IRC log of pointerevents on 2014-11-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:59:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-irc
15:59:52 [Zakim]
+Art_Barstow
16:00:13 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log public
16:00:25 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
16:00:25 [ArtB]
Scribe: ArtB
16:00:25 [ArtB]
Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
16:00:25 [ArtB]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014OctDec/0056.html
16:00:25 [ArtB]
Chair: ArtB
16:00:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.857.300.aaaa
16:00:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.571.426.aabb
16:00:49 [Cathy]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:00:49 [Zakim]
+Cathy; got it
16:01:39 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:02:07 [smaug]
sip never works
16:02:34 [ArtB]
Present: Art_Barstow, Rick_Byers, Cathy_Chan, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu
16:02:47 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
16:02:58 [smaug]
back to skype
16:03:07 [smaug]
in some distant future sip might start working
16:03:18 [ArtB]
Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon, Patrick_Lauke, Scott_González, Doug_Schepers
16:03:23 [smaug]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
16:03:23 [Zakim]
+Olli_Pettay; got it
16:03:25 [ArtB]
Present+ Olli_Pettay
16:03:30 [smaug]
Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
16:03:31 [Zakim]
ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
16:04:05 [ArtB]
Topic: Tweak and agree on agenda
16:04:14 [ArtB]
AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014OctDec/0056.html. Any change requests?
16:05:24 [ArtB]
Topic: Testing and implementation report status
16:05:39 [ArtB]
AV: we found some issues
16:05:44 [ArtB]
… but they aren't blocking
16:05:50 [ArtB]
… a couple of test case issues
16:05:58 [ArtB]
… we are preparing PRs
16:06:09 [ArtB]
… Jacob, can you get them this week?
16:06:14 [ArtB]
JR: yes, I think so
16:06:35 [ArtB]
… one change is to change expected event sequence
16:06:45 [ArtB]
… I don't think that is an interop issue
16:07:14 [ArtB]
AV: after we get through these issues, the aggregated report should be straight forward
16:07:19 [ArtB]
… I just need the JSON files
16:08:37 [ArtB]
JR: we are running our tests on IE and Matt is doing FF testing
16:08:44 [ArtB]
… we have one issue to check
16:08:48 [ArtB]
… think it is just timing
16:08:56 [ArtB]
… it might require a tweak to a test file
16:09:12 [ArtB]
… he have an internal change and now I need to push that change to w-p-t
16:09:23 [ArtB]
AB: ok, thanks for that clarification
16:09:31 [Zakim]
+Doug_Schepers
16:09:41 [ArtB]
Present+ Doug_Schepers
16:09:51 [ArtB]
OP: we noticed an issue
16:10:12 [ArtB]
AB: so are you going to submit a new PR?
16:10:21 [ArtB]
OP: we pass all of the tests but one
16:10:41 [ArtB]
… we will need to run all of the tests after a patch lands in Gecko
16:11:18 [smaug]
s/we pass/I think we pass/
16:11:59 [ArtB]
OP: we need to run the tests after we land all of the Gecko patches for Pointer Events
16:12:11 [ArtB]
… I just reviewed one Gecko patch earlier today
16:12:39 [ArtB]
AB: how many PE patches for Gecko have not been reviewed?
16:12:42 [ArtB]
OP: none
16:12:58 [smaug]
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1094913
16:13:09 [ArtB]
… but the patch needs to land and be compiled into an implementation we can test
16:13:17 [ArtB]
OP: expect that patch to land tomorrow
16:13:26 [ArtB]
AB: is Matt aware of this?
16:13:36 [ArtB]
OP: yes, Matt has been involved
16:14:08 [ArtB]
AB: do you know when we can expect Matt to run the tests with this patch?
16:14:13 [ArtB]
OP: no, I don't know
16:14:40 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow followup with Matt re the timeframe to run the tests on a build that includes a fix for but 1094913
16:14:41 [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].
