Minutes from PEWG meeting 7 May 2025

Dear all,

the minutes from today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2025/05/07-pointerevents-minutes.html and copied below:


PEWG
07 May 2025

Agenda: 
https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/66591f6b-6694-4f90-b23d-bf8f1b9dda8a/20250507T110000/
IRC log: https://www.w3.org/2025/05/07-pointerevents-irc

Attendees
Present
flackr, mustaq, Patrick_H_Lauke, smaug

Chair: Patrick H. Lauke
Scribe: Patrick_H_Lauke


* PE3 candidate recommendation https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents3/

* PointerEvents as living standard w3c/pointerevents#471 (comment)

* Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 
w3c/pointerevents#445 / 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues?q=label%3Aneeds-wpt+

* w3c/pointerevents#542

* TPAC 2025




# PE3 candidate recommendation https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents3/

Patrick: for those who haven't seen already, PE3 is now in CR. spoke to 
Philippe and asked about WPTs and whether we need everything passing in 
2 implementations, or if it's on a per test basis.

Patrick: Need 2 implementations per test

Patrick: to then exit CR we need 2 implementations for each test. 
implementation report just pointing to WPT results

PLH: spec is now back on automatic publishing as well

Olli: luckily PE is part of interop 2025, so some of the 
tests/implementations will get fixed now



# PointerEvents as living standard w3c/pointerevents#471 (comment)

[discussion on the challenges of living standard, and the editing 
overhead / how it makes specs unreadable, and other options]

Patrick: so any preference? I'm happy with NOT having too much editing 
overhead, happy to keep the regular model we've been doing

Rob: one thing I would suggest is clearly marking things that are at risk

PLH: that is also supported in bikeshed (?). but suggest we work on the 
tip, and then once we have 2 implementations for a set of new features, 
we cut that to a Level 4

Rob: one issue we also have is making changes to existing/previous issues

PLH: which is why, as you may have seen, we deprecated older versions

Mustaq: is there a way to version WPTs? to make clear when a test is for 
2, or 3, ...

PLH: my recommendation is to always have WPT refer to the latest tip. 
not split by levels

PLH: if we need to, we can make a separate list of which WPTs are a 
sublist for a particular version

Olli: just checked MDN, it points to editors' draft

PLH: and editor draft is always the tip

PLH: and TR/pointerevents goes to the tip

PLH: versioned URLs become historical artifacts more than anything else

Patrick: is there a cutoff point now that we're in CR when we need all 
WPTs green?

PLH: in next 20 years ... but seriously, not maximum

Patrick: suggest we push to get these supported soon though, so we don't 
drag this on forever in CR

PLH: we may also need to see which WPTs we care for. example of 
touch-action with more than one value, seems Gecko doesn't support it, 
only blink

Olli: think there's also issues in WPT runners themselves

PLH: and that's ok. if we can come up with an explanation of why a test 
is red, that's ok

PLH: but yes, decide which WPTs do we care about, and then check if they 
fail because WPT is limited, or if there's a real lack of 
implementation, and if the latter, do we push for it

PLH: also, do we have full test coverage?

Olli: think so. Masayuki has found a lot of edge cases and filed new 
tests/implemented things in Gecko

Rob: WPT tests also have issues with coalesced etc. tests

PLH: so we may need to do manual test...

PLH: we need to compile a list of how tests *can* be run, do they need 
manual tests, are there some things that realistically *can't* even test

PLH: example of what may not be testable is how a pointerId gets assigned

Rob: there are also things that you need particular hardware for

Rob: such as detailed properties for pens

PLH: maybe then taking the list of changes, then check that each change 
(PE2 > PE3) has test, and note if there are gaps for testing (test needs 
to run manually, can't be tested, etc)

PLH: if we conclude that for some features we won't have sufficient 
implementation, we can then still remove them from level 3 and defer 
them to level 4

PLH: want me to make a first pass at this?

Patrick: if you have time/inclination, i'd very much appreciate it, 
thank you

PLH: might do separate markdown file and link from issue

ACTION: PLH to make first run at compiling list of new features, related 
WPTs, and any gaps in tests/implementations



# Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 
w3c/pointerevents#445 / 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues?q=label%3Aneeds-wpt+

Patrick: unless I forgot to take labels off, it looks like we have 3 
that still need wpt. how are they doing?

Adam: I worked on w3c/pointerevents#513 which now seems to have been merged

Patrick: thank you, removing needs-wpt label

Patrick: so we have w3c/pointerevents#534 left...

Mustaq: i meant to do a test, will look at it

ACTION: Mustaq to look at test for #534

Patrick: and the last one w3c/pointerevents#509

Olli: Masayuki was away last few days, will ask him if he can write a test

ACTION: Olli to ask Masayuki about test for #509


# w3c/pointerevents#542

Mustaq: idea we had - if you can tie it to click event, identify if it's 
a stable click or a "drifting" click. from a web platform perspective

Patrick: that reminds me from old touch events tests i used to do, 
distinction between a "dirty" tap and a "clean"tap, and only the latter 
would also fire click

Mustaq: if you know of any other spec/issue that could be helped by this 
idea of drifting/dirty click, add to the issue

Mustaq: doing "slop detection" from basic principles, or if this could 
be helped via UA

Olli: need to be careful that we don't implement some magical property 
that then works differently based on different heuristics



# TPAC 2025

Patrick: still early days, but start planning/thinking if you'll be in 
person at TPAC (november in Kobe, Japan). we have until 20 June to book 
slot for group session/joint sessions. For latter, was thinking perhaps 
trying to sit down with either i18n or csswg for the logical 
touch-action values. Anyway, not putting people on spot right now, but 
start considering

Olli: I will likely be there

Patrick: if there's no other topics, we'll keep it short-ish. Thank you 
all, we meet again in 2 weeks' time



Summary of action items

* PLH to make first run at compiling list of new features, related WPTs, 
and any gaps in tests/implementations
* Mustaq to look at test for #534
* Olli to ask Masayuki about test for #509


-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

* https://www.splintered.co.uk/
* https://github.com/patrickhlauke
* https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
* https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2025 16:14:43 UTC