Minutes from Pointer Events WG call 2 March 2022

Dear all,

the minutes from today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2022/03/02-pointerevents-minutes.html and copied below

PEWG
02 March 2022

Agenda 
https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0d3af70c-0054-43dc-9c15-c60c5b9c3f3c/20220302T110000

Attendees
Present
flackr, Mustaq, Patrick_H_Lauke, smaug

Chair: Patrick H. Lauke
Scribe: Patrick H. Lauke, Patrick_H_Lauke


* Expand bullet about when pointercancel fires 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/434
* Clarify which steps constitute canceling a pointer 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/400
* Relationship between main pointer event and coalesced events #409

# Expand bullet about when pointercancel fires 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/434

Patrick: it's fairly minimal, but see if that covers what we need for now

Olli: I think that's fine

Robert: your example is very specific, but it's fine

Mustaq: as it's "for example", is that now non-normative?

Rob: normative point is still "when user agent determines there won't be 
more pointer events, send pointercancel", then we give examples

RESOLUTION: PR is ok to merge



# Clarify which steps constitute canceling a pointer 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/400

Patrick: this is related to what we just discussed I think

Mustaq: I think Dominic asked originally 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/384#issuecomment-890219263

Rob: sounds reasonable, i guess we need to put a PR together for this

Patrick: do we have something similar already, in terms of structure, in 
our spec?

<flackr> 
https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/#process-pending-pointer-capture

Rob: there's process pending pointer capture

Rob: similar to what's asked here, describe steps for cancelation event, 
which we can then refer to from HTML spec

<smaug> 
https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#process-pending-pointer-capture is 
the link to the latest version

Mustaq: making it more algorithmic

Patrick: should it be a sibling section to 5.1.3.2 ?

Mustaq: it might look weird because pointercancel is defined later

Rob: i think it's consistent though with the pointer capture

Mustaq: section further down can then refer to this

Patrick: volunteers to make an initial stab?

Mustaq: I can take a look

ACTION: Mustaq to draft PR for next meeting to add new section 5.1.3.2 
Canceling pointer events (TBC)

Patrick: that would take care of issue 400. what's left... 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Av3

Olli: just reading https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/409

Olli: since we have clarified coalesced list prose quite a bit since 
then, wondering what's left

Olli: does spec say that for trusted event the list is NOT empty

https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#dfn-coalesced-events-list

Rob: so we need to add mention that the coalesced event list includes 
also the event itself that this was associated with

Olli: a clone of the event

Rob: the spec seems to already imply this, so maybe we just need an 
informative note rather than normative text

Olli: it doesn't need it for predicted events list

Mustaq: there's three bullets ("Monotonically..." etc). maybe we just 
add a bullet there

Patrick: the subject of that list is "the events", so wouldn't quite 
work. Maybe just extend the sentence that ends "the list is a sequence 
of all PointerEvents that were coalesced into this event"

Rob: this feels like we want both extending this, AND a note

Mustaq: yes, let's not overload this sentence

Olli: I guess I can try creating a PR for this

Patrick: that'd be cool, thank you




# Relationship between main pointer event and coalesced events #409

ACTION: Olli to make draft PR to address issue 409 - extend 
sentence/section to cover coalesced events including the last raw event

Mustaq: i see we have respec errors in the spec

Patrick: yes relating to "you have definitions, but nothing links to 
them". in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/ github version

Patrick: i'll do a trawl through and see what needs correcting

Patrick: looking further, we have 2 more issues left relating to pointer 
capture. #356 and #357. last comment on #357 is that we'll park it until 
#356 is resolved. I see #356 is that dreaded "mouse on green/mouse on 
blue" one. I'd suggest for next time, we tackle the two PRs that we 
decided to do today, and then look at #356

Patrick: once #356 is then done, we can look further at #357. and then 
that clears our queue of v3 marked issues

Patrick: thank you all, stay safe


-- 
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, 2 March 2022 16:36:14 UTC