Meeting minutes
<smaug> just a second
currently being utterly confused by webex ... has the system changed?
"Update targets of predicted and coalesced events when trusted event target changes." https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/390
Patrick: i've seen some good comments, pull request was approved, but i wonder how this will square with the other PR https://
Patrick: what I would propose, in light of #377 which changes the whole section anyway, is not to spend time now refining this (for consistency etc) but get it out there into main branch, and THEN see how this affects #377 and if we can then put that into that one in some way
[group agrees to merge now]
Action: merge PR 390
Review 'Update targets of predicted and coalesced events when trusted event target changes.' https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/390
Review 'Expand explanation for non-coalesced events' https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/379 (in particular, use of "measurable" in the definition)
https://
Patrick: I know there's been approvals, but i wonder as we were going back and forth on "measurable" vs "continuous" if we can graft the two together https://
Patrick: think this is in line with what Rob was suggesting last time. is this a good idea? if so which variant? i think the first one ("continuous pointer sensor data") is closest to what Rob had in mind
[group agrees first one is good]
Action: Patrick to make change (add "continuous") and merge #379
Review 'Simplify/clarify coalesced and predicted events' https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/377
Patrick: apologies, but even i have lost track now of where we are with this
Mustaq: after Rob's change in the other PR, we had good separation between author-facing (10.1 / 10.2) and browser engineer facing (10.3)
Patrick: and now in #377 10.3 doesn't exist anymore https://
Rob: where we introduce the concepts of coalesced and predicted events lists, we can put the bit about trusted events from the other PR
Rob: do we have to do any modification of the list when getCoalescedEvents is called now? don't think we do, because it was only target that changes
<flackr> Could mention when target changes after dfn here https://
<mustaq> After #390, both 10.1 and 10.2 are dev facing, while #10.3 is for browser engineers. I prefer keeping 10.3 separate.
Patrick: wondering if we keep 10.3, if there's anything that can still be salvaged with #377 ? might be easier to do a fresh PR that can then salvage any bits, but supersede #377
Rob: might be worth making sure we talk about "trusted" events consistently
[group agrees to supersede #377 and fresh PR]
Action: Patrick to supersede #377 with fresh PR, still make sure it addresses issues it set out to close in #377
Tweak the definition of coalesced event list to deal with untrusted events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/391
Patrick: unless somebody sees a problem with this, should we just merge?
Rob: seems fine
Olli: i'll write another matching one for predicted events
Patrick: and i'll just merge when it comes in, if it's along same lines
Action: Merge #391
Unclear note about PointerEvent initialization of attributes to reflect coalesced events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/374
Patrick: I had an action from last time, clearly I haven't done anything, will do though
Rob: we talked about maybe generalising to giving the idea that the event will contain everything author needs to know what changed since last event
Action: Patrick to propose more generalised note
How is pointer event ctor supposed to work when coalescedEvents is passed using the PointerEventInit https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/223
Olli: filed a new DOM issue because i think we need a tweak at that spec to refer to it more easily
once DOM spec is updated we can update PE spec
HTML monkeypatching: initiate the drag-and-drop operation definition https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/384
Mustaq: forgot, will do for next time
Action: Mustaq to review issue #384
Clarify whether touch contact must fire a pointerrawupdate event https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/373
Patrick: these are my triage items, wondering if they can be closed or if there's actions that need to be taken
Patrick: original poster then added info about their use case to https://
Action: Close issue
Immediately firing coalesced events for enter/leave/over/out? https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/278
Olli: agree this can be closed
Rob: agree, don't want this behaviour. this is specifically addressed by the work with did for target changes
Action: Close #278
<mustaq> https://
Mustaq: keep in mind for next meeting
Action: Review issue #100 for discussion at next meeting