IRC log of pointerevents on 2014-03-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:01:27 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents

15:01:27 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc

15:01:34 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make log public

15:01:44 [patrick_h_lauke]

zakim, aaaa is patrick_h_lauke

15:01:44 [Zakim]

+patrick_h_lauke; got it

15:01:45 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

15:01:46 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

15:01:46 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0169.html

15:01:46 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

15:01:46 [ArtB]

Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

15:01:58 [Zakim]

+[Microsoft.a]

15:02:21 [asir]

asir has joined #pointerevents

15:02:40 [ArtB]

Present+ Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Asir_Vedamuthu, Scott_González, Patrick_Lauke

15:02:59 [Zakim]

+Matt_Brubeck

15:03:00 [rbyers]

rbyers has joined #pointerevents

15:03:00 [ArtB]

Present+ Jacob_Rossi

15:03:12 [ArtB]

Present+ Matt_Brubeck

15:03:30 [Zakim]

+Cathy

15:03:39 [smaug]

hmm, skype didn't like a kernel update

15:03:45 [ArtB]

Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon, Doug_Schepers

15:03:53 [ArtB]

Topic: Tweak agenda

15:03:58 [ArtB]

AB: draft agenda sent to the list yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0169.html.

15:04:03 [ArtB]

AB: any change requests?

15:04:25 [ArtB]

RB: we got a Q about putting touch-action in its own spec

15:04:37 [ArtB]

… would like to understand the tradeoffs

15:04:42 [ArtB]

… could be a diff re process

15:04:51 [patrick_h_lauke]

take to list?

15:04:55 [mbrubeck_]

I have no strong preference.

15:04:55 [ArtB]

AB: we could add it or take it to the list

15:05:13 [ArtB]

AB: let's add it if we have time

15:05:15 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

15:05:15 [ArtB]

RB: OK

15:05:26 [ArtB]

Present+ Olli_Pettay

15:05:38 [jrossi]

jrossi has joined #pointerevents

15:05:41 [ArtB]

Topic: Add 'manipulation' touch-action property?

15:05:45 [smaug]

Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay

15:05:45 [Zakim]

sorry, smaug, I do not see a party named 'Olli_Pettay'

15:05:52 [ArtB]

AB: Jacob's proposed text is in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/rev/018f1b69c985; followups on this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/thread.html#msg158.

15:06:08 [smaug]

Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay

15:06:08 [Zakim]

+Olli_Pettay; got it

15:06:13 [smaug]

Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay

15:06:13 [Zakim]

ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay

15:06:21 [ArtB]

AB: Need to get agreement on the text and grammar.

15:06:24 [rbyers]

zakim, who is noisy?

15:06:36 [Zakim]

rbyers, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft.a] (61%), Art_Barstow (52%)

15:07:24 [ArtB]

JR: I replied last night

15:07:41 [ArtB]

[ Scribe is having a hard time hearing Jacob … ]

15:08:21 [rbyers]

JR: Either we change the spec/IE to match MSDN docs, or we just fix the MSDN docs

15:08:26 [rbyers]

... don't see much value in changing IE's behavior

15:08:37 [ArtB]

RB: I don't have a strong pref

15:08:43 [ArtB]

… agree it's a minor point

15:08:58 [ArtB]

… if there is no good reason to have a surprising grammar

15:09:22 [ArtB]

… comes down to if think this is a bug in IE, we should spec it the right way

15:09:33 [ArtB]

… but if IE is behaving as design, spec should match IE

15:09:44 [ArtB]

JR: API could be more or less forgiving

15:09:59 [ArtB]

… think the intent is already clear

15:10:13 [patrick_h_lauke]

+1 if it's by design, spec should match IE. otherwise, i'd have an idealistic spec with "magic" done by UAs (if that doesn't introduce compat issues down the line)

15:10:14 [ArtB]

… but I can see how there would be confusion in some cases

15:10:31 [ArtB]

RB: not completely clear how it should be designed

15:11:20 [patrick_h_lauke]

RB: how does this impact on IE, if you try to get computed style, does pan-x get silently dropped

15:11:47 [patrick_h_lauke]

JR: computed style should return exactly what was specified, so pan-x should be returned as well

15:11:56 [patrick_h_lauke]

np

15:12:27 [ArtB]

JR: could make an argument either way

15:13:05 [ArtB]

OP: have we asked CSS WG for feedback?

