- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:06:32 +0100
- To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
Dear all, minutes from today's call are athttps://www.w3.org/2021/08/18-pointerevents-minutes.html and copied below: PEWG 18 August 2021 Agenda: Present: flackr, mustaq, smaug Chair: Patrick H. Lauke Scribe: Patrick H. Lauke * Expand note about preventing compatibility mouse events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/403 * Add note about rounding coordinates for click, auxclick, contextmenu https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/404 * Notes with normative (SHOULD/MUST) statements https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/405 # Expand note about preventing compatibility mouse events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/403 Patrick: see additional comment here after our call two weeks ago https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/403#issuecomment-892968317 Olli: i like that it's a note, because it's normative in the DOM spec, not in our spec Patrick: ah yes, PE isn't the one making it "normative". i can rationalise that Rob: agree Patrick: happy to merge then? Patrick: note that while i kept the DOM part non-normative, i made the preceding two paragraphs normative - see https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/403/files Not hearing any objections. Merging. # Add note about rounding coordinates for click, auxclick, contextmenu https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/404 Patrick: had this comment in agenda: "the fact that normatively PE don't say that coordinates should be double (currently only makes a non-normative reference to the CSSOM extension) is leading to a lot of ifs and buts. wonder if instead PE should/can just say that they must be double?" Patrick: issue is: do we want to redefine coords ourselves? can we? we were fine handwaving before in a non-normative note, but now we're paying the price. does Firefox use double? Olli: no Rob: from my testing, only Chrome uses double for PEs Patrick: is this something that PE wants to even tackle/explain? in essence it's a problem, but only because Chrome decided to apply CSSOM's double idea for coordinates, but spec doesn't mandate this [discussion on how WebIDL spec defines how conversions should happen?] ["rounding towards zero"] <smaug> https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-long <smaug> https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#abstract-opdef-integerpart Rob: ah it's flooring the absolute, which is why it leans towards zero <mustaq> Chrome uses std::floor, for which -2.7 becomes -3 Mustaq: sticking to WebIDL makes sense Patrick: are we concerned that this is a W3C Editor's Draft? Olli: I think it's moving soon / will be living standard Patrick: https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/404/files <flackr> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1166853 Patrick: concerned that we say "there are additional normative requirements" in the initial non-normative note. Then again, the section it points TO is normative. Mustaq: so for this PR, we can just change the "MUST round the various coordinate properties" to "MUST convert to long" Olli: that opens up too many web compat issues. should really say how, e.g. "round down" wonder if IDL spec, or ECMAScript, have something official that defines this conversion Rob: couldn't we call this out in the compatibility mapping for mouse events have a section in there to specify if you have different precision, use floor <flackr> https://jsbin.com/sagenev/edit?html,js,output we have same behaviour of rounding for mouse compat events <smaug> https://tc39.es/ecma262/#eqn-floor Patrick: so i'd suggest i have a stab at changing that sentence with the "round" to actually say browsers should floor, link to ECMAScript, then we can see what that looks like for next meeting (or comment earlier). Rob: and then after that we can discuss how we want to say the same thing for compat mouse events <mustaq> Sounds good to me. ACTION: Patrick to tweak PR #404 to change "round" to reference to floor/ECMAScript # Notes with normative (SHOULD/MUST) statements https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/405 Patrick: not to do lengthy discussion now, but if you could all please have a look and ponder. are there notes that should actually be normative? and in ones that should remain notes, should we change/soften the language to not use MUST/SHOULD? ACTION: group to review issue #405 and add comments/thoughts Patrick: thank you all, we'll adjurn for today. See you all in 2 weeks' time. -- 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, 18 August 2021 16:06:48 UTC