16:15:21 [ArtB]
AV: what about 109…?
16:15:30 [ArtB]
… do you know when that will be closed?
16:15:46 [ArtB]
OP: sorry, not sure
16:16:09 [ArtB]
AV: the bug is 1094913?
16:16:11 [ArtB]
OP: yes
16:16:26 [ArtB]
AV: if that issue is closed, I think Gecko is done
16:16:51 [ArtB]
OP: I just completed a review of 1094913 about 20 minutes ago
16:17:22 [ArtB]
JR: I need to run the tests end-to-end without any operator errors
16:17:32 [ArtB]
… I have run them all, and they all pass
16:17:50 [ArtB]
AB: ok, I think that means we're in pretty good shape for IE
16:18:14 [ArtB]
RB: I was running the tests on w3test.org
16:18:27 [ArtB]
… is there a harness?
16:18:34 [ArtB]
JR: yes, runner/index.html
16:18:43 [ArtB]
… there is a tool to create test report
16:19:16 [ArtB]
RB: for Chrome, we only want to run touch-action tests
16:19:27 [ArtB]
AB: yes, I think you'll have to do that all by hand
16:19:32 [ArtB]
RB: oh, that's tedious
16:19:36 [ArtB]
AB: agree
16:20:00 [ArtB]
AB: do we want to include Chrome's touch-action data?
16:20:09 [ArtB]
RB: I can send the results to the list
16:20:34 [ArtB]
JR: yes, it would be good to get that data
16:21:26 [ArtB]
AB: until we look at the Chrome data, not sure it would be helpful or not
16:22:01 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on testing?
16:22:09 [ArtB]
Topic: Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of Pointer Events
16:22:25 [ArtB]
AB: there are no more open spec bugs.
16:22:33 [ArtB]
… we could publish the LCWD now
16:22:43 [ArtB]
… we could wait until the ImplReport is complete
16:23:00 [ArtB]
AB: what do people think?
16:23:09 [ArtB]
… any strong prefs one way or another?
16:23:22 [ArtB]
JR: don't think we need to block on the ImplReport
16:23:37 [ArtB]
… especially since the Gecko patch will give us 2 100% impls
16:23:47 [ArtB]
… so I recommend publishing LC now
16:23:58 [Cathy]
+1 on publishing LCWD now
16:24:05 [ArtB]
… We did previously talk about some type of "pre LC" period
16:24:11 [ArtB]
… not sure we need to do that
16:24:22 [ArtB]
CC: publish LCWD now
16:24:37 [ArtB]
AB: my inclination is to publish now
16:25:06 [ArtB]
… don't see a strong need for some type of pre LC comment period
16:25:16 [ArtB]
… and I prefer to publish LC now
16:25:34 [shepazu]
+1 to publish
16:25:35 [ArtB]
AV: I'm ok with publishing
16:25:41 [ArtB]
RB: fine with me
16:25:44 [ArtB]
OP: ok with me too
16:26:02 [ArtB]
AB: hearing no objections, I'll record a resolution
16:26:24 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: group agrees to publish LCWD of Pointer Events
16:26:35 [ArtB]
AB: Draft LC is https://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
16:27:50 [ArtB]
AB: 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.
16:28:56 [ArtB]
AB: https://github.com/w3c/test-results
16:29:22 [ArtB]
… https://github.com/w3c/test-results/tree/gh-pages/pointerevents
16:30:00 [ArtB]
… need to remove UC10.json file
16:30:00 [jrossi]
https://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.html
16:31:06 [ArtB]
AB: not sure about the workflow
16:31:12 [ArtB]
DS: I'm not sure either
16:31:37 [ArtB]
AB: we could use lables
16:31:43 [ArtB]
JR: yes, let's use labels
16:31:51 [Zakim]
- +1.571.426.aabb
16:31:55 [ArtB]
AB: ok, that's fine with me
16:32:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.571.426.aacc
16:32:30 [ArtB]
AB: I'll create the LC if you want Jacob
16:32:33 [ArtB]
JR: ok, please do
16:32:49 [ArtB]
AB: and I'll make the ImplReport: https://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.html
16:33:22 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow create draft LCWD and ping the list for review
16:33:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-145 - Create draft lcwd and ping the list for review [on Arthur Barstow - due 2014-11-18].