15:13:11 [ArtB]

JR: good Q; no I have not

15:13:16 [ArtB]

OP: I think we should ask

15:13:45 [ArtB]

JR: I talked to some people and I agree we should ask

15:14:23 [patrick_h_lauke]

whatever outcome, i'd like to just make sure spec is unambiguous and does not open up door to future incompatibility

15:14:28 [ArtB]

ACTION: Jacob ask CSS WG (www-style) re the Add 'manipulation' touch-action property issue

15:14:28 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-93 - Ask css wg (www-style) re the add 'manipulation' touch-action property issue [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18].

15:14:49 [ArtB]

RB: I think we should just pick something now

15:14:54 [ArtB]

AV: yes I agree

15:15:27 [ArtB]

JR: agree we should just pick something

15:16:02 [ArtB]

… I'll propose mutual exclusive solution

15:16:17 [patrick_h_lauke]

+1

15:16:18 [ArtB]

RB: that sounds fine with me

15:16:22 [ArtB]

… and PL agreed

15:16:36 [ArtB]

JR: this is a good example where we don't really need a test case

15:16:42 [Cathy]

+1

15:16:48 [ArtB]

… since it isn't likely to impact developers

15:17:20 [ArtB]

AB: if we agree on a solution, do we still need to ask CSSWG?

15:17:47 [ArtB]

OP: yes, I think we should ask them

15:17:55 [ArtB]

… I'll take that action

15:18:09 [ArtB]

AB: thanks Olli

15:18:56 [smaug]

zakim, who is noisy?

15:18:59 [patrick_h_lauke]

zakim, who is noisy?

15:19:03 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: re manipulation touch-action property, we will update the spec and consult with CSS WG

15:19:09 [Zakim]

smaug, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft.a] (11%), Art_Barstow (31%)

15:19:20 [Zakim]

patrick_h_lauke, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft.a] (10%), Scott_Gonzalez (4%), Art_Barstow (70%)

15:19:20 [ArtB]

Topic: Bug 21749: Setting a capture on an offshore element

15:19:34 [ArtB]

AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21749. Jacob made a proposal in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21749#c2.

15:19:45 [ArtB]

AB: any comments, or is more time needed to review the proposal?

15:19:59 [ArtB]

AB: we need to ask Francois Remy for feedback before closing the bug but we can record a resolution on the proposal.

15:20:33 [ArtB]

SG: what if pointercap set and then removed from the DOM

15:21:27 [ArtB]

JR: in IE when leaves the DOM, looses capture

15:21:39 [ArtB]

SG: common to pull elements out of DOM and put them back in

15:22:04 [ArtB]

JR: this touches on another issue on the agenda

15:22:35 [ArtB]

[ Scribe not getting all of Jacob's comments … ]

15:23:05 [smaug]

nor me

15:24:29 [ArtB]

OP: not clear what is the next possible target

15:24:44 [ArtB]

… target could have moved to another document

15:25:03 [ArtB]

… one option is to fire an event on the document

15:25:10 [ArtB]

JR: I'd be OK with that

15:25:36 [ArtB]

RB: what's the objection to firing lostcapture on the element removed from the DOM

15:26:16 [ArtB]

JR: can be problems with state machines keeping track

15:26:44 [smaug]

(some odd background noise )

15:26:52 [ArtB]

RB: ok, firing lostpointercapture at the doc is ok

15:27:26 [ArtB]

SG: what about firing it on the element and then firing on the document?

