W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > April to June 2015

Draft minutes: 2015 Apr 7 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:49:50 -0400
Message-ID: <55240AAE.7000803@gmail.com>
To: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the April 7 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 April 14. In the 
absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.

-Thanks, ArtB

W3C <http://www.w3.org/>

  - DRAFT -

  Pointer Events Working Group Voice Conference

    07 Apr 2015


See also:IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/07-pointerevents-irc>


    Art_Barstow, Matt_Brubeck, Asir_Vedamuthu, Scott_Gonzalex,
    Olli_Pettay, Rick_Byers, Tim_Dresser, Mustaq_Ahmed, Patrick_Lauke,
    Jacob_Rossi, Doug_Schepers


  * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#agenda>
     1. Agree on Agenda
     2. Implementation Status
     3. v.Next Features and v1 Errata
     4. AoB <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/07-pointerevents-minutes.html#item04>
  * Summary of Action Items


<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: ArtB

<jrossi2> I'll be a bin late... my MSFT credentials expired while on 
vacation #doh

<patrick_h_lauke> i'm calling in in a sec, but will mostly be on mute 
due to childminding

<smaug> Hello

<rbyers> Zakim rbyers is Chrome_Team

<patrick_h_lauke> i'm in

      Agree on Agenda

AB:yesterday, Jacob proposed a draft agenda and it looks good to me 
Any change requests?

[ None ]

      Implementation Status

AB:besides Google's recent annoucement (f.ex. see 
would like an update from Microsoft/Spartan and Mozilla.

RB:my blink-dev thread didn't include a lot of context

… so I can give some context now

… and take feedback too.

<rbyers> RB: 4 main reasons reasons

<rbyers> ... 1. interoperability ecosystem: interop benefit of focusing 
on touch events was no longer outweighing the costs (including 
partner/developer good will)

<smaug> (there is some old CSS proposal for tactile feedback)

<patrick_h_lauke> so, for first time, apple now have a multi-input type 
scenario and realising it's potentially giving problems...hmmm

<rbyers> … 2. scroll-start performance: blink's focus in 2014 was appy 
sites where a single UI thread was preferable (lots of touchmove driven 
effects interacting with animation etc.). In 2015 we've shifted focus 
back to sites that depend on threaded scrolling.

<rbyers> s/... 2/RB: 2/

<rbyers> RB: 3. richness concerns being addressed: scroll customization 
at houdini is the right path for p2r. Touch-action extensions as a 
tactical mitigation

… (p2r = PullToRefresh)

<rbyers> RB: 4. compat issues being addressed: mouse event model for touch

AB:thanks Rick. Does anyone have any Qs or comments about these 4 points?

AV:re point #4, is there something specific?

RB:IE has made some compat changes

… we need to tighten the spec

<patrick_h_lauke> new spartan behavior: see last row 

JR:in a future Spartan build there will be a flag to turn on/off the 
diff models (touch and pointer)

… we are still collecting data

<patrick_h_lauke> compared with IE11 which sends mouse compat events 
interleaved with their pointer equivalent

… and the group still needs to work out the details

RB:need to know where we have good interop and then update the spec to 
address the problem areas

DS:would you please explain Intent to Implement vs. Intent to Ship?

RB:in Blink process, don't do I2Ship until code is done or very close to 

<rbyers> Blink process:http://www.chromium.org/blink

… thus requires lots of impl work


DS:so does I2I kind of imply a future I2Ship?

RB:yes, normally that is the case

… the announcement serves the purposes to gather lots of broad feedback

… some people will evaluate the impl from a performance perspective

… and certainly interop

AV:is there any target for shipping?

RB:too soon to say

… we do a quarterly planning process

… and a lot of that is shifting to be public

… now doing Q2 planning; I can share some of the informaiton

… expecting this to be multiple quarters

AV:is there a link to the quarterly info?

RB:this is the first time we are doing this

… nothing available yet but I'll let you know when it is

DS:will there be something at upcoming Google I/O?

