<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 yesterday http://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 in http://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 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
... 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 in http://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 include https://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerevents/all.html as 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 in http://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 read https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/ - polyfills are key to the strategy we should be following

… meeting adjourned

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/we pass/I think we pass/
Succeeded: s/postential/potential/
Found ScribeNick: ArtB
Found Scribe: ArtB
Inferring ScribeNick: ArtB
Default Present: rbyers, Art_Barstow, +1.857.300.aaaa, +1.571.426.aabb, Cathy, [Microsoft], Olli_Pettay, Doug_Schepers, +1.571.426.aacc
Present: Art_Barstow Rick_Byers Cathy_Chan Jacob_Rossi Asir_Vedamuthu Olli_Pettay Doug_Schepers
Regrets: Sangwhan_Moon Patrick_Lauke Scott_González Doug_Schepers
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2014OctDec/0056.html
Got date from IRC log name: 11 Nov 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-pointerevents-minutes.html
People with action items: barstow jacob

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.