Pointer Events WG Voice Conference -- 24 Jun 2014

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<smaug> rbyers: please don't type here while driving ;)

<rbyers> Heh luckily a coworker volunteered to drive :-)

<patrick_h_lauke> whoah, has uk number changed for w3c zakim?

<smaug> mbrubeck__: ping

<jrossi> calling...

Tweak agenda

AB: I sent a draft agenda to the list yesterday <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014AprJun/0112.html>.

<rbyers> I'm on route to the airport, hope my cell quality is OK

AB: any objections to dropping editorial Bug 26094 and letting Patrick and Jacob take a crack at it <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26094>?

<patrick_h_lauke> artb your voip client sounds clear to me

AB: any objections to dropping Bub 26094?

[None]

<patrick_h_lauke> 26094 is fairly trivial i'd say, if jrossi agrees

AB: any other change requests?

[None]

Bug 26013: Note in "10 Pointer Capture" to mention implicit pointer capture

AB: this bug was submitted by Patrick <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26013>. It started via the "gotpointercapture/lostpointercapture on <button>s in IE" thread <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014AprJun/0087.html>.
... Patrick included a concrete proposal for a non-normative Note in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014AprJun/0092.html>. I don't feel strongly either way (adding it or not) and the proposal doesn't seem harmful.

JR: if everyone is ok with the behavior

<jrossi> hang on

<rbyers> I heard Jaxob

<patrick_h_lauke> i can hear you

JR: if the IE behavior is ok or if other browers behave differently, then I'm ok with add it

AB: does anyone objet to Patrick's proposal?

<rbyers> No objection

[ None ]

AB: is the text ok as is Jacob?

JR: want to make one tweak to avoid RFC2119 keywords

… otherwise it is fine

PL: I've got no strong feelings either way

AB: sounds like we have agreement to add it

<scribe> ACTION: Jacob re bug 26013, add Patrick's proposal and tweak the text as necessary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/06/24-pointerevents-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Re bug 26013, add patrick's proposal and tweak the text as necessary [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-07-01].

Adding a note about the 300ms-ish delay to "9. Declaring candidate regions for default touch behaviors" ?

AB: Patrick started this thread <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014AprJun/0104.html>.
... no reply so far

JR: I don't want to add this to the spec

… the 300ms is because of certain gesture support

… I don't think our spec needs to document this

<rbyers> I agree with Jacob

<smaug> +1

RB: agree

<patrick_h_lauke> fine, be like that ;)

OP: agree

PL: no strong feelings

… think it would remove some surprise

… since it is defacto behavior in browsers

… but if consensus is to be silent, I can live with that

RESOLUTION: the group agrees not to add Patrick's "300ms-ish" proposal to the spec

News/summary from June 23 "Web input brainstorming face-to-face"

AB: who from PEWG attended?

JR: Rick, Matt and me

… others from Rick's team

… some have participated on the list

AB: any highlights from the June 23 Web input gathering?

… or do we wait for a report/summary?

RB: we talked about a lot of things

… including PE vs. TE debate

… growing consensus on Blink team

… I had some slides I'll share the URL later

… look at the speaker notes

… and we can followup when I have better connectivity than today

<jrossi> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qRqLKQjOnGgrM-UkMAb2RH6mQCFQHk8R01s5qvjm2Po/edit#slide=id.g355c5631f_145

… We have 3 issues that block us from implementing PE now

… we can't deprecate TE; we will have to support them forever

… there are some perf issues e.g. hit tests

… hard to build pull to refresh

<patrick_h_lauke> hard to build "pull to refresh" etc

… Our priorities have shifted a lot in the last 6 mos and PE is problematic vis-a-vis those priorities

AB: Jacob, Matt, do you want to add anything?

JR: there were a lot of other great topics that we discussed

… and made good progress on them

… Expect to see some CSS related devlopments

… We'll share that with other goods

… Think it was successful and think we want to do it again (perhaps @ TPAC)

RB: we talked a lot about focusing on primitives

… we did find quite a bit of common ground

… and even if Blink doesn't support PE, there are other areas we can work on to get interop

<jrossi> nope, just said "yes that's good"

JR: yes, that's good

AB: anything else on yesterday's meeting?

<rbyers> As or was that you?

AB: any specific followon actions for the PEWG group?

JR: no, don't think so for this group

… probably stuff for TE CG

… some CSS related developements

JR: Apple is discussing touch-action in a WebKit bug

<patrick_h_lauke> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133112

… would be good to get touch-action in (Mobile) Safari

<rbyers> S/JR/RB

DS: re the TouchEvents errata and/or Edited REC, need to understand if the scope is small corrections or new features

RB: think it is mostly small corrections

… but too early to know if need larger changes

… so probably will need something beyond the errata

DS: Art, re small corrections, we can keep working on those in the TECG

… but if substantive, we will need a different structure

… wanted to know if that is your understanding

AB: yes, what Rick and you said Doug is consistent with my take of the potential changes

<scribe> … new features will require a WG to publish them

JR: I'll submit proposal and then we can review it

DS: yes, please do

<jrossi> all implementations already behaved this way, i don't think it'd change someone's review. just a bug fix

… are your blocked Rick?

<jrossi> re: cancellability

RB: no, I am not
... my understanding is that the TECG can discuss TECG business in a PEWG call

DS: is anyone uncomfortable with that?

JR: that's OK

AB: that works for me

<patrick_h_lauke> only slight concern: not ALL CG participants are here as well

JR: if it gets into substantive discussions, we can have separate calls

RB: sounds good

<patrick_h_lauke> but as long as we share things on CG pages/wiki once things get moving...should be good

Testing

AB: Scott replied to action-108 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014AprJun/0101.html>
... what's the status and what next?

JR: need a PR from Scott

… we are working on some PRs

<asir> can you unmute me?

AB: here is my reply to Scott http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014AprJun/0106.html

AV: high level view ...

… there are ~66 TA in the wiki

… PR324 covered ~54 of the TAs

… thus we have 12 remaining TAs

… Scott's PRs cover another 9 TAs

… Jacob mentioned some PRs we will submit and they cover 2/3 of the missing

… Art had one PR and we are going to submit a PR to cover that

… If Scott would submit his PRs for reviews, that would be good

AB: you will create a PR for the test file I submitted, right?

AV: yes

… So the next step is for Scott to submit his PRs as soon as possible

AB: thanks for that summary

<asir> is matt on the call?

… Scotts' not here but he's good about reviewing minutes

<asir> please unmute me

AB: anything else on testing?

CR implementation: status and updates

AB: any new news?

RB: touch-action is shipping in Chrome 36

<patrick_h_lauke> nice

AV: Matt's not here today; he mentioned the FF Metro implementation

… I think they are now 97% implementation

… have one bug to fix and that will get the impl to 100%

AB: thanks for the FF update

AoB

AB: anything else for today?

… we will have a call when we have a need for it

… main thing is for Scott to submit his PRs for review

… last call for topics?

… thanks everyone

<patrick_h_lauke> thank you

… Meeting adjourned

- DRAFT -

Pointer Events WG Voice Conference

24 Jun 2014

Attendees

Contents