- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 17:14:35 +0100
- To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
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