_Schepers
Regrets
    Sangwhan_Moon, Patrick_Lauke, Scott_Gonzαlez, Doug_Schepers
Chair
    ArtB
Scribe
    ArtB


    Contents

  * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#agenda>
     1. Tweak and agree on agenda
        <http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#item01>
     2. Testing and implementation report status
        <http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#item02>
     3. Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of Pointer Events
        <http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#item03>
     4. AoB <http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#item04>
  * Summary of Action Items
    <http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: ArtB

<smaug> sip never works

<smaug> back to skype

<smaug> in some distant future sip might start working


      Tweak and agree on agenda

AB:I posted a draft agenda 
yesterdayhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014OctDec/0056.html.Any 
change requests?


      Testing and implementation report status

AV:we found some issues

… but they aren't blocking

… a couple of test case issues

… we are preparing PRs

… Jacob, can you get them this week?

JR:yes, I think so

… one change is to change expected event sequence

… I don't think that is an interop issue

AV:after we get through these issues, the aggregated report should be 
straight forward

… I just need the JSON files

JR:we are running our tests on IE and Matt is doing FF testing

… we have one issue to check

… think it is just timing

… it might require a tweak to a test file

… he have an internal change and now I need to push that change to w-p-t

AB:ok, thanks for that clarification

OP:we noticed an issue

AB:so are you going to submit a new PR?

OP:I think we pass all of the tests but one

… we will need to run all of the tests after a patch lands in Gecko

OP:we need to run the tests after we land all of the Gecko patches for 
Pointer Events

… I just reviewed one Gecko patch earlier today

AB:how many PE patches for Gecko have not been reviewed?

OP:none

<smaug>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1094913

… but the patch needs to land and be compiled into an implementation we 
can test

OP:expect that patch to land tomorrow

AB:is Matt aware of this?

OP:yes, Matt has been involved

AB:do you know when we can expect Matt to run the tests with this patch?

OP:no, I don't know

<scribe>*ACTION:*barstow followup with Matt re the timeframe to run the 
tests on a build that includes a fix for but 1094913 [recorded 
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-144 - Followup with matt re the timeframe to 
run the tests on a build that includes a fix for but 1094913 [on Arthur 
Barstow - due 2014-11-18].

AV:what about 109…?

… do you know when that will be closed?

OP:sorry, not sure

AV:the bug is 1094913?

OP:yes

AV:if that issue is closed, I think Gecko is done

OP:I just completed a review of 1094913 about 20 minutes ago

JR:I need to run the tests end-to-end without any operator errors

… I have run them all, and they all pass

AB:ok, I think that means we're in pretty good shape for IE

RB:I was running the tests on w3test.org

… is there a harness?

JR:yes, runner/index.html

… there is a tool to create test report

RB:for Chrome, we only want to run touch-action tests

AB:yes, I think you'll have to do that all by hand

RB:oh, that's tedious

AB:agree
... do we want to include Chrome's touch-action data?

RB:I can send the results to the list

JR:yes, it would be good to get that data

AB:until we look at the Chrome data, not sure it would be helpful or not
... anything else on testing?


      Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of Pointer Events

AB:there are no more open spec bugs.

… we could publish the LCWD now

… we could wait until the ImplReport is complete

AB:what do people think?

… any strong prefs one way or another?

JR:don't think we need to block on the ImplReport

… especially since the Gecko patch will give us 2 100% impls

… so I recommend publishing LC now

<Cathy> +1 on publishing LCWD now

… We did previously talk about some type of "pre LC" period

… not sure we need to do that

CC:publish LCWD now

AB:my inclination is to publish now

… don't see a strong need for some type of pre LC comment period

… and I prefer to publish LC now

<shepazu> +1 to publish

AV:I'm ok with publishing

RB:fine with me

OP:ok with me too

AB:hearing no objections, I'll record a resolution

*RESOLUTION: group agrees to publish LCWD of Pointer Events*

AB:Draft LC 
ishttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html?specStatus=LC;edDraftURI=https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html;publishDate=2014-11-13;lcEnd=2014-11-30;previousPublishDate=2013-05-09;previousMaturity=CR;processVersion=2005
... the LCWD should include text that includes a link to the test suite 
and the implementation report. It should also state that if no 
substantive changes are made as a result of the LC review, the next 
publication will be a Proposed Recommendation.
...https://github.com/w3c/test-results

…https://github.com/w3c/test-results/tree/gh-pages/pointerevents

… need to remove UC10.json file

<jrossi>https://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.html

AB:not sure about the workflow

DS:I'm not sure either

AB:we could use lables

JR:yes, let's use labels

AB:ok, that's fine with me
... I'll create the LC if you want Jacob

JR:ok, please do

AB:and I'll make the 
ImplReport:https://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.html

<scribe>*ACTION:*barstow create draft LCWD and ping the list for review 
[recorded 
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-145 - Create draft lcwd and ping the list for 
review [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-11-18].

AB:anything else on the LCWD?

AV:so we 
includehttps://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.htmlas the 
ImplReport in the LCWD?

AB:yes

AV:and anyone can submit a PR?

AB:yes and we will label the ImplReport versions of the JSON files

<scribe>*ACTION:*jacob label JSON files that are used for the 
Implementation Report [recorded 
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-146 - Label json files that are used for the 
implementation report [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-11-18].

AB:anything else on LC?


      AoB

RB:what about PE discussion at BlinkOn

… that's a conf for Blink devs

… it was last week

… we talked about PEs and TEs

… no specific takeaways for the group but wanted to share this info

<rbyers> 
Slides:https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/presentation/d/1AgcAyn6HLDkWNDkvPEDAAPsqx4Jv6kzMjLowZJ1wbBc/edit

JR:there is some work underway about Polymer polyfill for PointerEvents

… could use W3C test suite to make sure polyfill is high quality

… and interoperable with native impls of PE

DS:if going to have polyfill, one thing re host potential is webplatform.org

AB:seems like we need to have a discussion re Touch Events evolution

RB:agree the polyfill interoperability issue is high priority

… tough to polyfill without touch-action

AB:anything else?
... thanks everyone

… I'll get the LCWD published on Nov 13

<rbyers> In particular, if you readhttps://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/- 
polyfills are key to the strategy we should be following

… meeting adjourned


    Summary of Action Items

*[NEW]**ACTION:*barstow create draft LCWD and ping the list for review 
[recorded 
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action02]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*barstow followup with Matt re the timeframe to run the 
tests on a build that includes a fix for but 1094913 [recorded 
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]
*[NEW]**ACTION:*jacob label JSON files that are used for the 
Implementation Report [recorded 
inhttp://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html#action03]

[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:47:09 UTC