15:55:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:55:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-pointerevents-irc
15:56:12 <patrick_h_lauke> anybody up for scribing by any chance?
15:56:50 <patrick_h_lauke> Meeting: PEWG
15:56:55 <patrick_h_lauke> Chair: patrick_h_lauke
15:57:26 <patrick_h_lauke> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2016OctDec/0083.html
15:59:20 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #pointerevents
15:59:47 <teddink> teddink has joined #pointerevents
16:00:37 <patrick_h_lauke> present+ patrick_h_lauke
16:00:55 <patrick_h_lauke> present+ shepazu
16:01:02 <teddink> present+ teddink
16:01:43 <mustaq> present+ Mustaq_Ahmed
16:01:59 <scott_gonzalez> present+ scott_gonzalez
16:01:59 <NavidZ> present+ Navid_Zolghadr
16:02:02 <patrick_h_lauke> present+ scott_gonzalez
16:02:34 <dtapuska> dtapuska has joined #pointerevents
16:02:40 <patrick_h_lauke> TOPIC: Define ordering of lostpointercapture and pointerout/leave for touch
16:02:42 <dtapuska> present+ dtapuska
16:02:56 <patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/142
16:04:09 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: this looks correct, but wanted to check
16:04:20 <patrick_h_lauke> Rick: yes, we just need to add a test
16:04:28 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: should be quick
16:04:41 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: that sounds fine, we're happy to have touch and mouse match in this case
16:04:49 <dtapuska> s/Rick/mustaq
16:05:14 <patrick_h_lauke> TOPIC: Need to clarify what triggers boundary events when releasing a  capture
16:05:19 <patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/145
16:05:23 <patrick_h_lauke> Associated PR: Clarify the hit test and capturing target for boundary  events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/154
16:06:50 <patrick_h_lauke> Mustaq: ...we wanted to make this more precise/clear so tweaked the wording. do you think this correctly covers the case now?
16:07:39 <NavidZ> s/Mustaq/Navid
16:07:47 <patrick_h_lauke> Patrick: just look over this in next couple of days
16:07:56 <patrick_h_lauke> happy to merge once we're all happy
16:08:25 <patrick_h_lauke> TOPIC: pointerup pressure should always be 0
16:08:34 <patrick_h_lauke> Patrick: as we had full consensus, I merged this
16:08:40 <NavidZ> TOPIC: How should touch-action behave for span
16:08:42 <patrick_h_lauke> TOPIC: How should touch-action behave for span?
16:08:45 <NavidZ> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/150
16:09:27 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: we wanted touch action to work for inline elements, but we changed that. but test still tests old behavior
16:09:46 <patrick_h_lauke> should i remove test altogether, or change it to not have an effect
16:09:57 <patrick_h_lauke> ?: yes changing it to have no effect would be best
16:10:34 <patrick_h_lauke> as it's not directly referring to anything normative in text, it shouldn't be v2-blocking?
16:11:00 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: i don't think it's going to take a lot of time, we want it for completeness
16:11:25 <patrick_h_lauke> dtapuska: there's also things like rows/columns/cells, we should have tests for those too
16:11:38 <mustaq> s/?/Mustaq
16:11:39 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: we have a few tests, but not for all those elements/cases
16:12:06 <patrick_h_lauke> ...we need to clarify/look at some of the CSS tests in web platform
16:12:21 <patrick_h_lauke> we should be closer to CSS tests, as that's what we're testing
16:12:28 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: do you know any tests that look relevant?
16:12:38 <patrick_h_lauke> dtapuska: i'll send some over
16:12:57 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: i'll dig in more and try to get tests that reflect inline element behavior
16:13:27 <patrick_h_lauke> TOPIC: Add explicit control over pinch-zoom to touch-action
16:13:38 <patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/29
16:13:42 <patrick_h_lauke> Associated PR: Add pinch-zoom token to touch-action  https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/99
16:13:42 <patrick_h_lauke> Needs feedback from Ted/MS Legal
16:14:13 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: unfortunately we still need to avoid pinch-zoom as a term
16:14:39 <patrick_h_lauke> as group, our charter explicitly says we won't be spec-ing gestures, so would be hard to claim pinch-zoom not a gesture
16:14:44 <patrick_h_lauke> so we'd need to check our charter
16:15:14 <patrick_h_lauke> dtapuska: it's a two-finger manipulation...