15:27:55 [ArtB]

JR: we do something like that in some other scenarios

15:28:23 [ArtB]

RB: what about lostcap is fired before the remove

15:28:33 [ArtB]

OP: that is what mutation events do

15:28:44 [ArtB]

… that's a reason for getting rid of them

15:29:35 [ArtB]

RB: for this bug, I think we all agree there is a failure

15:29:54 [ArtB]

… when a target is not in the document

15:30:09 [ArtB]

JR: yes, agree; we are discussing a separate bug too

15:30:55 [smaug]

zakim, who is noisy?

15:31:05 [Zakim]

smaug, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Art_Barstow (69%)

15:31:27 [ArtB]

AB: do we want to create a new bug?

15:31:35 [ArtB]

RB: easier to generalize this bug

15:32:07 [ArtB]

ACTION: Jacob Bug 21749: update the bug to reflect discussion on 2014-Mar-11

15:32:07 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-94 - Bug 21749: update the bug to reflect discussion on 2014-mar-11 [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18].

15:32:37 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: Bug 21749 group agree with Jacob's comment #2

15:32:43 [ArtB]

Topic: Bug 24786: Propose a non-normative note re the keyboard compat issue

15:32:55 [ArtB]

AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24786. Patrick's proposal is in comment #6 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24786#c6.

15:33:02 [ArtB]

AB: Rick and Jacob expressed support for Patrick's comment (although Rick suggested a minor tweek).

15:33:10 [ArtB]

AB: any comments or objections to the proposal, including Rick's clarification request?

15:33:20 [patrick_h_lauke]

happy with RB's tweak, good catch

15:33:41 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: Bug 24786: group agrees with PL's proposal + RB's clarification

15:33:46 [ArtB]

ACTION: Jacob Bug 24796: implement agreement discussed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug

15:33:46 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-95 - Bug 24796: implement agreement discussed on 2014-mar-11 and then resolve/fix the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18].

15:33:54 [ArtB]

Topic: Bug 24921: Clarification of "Default Action" for pointerdown wrt compat mouse

15:34:04 [ArtB]

AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24921. Patrick created this bug to address action-88 and it contains proposed text to review.

15:34:15 [ArtB]

AB: Jacob said he is fine with the proposal. Any other comments?

15:34:16 [jrossi]

yeah i'll contribute from IRC

15:34:39 [ArtB]

RB: I like it

15:34:45 [ArtB]

JR: ok with me

15:34:53 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: Bug 24921: group agrees with PL's proposed text

15:34:57 [patrick_h_lauke]

:)

15:35:00 [ArtB]

ACTION: Jacob Bug 24921: implement PL's proposed text as agreed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug

15:35:00 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-96 - Bug 24921: implement pl's proposed text as agreed on 2014-mar-11 and then resolve/fix the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18].

15:35:12 [ArtB]

Topic: Bug 24922: Tweak to 11. Compatibility Mapping with Mouse Events

15:35:20 [ArtB]

AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24922. New bug by Patrick including proposed text changes.

15:35:26 [ArtB]

AB: Jacob said he is fine with the proposal. Any other comments?

15:35:50 [ArtB]

RB: LGTM

15:36:00 [ArtB]

AB LGTM2

15:36:07 [ArtB]

RESOLUTION: Bug 24922: group agrees with PL's proposed text

15:36:11 [ArtB]

ACTION: Jacob Bug 24922: implement PL's proposed text as agreed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug

15:36:11 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-97 - Bug 24922: implement pl's proposed text as agreed on 2014-mar-11 and then resolve/fix the bug [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-03-18].

15:36:21 [ArtB]

Topic: Bug 24923: What should happen to the mouse events if pointer event listener removes the target ...

15:36:33 [ArtB]

AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24923. New bug by Olli  and comments from Scott, Rick, Jacob and a proposal by Patrick in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24923#c12.

