- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 17:06:38 +0000
- To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
Dear all, the minutes from today's meeting are at https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-pointerevents-minutes.html and copied below: PEWG 01 March 2023 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a81709f0-4b0c-48a7-afa9-36828ab63073/20230301T110000 Attendees flackr, mustaq, Patrick_H_Lauke Chair: Patrick H. Lauke Scribe: Patrick H. Lauke, Patrick_H_Lauke * Coordinates of a pointercancel event w3c/pointerevents#463 * Wacom Airbrush and tangentialPressure * should note be normative... * Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 w3c/pointerevents#445 * Heartbeat: Clarify what the target of the click event should be after capturing pointer events w3c/pointerevents#356 # Coordinates of a pointercancel event w3c/pointerevents#463 Review/discuss proposed PR w3c/pointerevents#464 Mustaq made a suggestion/comment here w3c/pointerevents#463 (comment) Mustaq: when i look at pointerup and pointercancel, i wonder if we want to change pointerup the same way as well Rob: we made conscious decision to go with 0 for pointerup, as it makes sense from an event stream perspective Rob: in my mind it makes sense that they're not identical (pointerup being empty, pointercancel carrying the last known good values) Mustaq: thinking about perspective of spec maintenance. we now list a bunch of properties... developers can get those values by just checking the last pointermove <mustaq> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/pointerevents/464/ed733e3...1aefdf1.html Mustaq: so is this not an edge case that makes the spec bulkier for no actual developer gain Mustaq: concerned that if the spec changes in future, we may go out of sync Rob: what are you suggesting? Mustaq: we're changing spec without any benefit (to developers) Mustaq: we can motivate developers to just listen to pointermove, and not pointercancel Patrick: I made it quite explicit, listing all properties, and explicitly saying coalescedEvents and predictedEvents will be empty, to avoid handwavy confusion later on. Patrick: I conceptually quite like this, as I can imagine as a developer maybe you're not been following EVERY pointermove, but when you get a pointercancel you want to make absolutely sure you "clean up house" on whatever you were doing just when the cancel happened [discussion about consistency: with the proposed change to pointercancel, we specify values for pointercancel. but for pointerup, we say pressure is zero in the pressure property definition as a note] Patrick: happy to move the note from 4.1 where it talks about pressure to a similar matching paragraph in the pointerup event description. does that make sense? [mustaq and rob agree] ACTION: merge the proposed PR, patrick to create matching/similar PR to move note about pressure into pointerup definition # Wacom Airbrush and tangentialPressure https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2023JanMar/0041.html <mustaq> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5765742146355200 Mustaq: we shipped tangentialPressure and twist together, but it may be incomplete Patrick: problem is likely that there's not many devices that have this Patrick: will ping Olli separately to see if he knows why it's not in Firefox implementation either ACTION: Mustaq/Patrick/Olli to investigate if implementation is incomplete in browsers <mustaq> w3c/pointerevents#403 (comment) # should note be normative... Mustaq: if i search spec for passive, I only see this one mention. did we want to make the note normative or did we consciously choose to make it non-normative? Patrick: so looking in section 11 https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/pointerevents/464/ed733e3...1aefdf1.html#compatibility-mapping-with-mouse-events the note: Compatibility mouse events can't be prevented when a pointer event EventListener is set to be passive [ DOM ]. Patrick: I'm happy to make this an actual normative prose, not a non-normative note. don't think there was any actual reason/rationale for us to make it a note... <mustaq> Sounds good, I will add a test soon accordingly. Patrick: noting that the entire section 11 is OPTIONAL, but that should not prevent us from making this normative text (normative as in "IF a UA does this, THEN this is normative") ACTION: remove the "note" bit, and make this part of the normative text # Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 w3c/pointerevents#445 Patrick: I see that work has been progressing nicely on this, so no concerns Mustaq: have been working on 3 at the moment, will carry on <mustaq> I am working on #403, #404 and #457 <Github> w3c/pointerevents#403 : Expand prose about preventing compatibility mouse events and make it normative <Github> w3c/pointerevents#404 : Add note about rounding coordinates for click, auxclick, contextmenu <Github> w3c/pointerevents#457 : pointerout even if the pointer doesn't move? Patrick: and I know Olli has been working on a few # Heartbeat: Clarify what the target of the click event should be after capturing pointer events w3c/pointerevents#356 Patrick: I know there's not been movement. Suggest that once we closed all other issues, we have a meeting to decide what to do with this in the meantime (deferring to next version and explicitly mentioning it in spec, for instance) Patrick: if there's no further issues, we'll adjurn for now. Thank you both -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2023 17:06:54 UTC