Re: PEWG call today (14 March 2018) - call details and some links/topics

I also replied to Olli in pointer events IRC channel about how I ran them.
I felt the same pain to get the runner to generate that json with the
results.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> wrote:

> Strange.  I (and I believe Navid) ran them manually several times in the
> past myself, but that was a long time ago.  We've been relying on our
> automation for awhile now, so it's entirely possible something broke in the
> manual testing that we didn't notice (manual testing sucks!).
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi> wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2018 06:01 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> thank you very much for the productive call. As I managed to summon
>>> rrsagent, but then blatantly forgot to tell it to start logging, here's the
>>> raw text dump from IRC (inline, and attached as txt file).
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW, so far I haven't figured out how to run the manual pointer event
>> tests reliably.
>> The runner times out those tests very fast, the issue happens in various
>> browsers.
>> (I was told that manual tests should disable timeouts altogether, but
>> that clearly isn't happening)
>>
>>
>> -Olli
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> (2:59:52 PM) patrick_h_lauke: present+ patrick_h_lauke
>>> (3:00:01 PM) patrick_h_lauke: present+ NavidZ_
>>> (3:00:41 PM) patrick_h_lauke: Scribe: patrick_h_lauke
>>> (3:00:52 PM) patrick_h_lauke: Meeting: Pointer Events Working Group
>>> (3:00:59 PM) patrick_h_lauke: Chair: patrick_h_lauke
>>> (3:03:15 PM) scottlow [~scottlow@public.cloak] entered the room.
>>> (3:03:28 PM) patrick_h_lauke: present+ scottlow
>>> (3:15:26 PM) patrick_h_lauke: patrick: discussed proposed timeline to go
>>> to REC
>>> (3:15:26 PM) patrick_h_lauke: mention of issues in github still open
>>> (3:15:26 PM) patrick_h_lauke: navid: some of those can be marked as
>>> future/v3
>>> (3:15:26 PM) patrick_h_lauke: patrick: we may be able to also mark
>>> things as at risk
>>> (3:15:26 PM) patrick_h_lauke: navid: there are some features where we
>>> don't know anything aobut planned Edge support
>>> (3:15:26 PM) patrick_h_lauke: scott: as mentioned on email thread, there
>>> may be a transition to somebody else to look specifically at input
>>> (3:15:51 PM) patrick_h_lauke: issues marked as "question":
>>> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%
>>> 3Aopen+label%3Aquestion
>>> (3:15:51 PM) patrick_h_lauke: <https://github.com/w3c/pointe
>>> revents/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aquestion>
>>> (3:30:32 PM) patrick_h_lauke: going through some issues:
>>> (3:30:32 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #227 future-v3
>>> (3:30:32 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #226 chrome currently fires pointercancel
>>> whenever browser takes over. touch-action cannot specify how pointercancel
>>> should be sent or not. navid to draft something, patrick to make editorial
>>> pass
>>> (3:30:32 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #225 pointerup should have width/height of
>>> 1 as default (for philosophical reasons)
>>> (3:35:25 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #223 future-v3
>>> (3:35:25 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #222 leave as is, scott will file bug
>>> against Edge
>>> (3:44:46 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #221 assigned to patrick for
>>> editorial/wording change, olli to double-check after it's drafted
>>> (3:44:46 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #220 refer to "document" as per
>>> PointerLock spec
>>> (3:44:46 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #219 olli: should we require an *active*
>>> document? it seems to make sense
>>> (3:44:46 PM) patrick_h_lauke: navid: do we have a test?
>>> (3:44:46 PM) patrick_h_lauke: olli: question is what should happen if
>>> owner document is not the active document of the browsing context
>>> (3:44:46 PM) patrick_h_lauke: navid: what is "active" explicitly? if i
>>> have an iframe for instance, is that not active?
>>> (3:44:46 PM) patrick_h_lauke: olli: refer to PointerLock spec
>>> (3:44:46 PM) patrick_h_lauke: scott: "the target has to be the
>>> active..." which covers the iframe case (referring to WHATWG spec)
>>> (3:45:16 PM) patrick_h_lauke: scott: pointerlock spec handles that
>>> distinction well. 5.1
>>> (3:46:26 PM) patrick_h_lauke: olli: so we need something like that in
>>> the spec
>>> (3:46:46 PM) patrick_h_lauke: navid: olli can you make sure we have a
>>> test for that and i assign to you?
>>> (3:47:31 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #215 future-v3
>>> (3:47:48 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #214 future-v3
>>> (3:50:48 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #213 browsers have many ways to prevent
>>> pointer event stream. yes, it's a tough problem, but future-v3
>>> (3:52:29 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #212 scott, navid, olli, patrick agreed
>>> this is down to UA. closed
>>> (3:53:23 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #211 future-v3
>>> (3:53:43 PM) patrick_h_lauke: #197 future-v3
>>> (3:56:52 PM) patrick_h_lauke: navid: we're coming to the end of the
>>> meeting. sorted out half of the "question" issues
>>> (3:57:15 PM) patrick_h_lauke: should we have meeting next week,
>>> hopefully we can get test results done for then too?
>>> (3:57:41 PM) patrick_h_lauke: (group agrees to meet next week, patrick
>>> will see if webex can be set up properly for then, otherwise hangouts or
>>> alternative)
>>>
>>>
>>> Speak to you all again next week,
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> On 14/03/2018 14:13, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> a reminder that, as discussed, we'll have a voice call today (in just
>>>> under 1h to be exact).
>>>>
>>>> Topic: Pointer Events
>>>> Date: Every Wednesday, from Wednesday, March 14, 2018
>>>> Time: 11:00 am, Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00)
>>>>
>>>> IRC:
>>>> Channel: #pointerevents  (in irc://irc.w3.org:6665)
>>>> Web: http://irc.w3.org/?channels=pointerevents
>>>>
>>>> As I was not able to get a WebEx set up in time, I'd propose we use
>>>> Hangouts. As I don't have an account that allows me to set up a meeting in
>>>> advance, could I ask the colleagues at Google to set this up/send out the
>>>> link to it (both in email and IRC)?
>>>>
>>>> Topic for discussion:
>>>>
>>>> * discussion on the WG extension and timeline for getting the spec
>>>> finalised
>>>> * look over GitHub open issues - I did an initial run through all open
>>>> issues and marked the ones I felt most clearly out-of-scope/for future, but
>>>> there are still quite a few where I wasn't sure about. It would be good to
>>>> get folks to have a look over them all to decide if they're still relevant
>>>> or not. None of them should be v2 blockers, hopefully.
>>>>    - issues marked as "question": https://github.com/w3c/pointer
>>>> events/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aquestion
>>>>    - issues marked as "bug": https://github.com/w3c/pointer
>>>> events/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Abug
>>>>    - issues marked as "enhancement": https://github.com/w3c/pointer
>>>> events/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aenhancement
>>>>    - issues marked as "test" related: https://github.com/w3c/pointer
>>>> events/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Atest
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>