RB:no, unfortunately I don't think we will be far enough for this year

… clear benefit for performance

… as well as stylus support

… This work is important but we won't rush it.

… We need to balance a lot of priorities.

… Getting PE working for mouse events in WK is going to be a lot of work.

… Must be careful that every change doesn't break some web site 
expecting WK behavior

… Lots of iteration

<asir> Thank you Rick for sharing these info

JR:Spartan has PE support now

… including PE Constructor (which isn't in IE11)

… we have some flags included

… Want to align our impl with other browsers like Blink and Safari

… f.ex. pan and some other TE model changes

… [ Jacob provides some other implementation details ]

… Also enabled gesture based mouse model (up, down, etc.)

… Still collecting lots of data

… Going forward we will work on issues like those Rick identified

… think they are all solvable with PE

<patrick_h_lauke> jacob, would be happy/interested to help test/see some 
of the example sites that break

AB:are these details documented in Public?



AB:anything Matt or Olli re implementation?

MB:think the blink-dev annoucement will make this more urgent

Scrolling implementation consolidation will help to support pointer 
events on all the platforms

<mbrubeck> Implementation work on Firefox/Gecko is continuing apace

      v.Next Features and v1 Errata

AB:we have the v.next feature list 
There is also one open bug <http://tinyurl.com/Bugs-PointerEvents>.
... Jacob included 3 items in his draft agenda: 1) "up/down/left/right" 
pan values for touch-action; 2) implicit/explicit capture 3) 
compatibility mouse events model. Any comments on these items or 
proposals for additional items?
... It would probably be good for us to get consensus on the scope of 
v.next but it might be a bit premature right now.

JR:with respect to the charter, I think the scope is the same

… I don't think we or Rick mentioned anything beyond the current charter

… the items Rick identified should be on the table

RB:for hit testing, implicit vs explicit capture; also over/enter/leave 
during capture

… capture behavior must be well spec'ed

<rbyers> This 

<rbyers> ... we want the default behavior not to incur per-move hit-test 

RB:I've talked to a lot of people including Android team and think we've 
identified the main issues

AB:anything else from Mozilla's perspective or have Rick and Jacob 
identified the main issues?

JR:given the items, we might need more than 6 months

… for a v2 spec, 6 months is probably not enough

RB:will definitely need some compat data for some issues

… it's likely impl work won't be complete within 6 months

<patrick_h_lauke> i've got a very happy screaming 2.5 year old running 
around, so probably missed if it's been talked about, but: what was the 
decision about mouse compat events and when they fire (in the PE spec vs 
in real life Spartan)? do we plan to already work on errata/update for 
PE spec? is this for v2/v.next?

DS:then need to think about a 6-month extension to a new charter that 
extends 12-24 months

JR:I am indifferent re extension vs. new charter

… I think the charter itself is the same, just need to add v.next/v2

DS:we can figure out the charter parts

… more important to do the right thing re the spec

… we will get a 6-month extension

AB:I agree with Doug re the charter -> let him and me figure out the 
best way and keep the group focused on addressing the technical issues
... any thoughts on how to move the work forward?

… meetings, PRs, …?

JR:think a next step is the up/down issue

… would like to move to github

… re TE compat, might be helpful to have a f2f meeting for discussions

RB:agree; let's get PE spec on Github and start with the easy issues


AB:let's take the technical discussion to the mail lsit

<scribe>*ACTION:*barstow move the PE spec to Github (with Jacob and 
Rick) [recorded 

<trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Move the pe spec to github (with jacob 
and rick) [on Arthur Barstow - due 2015-04-14].

AB:meeting adjourned

<patrick_h_lauke> thank you, will review transcript as jack gave me zero 
chance to actually listen ;)

    Summary of Action Items

*[NEW]**ACTION:*barstow move the PE spec to Github (with Jacob and Rick) 

[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 16:50:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 16 May 2015 00:31:59 UTC