- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:02:38 +0000
- To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
Minutes from today's call are available here https://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-pointerevents-minutes.html and copied below. Please send any corrections within the next 6 days. In the absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved. W3C - DRAFT - PEWG 09 Nov 2016 Agenda See also: IRC log Attendees Present patrick_h_lauke, shepazu, teddink, Mustaq_Ahmed, scott_gonzalez, Navid_Zolghadr, dtapuska Regrets Chair patrick_h_lauke Scribe patrick_h_lauke Contents Topics Define ordering of lostpointercapture and pointerout/leave for touch Need to clarify what triggers boundary events when releasing a capture pointerup pressure should always be 0 How should touch-action behave for span How should touch-action behave for span? Add explicit control over pinch-zoom to touch-action Stylus eraser: should it be a new pointerType instead of a button state? Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions anybody up for scribing by any chance? Define ordering of lostpointercapture and pointerout/leave for touch https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/142 Navid: this looks correct, but wanted to check mustaq: yes, we just need to add a test Navid: should be quick Ted: that sounds fine, we're happy to have touch and mouse match in this case Need to clarify what triggers boundary events when releasing a capture https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/145 Associated PR: Clarify the hit test and capturing target for boundary events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/154 Navid: ...we wanted to make this more precise/clear so tweaked the wording. do you think this correctly covers the case now? Patrick: just look over this in next couple of days happy to merge once we're all happy pointerup pressure should always be 0 Patrick: as we had full consensus, I merged this How should touch-action behave for span How should touch-action behave for span? <NavidZ> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/150 Navid: we wanted touch action to work for inline elements, but we changed that. but test still tests old behavior should i remove test altogether, or change it to not have an effect ?: yes changing it to have no effect would be best as it's not directly referring to anything normative in text, it shouldn't be v2-blockingMustaq Navid: i don't think it's going to take a lot of time, we want it for completeness dtapuska: there's also things like rows/columns/cells, we should have tests for those too Navid: we have a few tests, but not for all those elements/cases ... we need to clarify/look at some of the CSS tests in web platform we should be closer to CSS tests, as that's what we're testing Navid: do you know any tests that look relevant? dtapuska: i'll send some over Navid: i'll dig in more and try to get tests that reflect inline element behavior Add explicit control over pinch-zoom to touch-action https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/29 Associated PR: Add pinch-zoom token to touch-action https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/99 Needs feedback from Ted/MS Legal Ted: unfortunately we still need to avoid pinch-zoom as a term as group, our charter explicitly says we won't be spec-ing gestures, so would be hard to claim pinch-zoom not a gesture so we'd need to check our charter dtapuska: it's a two-finger manipulation... Ted: i couldn't get this past legal team atm, though i get it/agree with you part of it has to do with specific IP that makes it challenging Mustaq: do we have suggestion to move forward? dtapuska: what is next check-in date? has legal definitely said no or still investigating? Ted: definitive no. there might be a change of mind in future, but nothing imminent Patrick: so is there an alternative name we can use, or really fundamentally the fact that it's a gesture? dtapuska: [discussion on gesture versus single/two finger manipulation] Ted: it would be an uphill battle due to vague language used in IP happy to try, but not hopeful not sure it matters if we implement it as de-facto behavior, not spec'd as long as we're interoperable, but it's not defined dtapuska: are we ok having it as web platform tests, even when it's not spec'd? i wrote some de-facto tests, but not put them in the web platform repo. should we let those in? Ted: at this point in time, based on wording of charter, we have to pull the pull request for web platform test, my first inclination is no, as it insinuates everyone has to pass to get to REC we would pass because we all have it implemented, but...should we have a web platform test for a behavior that's not in spec. feels odd from a w3c process perspective shepazu: i should probably chime in. ted is correct from a process perspective we shouldn't be doing this, it's outside our charter, for legal reasons at same time, i feel we should try fighting that fight, but not in that group potentially a better place would be WICG, make a small spec that extends that spec as that's a place the IP holder is involved. it's a long battle, but it's more appropriate there suggest we put it in some repo. web platforms test not meant to reflect w3c process, but rather interoperability aspect of testing w3c testing about demonstrating implementability of spec contrast that with getting interoperable implementations having a test, having it outside our repo but on webplatform, not associating it with this spec but say "this is to test an interoperability aspect" idea of having these de-facto standards and not specifying them anywhere due to legal reasons ... violates W3C perspective we really should get it cleared from IP perspective. we all know who/why that's a problem, but we really shouldn't punt on it but this group doesn't have the IP clearance to do it rather than slow/halt this group (with a PAG), we should take out the feature, put it somewhere else, and push there. but we SHOULD push the issue - here's this thing, here's a test. even if no IP commitment, it's documented with a test and separate incubator spec there's probably other such cases we want to spec out perhaps we could gather these under a gesture spec, in a community group, then incubate it and see if we can get some better IP situation going forward Mustaq: ok to have as separate doc in same repo or problem? shepazu: it would be a problem Mustaq: we did an extension (for the coalesced points API). ok to do same with this in our repo? shepazu: as long as we don't publish it as part of the TR, fine. we can keep working on this, but need to be clear we can't publish as part of PE it could be a NOTE, need to check second part: would group members be comfortable doing that? and microsoft would probably say no. i can't speak for MS, and Ted perhaps may not be able to either Ted: we need to be cogniscent in group that work on anything that smells like a gesture wouldn't be publishable move it to incubator group, gives us clean separation, doesn't raise eyebrows...but IANAL shepazu: maybe i should look into this and come back with suggestion going to be leaving w3c at end of year, won't be the one who'll help you resolve this, but will check with colleague at w3c and get back to you Patrick: in meantime, should we close issue/PR? Ted: i think we can leave it open to ensure it doesn't fall between cracks Stylus eraser: should it be a new pointerType instead of a button state? https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/134 Patrick: i lost track of where we are at Mustaq: [gives quick overview of current situation about hovering pointer and eraser] on Surface, hovering pen with button press doesn't fire event (?) Navid(?): the correct behavior will depend on the application and how it wants to handle things like hovering pointers/clicks/eraser Mustaq: but we want to make the API intuitive. current way doesn't seem intuitive Navid: if i was drawing, and press the eraser button, you'd need to fire pointerout/pointerleave for the pen, then pointerover/pointerenter for eraser type pointer. and it may cause a click along the way [...] Navid: the pens that you flip over, you'd naturally see the pen leave digitizer area, then you'd see the eraser appearing if we kept it as just type=pen, the second step you'd see the pen reappear but with the eraser button pressed? Mustaq: ... there are many small solutions, but we should get more feedback and possible approaches Ted: not spent enough time with pen interface to work out the finer points, but plan to Navid: worth seeing how drawing apps handle it Ted: i can have chat with our OneNote team for some feedback <mustaq> http://lazynezumi.com/ <mustaq> "Position Smoothing" <mustaq> I think eraser mode has some use case similar to this. <mustaq> Eraser mode being active always makes it impossible. Navid: as we have all v2 blocking issues now addressed with relevant PRs, are we happy to move to next step? Ted: i don't see why not Navid: should we call the meeting Patrick: yes we seem to have addressed all issues thanks everybody. meeting next week unless you hear otherwise on mailing list Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions [End of minutes] Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log) $Date: 2016/11/09 16:48:36 $ Scribe.perl diagnostic output -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2016 17:03:06 UTC