14:49:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
14:49:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-pointerevents-irc
14:49:48 <patrick_h_lauke> chair: patrick_h_lauke
14:50:32 <patrick_h_lauke> meeting: Pointer Events WG
14:51:02 <patrick_h_lauke> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2016JulSep/0076.html
14:54:58 <patrick_h_lauke> present+ patrick_h
14:55:01 <patrick_h_lauke> urgh
14:55:09 <patrick_h_lauke> present+ patrick_h_lauke
14:57:44 <patrick_h_lauke> scribe: patrick_h_lauke
15:00:12 <patrick_h_lauke> present: scott_gonzalez
15:00:46 <teddink> teddink has joined #pointerevents
15:01:00 <patrick_h_lauke> present: teddink
15:01:04 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #pointerevents
15:02:20 <NavidZ> present+ NavidZ
15:02:23 <mustaq> present+ Mustaq_Ahmed
15:02:29 <dtapuska> dtapuska has joined #pointerevents
15:02:51 <rbyers> present+ Rick_Byers
15:03:05 <dtapuska> present+ Dave_Tapuska
15:04:11 <patrick_h_lauke> Topic: Mouse Event compatibility model for touch is incompatible with current  practice
15:04:18 <patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/7
15:04:58 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: this looks fine to me. if you remember we had different models for mouse
15:05:25 <patrick_h_lauke> (ah i don't think it's actually RB)
15:06:05 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: the touch events spec tries to do something here. it's fine to define what happens on a tap without defining anything else
15:06:25 <patrick_h_lauke> only place we use tap today is inside of a note. what Jacob wanted to do was not to use "tap" in normative portion
15:06:43 <patrick_h_lauke> present+ shepazu
15:07:18 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: potentially we should put this (the definition?) in the touch events spec
15:07:32 <patrick_h_lauke> we could have a note here that if touch events are supported, see touch events spec
15:08:14 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: that seems a safe way for me to do it (also have legal looking over use of wording relating to "gesture", may have something in time for F2F)
15:09:13 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: it's not on critical path of what we want for F2F, but we'll address this after
15:09:36 <patrick_h_lauke> RESOLUTION: Rick to add a comment/note on the GH issue, then take it further to Touch Events CG
15:09:52 <patrick_h_lauke> topic: Pointermove should not require a hit-test by default for touch
15:09:58 <patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/8
15:10:28 <NavidZ> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/61
15:10:29 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid(?): this is not doing hit testing while tracking touch
15:11:09 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: this is related to this issue https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/61 - danger is compat, maybe leave it for the F2F
15:11:25 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: both issues are ship-blocking for us
15:11:32 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: the second one covers first one?
15:11:54 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: if you do implicit capture, then...
15:12:03 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: but we don't have any issue about implicit capture?
15:12:12 <patrick_h_lauke> but is issue 8 implicit capture?
15:12:22 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: yes that's the way i saw it, 8 being about implicit capture
15:12:34 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: leaving to F2F to decide next steps
15:12:41 <patrick_h_lauke> RESOLUTION: leaving for F2F
15:13:14 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: F2F is about discussing implementation issues, not a WG meeting
15:13:22 <patrick_h_lauke> topic: Add explicit control over pinch-zoom to touch-action
15:13:28 <patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/29
15:13:33 <patrick_h_lauke> (which has a related open PR https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/99)
15:14:30 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: i assume this is what Ted meant when he mentioned he was talking to legal
15:14:47 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: didn't take time to take look at it, but yes this will need review by legal
15:14:51 <patrick_h_lauke> for language
15:15:14 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: chrome supporting what edge ships seems agreed as being a good move
15:15:29 <patrick_h_lauke> we can probably get approval to ship, just pointing to MSDN as being a de-facto spec
15:15:34 <patrick_h_lauke> should not block our intent to ship
15:16:35 <patrick_h_lauke> we jumped on this because Scott pointed out that jquery had issues in this area
15:17:00 <patrick_h_lauke> SG: we add touch-action:none to our draggable etc, but doing that you can't use native behavior for gestures like dragging etc
15:17:27 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: disabling pinch-zoom is an accessibility bug - just to get a single-finger draggable, disabling zoom, is overkill
15:17:36 <patrick_h_lauke> SG: the Hammer team would like this as well
15:18:08 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: thinking was that if Edge does this, we should just add this behavior...but it feels like Edge has a bug here too
15:18:17 <rbyers> https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/issues/8094788/
15:18:18 <scott_gonzalez> Edge bug: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/issues/8094788/
15:18:24 <patrick_h_lauke> filed a bug on Edge. something for Ted to get somebody to look at the bug
15:18:31 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: that's my feature team, so sure can
15:18:46 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: maybe it's just misunderstanding what you guys intended with pinch-zoom
15:19:03 <patrick_h_lauke> this is more urgent than legal side. don't want chrome to ship something if i misunderstood the edge behavior
15:19:48 <patrick_h_lauke> RESOLUTION: blocked on edge issue, finding out if bug in edge or if Rick got the behavior wrong
15:20:07 <patrick_h_lauke> topic: What should be the 'detail' property of pointer events?