16:15:29 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: i couldn't get this past legal team atm, though i get it/agree with you
16:15:51 <patrick_h_lauke> part of it has to do with specific IP that makes it challenging
16:16:13 <patrick_h_lauke> Mustaq: do we have suggestion to move forward?
16:16:30 <patrick_h_lauke> dtapuska: what is next check-in date? has legal definitely said no or still investigating?
16:16:45 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: definitive no. there might be a change of mind in future, but nothing imminent
16:18:24 <patrick_h_lauke> Patrick: so is there an alternative name we can use, or really fundamentally the fact that it's a gesture?
16:19:04 <patrick_h_lauke> dtapuska: [discussion on gesture versus single/two finger manipulation]
16:19:21 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: it would be an uphill battle due to vague language used in IP
16:19:33 <patrick_h_lauke> happy to try, but not hopeful
16:19:58 <patrick_h_lauke> not sure it matters if we implement it as de-facto behavior, not spec'd
16:20:11 <patrick_h_lauke> as long as we're interoperable, but it's not defined
16:20:23 <shepazu> q+
16:20:26 <patrick_h_lauke> dtapuska: are we ok having it as web platform tests, even when it's not spec'd?
16:20:42 <patrick_h_lauke> i wrote some de-facto tests, but not put them in the web platform repo. should we let those in?
16:21:06 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: at this point in time, based on wording of charter, we have to pull the pull request
16:21:38 <patrick_h_lauke> for web platform test, my first inclination is no, as it insinuates everyone has to pass to get to REC
16:22:08 <patrick_h_lauke> we would pass because we all have it implemented, but...should we have a web platform test for a behavior that's not in spec. feels odd
16:22:17 <patrick_h_lauke> from a w3c process perspective
16:22:43 <patrick_h_lauke> shepazu: i should probably chime in. ted is correct from a process perspective
16:22:57 <patrick_h_lauke> we shouldn't be doing this, it's outside our charter, for legal reasons
16:23:13 <patrick_h_lauke> at same time, i feel we should try fighting that fight, but not in that group
16:23:36 <patrick_h_lauke> potentially a better place would be WICG, make a small spec that extends that spec
16:23:52 <patrick_h_lauke> as that's a plce the IP holder is involved. it's a long battle, but it's more appropriate there
16:24:00 <patrick_h_lauke> s/plce/place
16:24:21 <patrick_h_lauke> suggest we put it in some repo. web platforms test not meant to reflect w3c process, but rather interoperability aspect of testing
16:24:34 <patrick_h_lauke> w3c testing about demonstrating implementability of spec
16:24:44 <patrick_h_lauke> contrast that with getting interoperable implementations
16:25:16 <patrick_h_lauke> having a test, having it outside our repo but on webplatform, not associating it with this spec but say "this is to test an interoperability aspect"
16:25:45 <patrick_h_lauke> idea of having these de-facto standards and not specifying them anywhere due to legal reasons ... violates W3C perspective
16:26:06 <patrick_h_lauke> we really should get it cleared from IP perspective. we all know who/why that's a problem, but we really shouldn't punt on it
16:26:14 <patrick_h_lauke> but this group doesn't have the IP clearance to do it
16:27:08 <patrick_h_lauke> rather than slow/halt this group (with a PAG), we should take out the feature, put it somewhere else, and push there. but we SHOULD push the issue - here's this thing, here's a test. even if no IP commitment, it's documented with a test
16:27:20 <patrick_h_lauke> and separate incubator spec
16:27:32 <patrick_h_lauke> there's probably other such cases we want to spec out
16:27:46 <patrick_h_lauke> perhaps we could gather these under a gesture spec, in a community group, then incubate it
16:27:57 <patrick_h_lauke> and see if we can get some better IP situation going forward
16:28:07 <patrick_h_lauke> Mustaq: ok to have as separate doc in same repo or problem?
