(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/pointerevents/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)