15:20:12 <patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/98
15:20:42 <NavidZ> https://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/#event-type-click
15:20:47 <NavidZ> https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#h-pointer-event-types
15:21:20 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: is everybody ok with just saying explicitly that we'll send value 0, so we don't change the definition of details and avoid talking about click
15:21:31 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: i wouldn't extend table to do it, but just add as prose in sect 5.2
15:21:41 <patrick_h_lauke> "all of the above events have details value 0"
15:21:55 <patrick_h_lauke> any objections?
15:21:58 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: go for it
15:22:00 <patrick_h_lauke> PL: good
15:22:10 <patrick_h_lauke> topic: Specify that "click" is a PointerEvent?
15:22:15 <patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/100
15:22:53 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: oli raised good questions. there's also question of logistics of HOW we spec it
15:23:13 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: depends if sites check type of click
15:23:22 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: if edge shipped it, then presumably no compat impact
15:23:32 <patrick_h_lauke> ted, when did this change happen?
15:23:43 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: will have to circle back with team and check our change list
15:24:08 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: real-world interop problem is not the type of the event, but checking pointerType on events
15:25:14 <patrick_h_lauke> we can't change details inside the event, which is why we can't say (ref previous issue) "all pointer events have details 0", but rather "all the above events have details 0"
15:25:52 <patrick_h_lauke> should chrome just match edge? we should probably not do it until spec clarifies
15:26:04 <patrick_h_lauke> maybe we can't patch HTML spec, but we can monkey-patch PE spec
15:26:15 <patrick_h_lauke> even if it's not up to AnneVK quality
15:26:44 <patrick_h_lauke> found an MSDN reference to this change, relating to IE11
15:26:50 <dtapuska> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-ca/library/ms536914(v=vs.85).aspx
15:27:57 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: looking at the docs, just confused by this MSDN document
15:28:13 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted what interface defines the pointerType property?
15:28:19 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: don't know offhand
15:29:26 <patrick_h_lauke> DT: you could inject into prototype chain...
15:30:08 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: seems Edge only does this for click, doubleclick and contextmenu
15:31:15 <patrick_h_lauke> outstanding issue to characterize Edge behavior and to answer: element has click method, if i call element's click() what is the pointerType
15:31:30 <patrick_h_lauke> what we do exactly doesn't matter, but we should match Edge behavior
15:31:43 <patrick_h_lauke> RESOLUTION: investigate edge behavior further
15:32:24 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: also questions like "if you trigger context menu with keyboard, is that a PE and what's the pointerType?"
15:33:24 <patrick_h_lauke> [...]
15:33:52 <patrick_h_lauke> argument of event handlers should be prepared that sometimes events could be pointer events. maybe just do it for trusted pointer events
15:34:44 <patrick_h_lauke> s/event handlers/event listeners
15:35:24 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: sounds like we're coming to some rough understanding, let me write it in the issue on GH
15:39:17 <patrick_h_lauke> DT: we should also consider making drag a pointer event
15:39:37 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: can we keep it as a separate issue though, and first match edge behavior here for click/dblclick/contextmenu
15:40:33 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted can you take this and check if that matches what Edge is doing?