15:37:01 [patrick_h_lauke]

i have no strong opinions on this bug btw

15:37:23 [patrick_h_lauke]

looking at this purely from a noob perspective, not knowing what the "PROPER" behavior as per DOM etc should be

15:37:45 [patrick_h_lauke]

so more my naive "i know basic JS, enough to be dangerous" view on it

15:37:48 [ArtB]

JR: want some more time to think about this

15:37:59 [ArtB]

… we might need some more defns

15:38:04 [mbrubeck]

If we go with something like the proposal, perhaps we should use "an ancestor" instead of "the parent"

15:38:11 [ArtB]

RB: agree this is non-trivial if we want to specify this

15:38:29 [ArtB]

JR: need to investigate IE behavior

15:38:44 [ArtB]

AB: we agree then to continue discussion on the list

15:39:16 [scott_gonzalez]

http://dev-test.nemikor.com/behavior/mouseover-when-element-is-shown.html

15:39:18 [ArtB]

SG: re my comment, and "mouse spec", need to be be clear about what changes in the DOM

15:39:31 [ArtB]

SG: if put mouse into green box, it will turn red

15:39:42 [ArtB]

… a new element is created under the mouse and it will be red

15:39:52 [ArtB]

… it will be pink if hovering

15:40:21 [ArtB]

JR: I agree this is not in scope for PE

15:40:30 [rbyers]

Note this is considered (by some at least) a bug in blink: http://crbug.com/246304

15:40:42 [ArtB]

SG: this is a manifestiation of mouse events in general

15:40:50 [ArtB]

… think FF does the best

15:41:02 [ArtB]

RB: we need to fix this in Blink to make it work like FF

15:41:30 [ArtB]

SG: we see issues with autocomplete scenarios and hover

15:41:56 [jrossi1]

jrossi1 has joined #pointerevents

15:42:00 [ArtB]

RB: agree it is out of scope for this group

15:42:15 [ArtB]

… we need to figure this out though in the appropariate place/group

15:42:24 [ArtB]

OP: yes I agree

15:43:39 [ArtB]

SG: there are three scenarios and we need to agree on behavior for all 3

15:43:49 [ArtB]

… remove from doc and stays out

15:44:22 [ArtB]

[ Scribe didn't get Scott's 3 scenarios ]

15:44:57 [ArtB]

s/remove from doc/1) remove from doc/

15:45:40 [ArtB]

JR: we don't want to have to do hit testing again

15:45:56 [ArtB]

RB: agree; that creates issues

15:46:45 [ArtB]

AB: please continue discussion in the bug

15:46:56 [ArtB]

Topic: Bug 24971: Should got/lostpointercapture be dispatched asynchronously or synchronously

15:47:12 [ArtB]

AB: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24971. New bug by Olli; needs feedback.

15:47:20 [ArtB]

AB: Jacob said he needs to do some investigation. Any other feedback?

15:47:58 [ArtB]

OP: why would ever want then to be dispatched asynchronously

15:48:29 [ArtB]

RB: Jacob mentioned stack overflow potential

15:49:15 [ArtB]

RB: this could be a web compat issue

15:49:42 [ArtB]

OP: this came up as I reviewed a patch for Gecko

15:49:50 [ArtB]

JR: I need to look at our code

15:50:16 [ArtB]

AB: there's agreement to keep this bug open and for everyone to noodle on it

15:50:24 [ArtB]

Topic: Open Actions for Jacob re spec updates

15:50:37 [ArtB]

AB: This topic is just a reminder that Jacob has a few actions to update the spec  (Action-51, Action-62, Action-63, Action-65, Action-70). I wasn't expecting to discuss these today unless someone has something specific to say.

15:51:01 [ArtB]

JR: I'll get to them ;)

15:51:13 [ArtB]

MB: I also have an open action re an issue AvK raised

15:51:25 [ArtB]

Topic: Testing status

15:51:30 [ArtB]

AB: any new info re testing?