16:28:17 <patrick_h_lauke> shepazu: it would be a problem
16:28:49 <patrick_h_lauke> Mustaq: we did an extension (for the coalesced points API). ok to do same with this in our repo?
16:29:15 <patrick_h_lauke> shepazu: as long as we don't publish it as part of the TR, fine. we can keep working on this, but need to be clear we can't publish as part of PE
16:29:25 <patrick_h_lauke> it could be a NOTE, need to check
16:30:04 <patrick_h_lauke> second part: would group members be comfortable doing that? and microsoft would probably say no. i can't speak for MS, and Ted perhaps may not be able to either
16:30:22 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: we need to be cogniscent in group that work on anything that smells like a gesture wouldn't be publishable
16:30:42 <patrick_h_lauke> move it to incubator group, gives us clean separation, doesn't raise eyebrows...but IANAL
16:31:16 <patrick_h_lauke> shepazu: maybe i should look into this and come back with suggestion
16:31:39 <patrick_h_lauke> going to be leaving w3c at end of year, won't be the one who'll help you resolve this, but will check with colleague at w3c and get back to you
16:32:09 <patrick_h_lauke> Patrick: in meantime, should we close issue/PR?
16:32:22 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: i think we can leave it open to ensure it doesn't fall between cracks
16:32:36 <patrick_h_lauke> TOPIC: Stylus eraser: should it be a new pointerType instead of a button  state?
16:32:42 <patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/134
16:33:20 <patrick_h_lauke> Patrick: i lost track of where we are at
16:34:10 <patrick_h_lauke> Mustaq: [gives quick overview of current situation about hovering pointer and eraser]
16:34:57 <patrick_h_lauke> on Surface, hovering pen with button press doesn't fire event (?)
16:37:02 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid(?): the correct behavior will depend on the application and how it wants to handle things like hovering pointers/clicks/eraser
16:37:26 <patrick_h_lauke> Mustaq: but we want to make the API intuitive. current way doesn't seem intuitive
16:38:49 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: if i was drawing, and press the eraser button, you'd need to fire pointerout/pointerleave for the pen, then pointerover/pointerenter for eraser type pointer. and it may cause a click along the way
16:39:25 <patrick_h_lauke> [...]
16:39:56 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: the pens that you flip over, you'd naturally see the pen leave digitizer area, then you'd see the eraser appearing
16:40:37 <patrick_h_lauke> if we kept it as just type=pen, the second step you'd see the pen reappear but with the eraser button pressed?
16:41:28 <patrick_h_lauke> Mustaq: ... there are many small solutions, but we should get more feedback and possible approaches
16:42:45 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: not spent enough time with pen interface to work out the finer points, but plan to
16:43:11 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: worth seeing how drawing apps handle it
16:43:24 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: i can have chat with our OneNote team for some feedback
16:43:36 <mustaq> http://lazynezumi.com/
16:44:53 <mustaq> "Position Smoothing"
16:45:07 <mustaq> I think eraser mode has some use case similar to this.
16:45:21 <mustaq> Eraser mode being active always makes it impossible.
16:47:22 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: as we have all v2 blocking issues now addressed with relevant PRs, are we happy to move to next step?
16:47:27 <patrick_h_lauke> Ted: i don't see why not
16:47:40 <patrick_h_lauke> Navid: should we call the meeting
16:47:49 <patrick_h_lauke> Patrick: yes we seem to have addressed all issues
16:48:08 <patrick_h_lauke> thanks everybody. meeting next week unless you hear otherwise on mailing list
16:48:30 <patrick_h_lauke> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:48:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-pointerevents-minutes.html patrick_h_lauke
16:48:40 <patrick_h_lauke> rrsagent, make minutes world-visible
16:48:40 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-visible', patrick_h_lauke.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:49:00 <patrick_h_lauke> rrsagent, make logs world-visible
16:49:07 <patrick_h_lauke> rrsagent, bye
16:49:07 <RRSAgent> I see no action items