PEWG -- 09 Nov 2016

anybody up for scribing by any chance?

Define ordering of lostpointercapture and pointerout/leave for touch

https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/142

Navid: this looks correct, but wanted to check

mustaq: yes, we just need to add a test

Navid: should be quick

Ted: that sounds fine, we're happy to have touch and mouse match in this case

Need to clarify what triggers boundary events when releasing a capture

https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/145

Associated PR: Clarify the hit test and capturing target for boundary events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/154

Navid: ...we wanted to make this more precise/clear so tweaked the wording. do you think this correctly covers the case now?

Patrick: just look over this in next couple of days

happy to merge once we're all happy

pointerup pressure should always be 0

Patrick: as we had full consensus, I merged this

How should touch-action behave for span

How should touch-action behave for span?

<NavidZ> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/150

Navid: we wanted touch action to work for inline elements, but we changed that. but test still tests old behavior

should i remove test altogether, or change it to not have an effect

?: yes changing it to have no effect would be best

as it's not directly referring to anything normative in text, it shouldn't be v2-blockingMustaq

Navid: i don't think it's going to take a lot of time, we want it for completeness

dtapuska: there's also things like rows/columns/cells, we should have tests for those too

Navid: we have a few tests, but not for all those elements/cases
... we need to clarify/look at some of the CSS tests in web platform

we should be closer to CSS tests, as that's what we're testing

Navid: do you know any tests that look relevant?

dtapuska: i'll send some over

Navid: i'll dig in more and try to get tests that reflect inline element behavior

Add explicit control over pinch-zoom to touch-action

https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/29

Associated PR: Add pinch-zoom token to touch-action https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/99

Needs feedback from Ted/MS Legal

Ted: unfortunately we still need to avoid pinch-zoom as a term

as group, our charter explicitly says we won't be spec-ing gestures, so would be hard to claim pinch-zoom not a gesture

so we'd need to check our charter

dtapuska: it's a two-finger manipulation...

Ted: i couldn't get this past legal team atm, though i get it/agree with you

part of it has to do with specific IP that makes it challenging

Mustaq: do we have suggestion to move forward?

dtapuska: what is next check-in date? has legal definitely said no or still investigating?

Ted: definitive no. there might be a change of mind in future, but nothing imminent

Patrick: so is there an alternative name we can use, or really fundamentally the fact that it's a gesture?

dtapuska: [discussion on gesture versus single/two finger manipulation]

Ted: it would be an uphill battle due to vague language used in IP

happy to try, but not hopeful

not sure it matters if we implement it as de-facto behavior, not spec'd

as long as we're interoperable, but it's not defined

dtapuska: are we ok having it as web platform tests, even when it's not spec'd?

i wrote some de-facto tests, but not put them in the web platform repo. should we let those in?

Ted: at this point in time, based on wording of charter, we have to pull the pull request

for web platform test, my first inclination is no, as it insinuates everyone has to pass to get to REC

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

from a w3c process perspective

shepazu: i should probably chime in. ted is correct from a process perspective

we shouldn't be doing this, it's outside our charter, for legal reasons

at same time, i feel we should try fighting that fight, but not in that group

potentially a better place would be WICG, make a small spec that extends that spec

as that's a place the IP holder is involved. it's a long battle, but it's more appropriate there

suggest we put it in some repo. web platforms test not meant to reflect w3c process, but rather interoperability aspect of testing

w3c testing about demonstrating implementability of spec

contrast that with getting interoperable implementations

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"

idea of having these de-facto standards and not specifying them anywhere due to legal reasons ... violates W3C perspective

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

but this group doesn't have the IP clearance to do it

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

and separate incubator spec

there's probably other such cases we want to spec out

perhaps we could gather these under a gesture spec, in a community group, then incubate it

and see if we can get some better IP situation going forward

Mustaq: ok to have as separate doc in same repo or problem?

shepazu: it would be a problem

Mustaq: we did an extension (for the coalesced points API). ok to do same with this in our repo?

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

it could be a NOTE, need to check

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

Ted: we need to be cogniscent in group that work on anything that smells like a gesture wouldn't be publishable

move it to incubator group, gives us clean separation, doesn't raise eyebrows...but IANAL

shepazu: maybe i should look into this and come back with suggestion

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

Patrick: in meantime, should we close issue/PR?

Ted: i think we can leave it open to ensure it doesn't fall between cracks

Stylus eraser: should it be a new pointerType instead of a button state?

https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/134

Patrick: i lost track of where we are at

Mustaq: [gives quick overview of current situation about hovering pointer and eraser]

on Surface, hovering pen with button press doesn't fire event (?)

Navid(?): the correct behavior will depend on the application and how it wants to handle things like hovering pointers/clicks/eraser

Mustaq: but we want to make the API intuitive. current way doesn't seem intuitive

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

[...]

Navid: the pens that you flip over, you'd naturally see the pen leave digitizer area, then you'd see the eraser appearing

if we kept it as just type=pen, the second step you'd see the pen reappear but with the eraser button pressed?

Mustaq: ... there are many small solutions, but we should get more feedback and possible approaches

Ted: not spent enough time with pen interface to work out the finer points, but plan to

Navid: worth seeing how drawing apps handle it

Ted: i can have chat with our OneNote team for some feedback

<mustaq> http://lazynezumi.com/

<mustaq> "Position Smoothing"

<mustaq> I think eraser mode has some use case similar to this.

<mustaq> Eraser mode being active always makes it impossible.

Navid: as we have all v2 blocking issues now addressed with relevant PRs, are we happy to move to next step?

Ted: i don't see why not

Navid: should we call the meeting

Patrick: yes we seem to have addressed all issues

thanks everybody. meeting next week unless you hear otherwise on mailing list

- DRAFT -

PEWG

09 Nov 2016

Attendees

Contents