15:53:15 [ArtB]

AB: status is we are waiting for updates from Jacob/Asir

15:53:28 [patrick_h_lauke]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014JanMar/0172.html

15:54:41 [ArtB]

AB: how about we defer discssion to the list for now if no resolution, we'll add it to a meeting agenda

15:54:51 [ArtB]

Topic: CR implementation updates

15:54:57 [ArtB]

AB: any new info re implementations?

15:55:04 [patrick_h_lauke]

yup sorry, let's continue on list for this (i'll make a bug). just that it popped into my head

15:55:14 [smaug]

(http://mozilla.pettay.fi/moztests/events/event_loop.html is my old event dispatching loop test for recursion depth)

15:55:18 [ArtB]

RB: I sent out an Intent to Ship for touch-action

15:55:29 [ArtB]

… I don't expect any major issues

15:55:53 [ArtB]

OP: we have some issues to fix

15:56:00 [rbyers]

blink touch-action "Intent to ship" thread: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/blink-dev/CSS$20touch-action/blink-dev/sc5lHnlcLvM/ntJWuKKHUqYJ

15:56:18 [ArtB]

OP: the issues I filed are blocking Gecko

15:56:45 [ArtB]

AB: that's good info. We need to make those bugs high prio

15:57:08 [ArtB]

AV: what about auto-loading the pollyfill Rick?

15:57:24 [ArtB]

RB: we have some things to do first but that's still in plan

15:57:32 [ArtB]

… we need to some research

15:57:52 [ArtB]

AV: a Chrome extension to load the polyfill?

15:57:56 [ArtB]

RB: yes

15:58:01 [ArtB]

AV: ok, thanks

15:58:16 [ArtB]

Topic: AoB

15:58:22 [ArtB]

AB: anything else for today?

15:58:50 [ArtB]

Topic: moving touch-action to a separate spec

15:59:07 [ArtB]

JR: need to think about this

15:59:19 [ArtB]

RB: I understand it might not be worth the effort

15:59:30 [ArtB]

… but I need to provide an answer

15:59:43 [ArtB]

JR: think splitting it out raises too many issues

16:00:02 [ArtB]

RB: sounds good; I'll report that and we can go from there

16:00:15 [ArtB]

JR: think there is too much info that would need to be moved

16:00:56 [ArtB]

AB: we have a `temporary` resolution to not split out touch-action into a separate spec

16:01:06 [ArtB]

AB: meeting adjourned

16:01:09 [Zakim]

-rbyers

16:01:11 [Zakim]

-Olli_Pettay

16:01:11 [Zakim]

-patrick_h_lauke

16:01:12 [Zakim]

-[Microsoft]

16:01:13 [Zakim]

-[Microsoft.a]

16:01:14 [Zakim]

-Scott_Gonzalez

16:01:18 [Zakim]

-Cathy

16:01:21 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make minutes

16:01:21 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB

16:01:44 [Zakim]

-Matt_Brubeck

16:01:46 [ArtB]

RRSAgent, make log public

16:02:26 [ArtB]

zakim, bye

16:02:26 [Zakim]

leaving. As of this point the attendees were rbyers, Scott_Gonzalez, Art_Barstow, +44.797.663.aaaa, [Microsoft], patrick_h_lauke, Matt_Brubeck, Cathy, Olli_Pettay

16:02:26 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #pointerevents

16:02:44 [ArtB]

rrsagent, bye

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-actions.rdf :

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Jacob ask CSS WG (www-style) re the Add 'manipulation' touch-action property issue [1]

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-14-28

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Jacob Bug 21749: update the bug to reflect discussion on 2014-Mar-11 [2]

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-32-07

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Jacob Bug 24796: implement agreement discussed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug [3]

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-33-46

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Jacob Bug 24921: implement PL's proposed text as agreed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug [4]

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-35-00

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Jacob Bug 24922: implement PL's proposed text as agreed on 2014-Mar-11 and then Resolve/Fix the bug [5]

16:02:44 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/11-pointerevents-irc#T15-36-11