15:42:46 <patrick_h_lauke> filed https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/106 for drag event question
15:42:57 <rbyers> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/100#issuecomment-232396438
15:44:32 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: we probably need to also check other properties, for instance what about isPrimary? should it be true in these cases?
15:44:53 <patrick_h_lauke> for UA generated ones, they'll have their correct values
15:45:20 <patrick_h_lauke> for click() and keyboard-initiated we'll use defaults
15:45:30 <patrick_h_lauke> (updated the comment)
15:46:11 <patrick_h_lauke> PL: sounds ok to me
15:46:16 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: sounds reasonable
15:46:24 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: i'll assing this to you, confirm with edge team
15:46:35 <NavidZ> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/76
15:46:36 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: nothing more on agenda, but wanted to talk about this
15:46:46 <patrick_h_lauke> topic: A possible immedate pointer capture processing
15:48:05 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: do we care about all the properties like tilt etc for the got/lostpointercapture? apart from id, do we want default just for those
15:48:17 <patrick_h_lauke> thanks shepazu sounds good
15:48:41 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: that's really good question...i'd say "check what Edge does"
15:49:02 <patrick_h_lauke> Mustaq: got got/lost, we probably jsut care about id
15:49:11 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: the spec should say something explicitly though
15:49:39 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: as long as it's web-compatible...i can't imagine a good use case for devs to know things like coordinates of got/lost pointer capture
15:49:52 <patrick_h_lauke> Mustaq: but this also affects boundary events
15:51:51 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: need to check if Edge has all properties like coords for got/lost
15:52:06 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: maybe we need to spec that got/lost DON'T have these props
15:52:17 <patrick_h_lauke> NZ: would that be the compat risk though?
15:52:31 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: we should stick to what Edge does
15:53:24 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: added some data in https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/61 - there are 7 sites that use PE and are potentially listening to lostpointercapture
15:53:49 <patrick_h_lauke> wouldn't be that hard to take look and figure out compat risk / if they're relying on those props
15:53:58 <patrick_h_lauke> (many of those sites end with google.com)
15:54:21 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: things like this that give us more data for useful F2F are most urgent in my view
15:54:50 <patrick_h_lauke> google code seems to be enumerating any known event type, but not sure where used...can't see it being used anywhere
15:55:10 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: this is just static analysis, all it means it just showed up somewhere in code, may not be actually used
15:55:31 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: from quick look at source, play.google.com doesn't seem to do anything
15:56:02 <patrick_h_lauke> TD: for F2F, we're two weeks out, so if you haven't answered to the Doodle, do so
15:56:21 <patrick_h_lauke> for dietary restrictions/preferences let me know, to make sure i can accommodate
15:57:05 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: yandex seems to just fire this using id, but no extra props
15:57:26 <patrick_h_lauke> if Edge doesn't send actual props, we should just say it sends default
15:57:28 <teddink> Doodle link - http://doodle.com/poll/9grpa8cew2r7mqwi
15:58:01 <patrick_h_lauke> should really go this way, as i don't think the path of caching last known good values makes sense
15:58:09 <patrick_h_lauke> unless that is what edge currently does
15:59:38 <patrick_h_lauke> PL: we can skip next week's call
16:00:14 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: should we do a call during F2F?
16:00:24 <patrick_h_lauke> PL: can probably do it informally as well
16:01:21 <patrick_h_lauke> RB: so we WON'T have a call, but we'll send a note to list
16:03:08 <patrick_h_lauke> rrsagent, create minutes
16:03:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-pointerevents-minutes.html patrick_h_lauke
16:03:15 <patrick_h_lauke> rrsagent, set logs world-visible
16:03:20 <patrick_h_lauke> rrsagent, bye
16:03:20 <RRSAgent> I see no action items