16:33:45 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on the LCWD?
16:34:02 [ArtB]
AV: so we include https://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.html as the ImplReport in the LCWD?
16:34:05 [ArtB]
AB: yes
16:34:18 [ArtB]
AV: and anyone can submit a PR?
16:34:42 [ArtB]
AB: yes and we will label the ImplReport versions of the JSON files
16:35:11 [ArtB]
ACTION: jacob label JSON files that are used for the Implementation Report
16:35:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-146 - Label json files that are used for the implementation report [on Jacob Rossi - due 2014-11-18].
16:35:31 [ArtB]
AB: anything else on LC?
16:35:37 [ArtB]
Topic: AoB
16:35:54 [ArtB]
RB: what about PE discussion at BlinkOn
16:36:01 [ArtB]
… that's a conf for Blink devs
16:36:05 [ArtB]
… it was last week
16:36:12 [ArtB]
… we talked about PEs and TEs
16:36:36 [ArtB]
… no specific takeaways for the group but wanted to share this info
16:36:52 [rbyers]
Slides: https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/presentation/d/1AgcAyn6HLDkWNDkvPEDAAPsqx4Jv6kzMjLowZJ1wbBc/edit
16:37:38 [ArtB]
JR: there is some work underway about Polymer polyfill for PointerEvents
16:37:51 [ArtB]
… could use W3C test suite to make sure polyfill is high quality
16:37:58 [shepazu]
q+
16:37:59 [ArtB]
… and interoperable with native impls of PE
16:38:05 [AutomatedTester]
AutomatedTester has joined #pointerevents
16:38:34 [ArtB]
DS: if going to have polyfill, one thing re host postential is webplatform.org
16:38:47 [ArtB]
s/postential/potential/
16:39:32 [ArtB]
AB: seems like we need to have a discussion re Touch Events evolution
16:39:58 [ArtB]
RB: agree the polyfill interoperability issue is high priority
16:40:22 [ArtB]
… tough to polyfill without touch-action
16:40:49 [Zakim]
- +1.571.426.aacc
16:40:51 [ArtB]
AB: anything else?
16:41:05 [ArtB]
AB: thanks everyone
16:41:14 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
16:41:16 [Zakim]
-Olli_Pettay
16:41:17 [ArtB]
… I'll get the LCWD published on Nov 13
16:41:17 [Zakim]
-Doug_Schepers
16:41:20 [rbyers]
In particular, if you read https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/ - polyfills are key to the strategy we should be following
16:41:20 [Zakim]
-Cathy
16:41:22 [ArtB]
… meeting adjourned
16:41:25 [Zakim]
-rbyers
16:41:26 [Zakim]
-Art_Barstow
16:41:28 [Zakim]
RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has ended
16:41:28 [Zakim]
Attendees were rbyers, Art_Barstow, +1.857.300.aaaa, +1.571.426.aabb, Cathy, [Microsoft], Olli_Pettay, Doug_Schepers, +1.571.426.aacc
16:41:35 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:41:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html ArtB
16:41:54 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
17:26:16 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
17:26:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pointerevents
17:26:20 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
17:26:20 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
17:26:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow followup with Matt re the timeframe to run the tests on a build that includes a fix for but 1094913 [1]
17:26:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-irc#T16-14-40
17:26:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow create draft LCWD and ping the list for review [2]
17:26:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-irc#T16-33-22
17:26:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jacob label JSON files that are used for the Implementation Report [3]
17:26:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-irc#T16-35-11
17:26:30 [ArtB]
ArtB has changed the topic to: Pointer Events Working Group