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

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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>