Meeting minutes
Coordinates of a pointercancel event w3c/pointerevents#463
Review/discuss proposed PR w3c/
Mustaq made a suggestion/comment here w3c/
Mustaq: when i look at pointerup and pointercancel, i wonder if we want to change pointerup the same way as well
Rob: we made conscious decision to go with 0 for pointerup, as it makes sense from an event stream perspective
Rob: in my mind it makes sense that they're not identical (pointerup being empty, pointercancel carrying the last known good values)
Mustaq: thinking about perspective of spec maintenance. we now list a bunch of properties... developers can get those values by just checking the last pointermove
<mustaq> https://
Mustaq: so is this not an edge case that makes the spec bulkier for no actual developer gain
Mustaq: concerned that if the spec changes in future, we may go out of sync
Rob: what are you suggesting?
Mustaq: we're changing spec without any benefit (to developers)
Mustaq: we can motivate developers to just listen to pointermove, and not pointercancel
Patrick: I made it quite explicit, listing all properties, and explicitly saying coalescedEvents and predictedEvents will be empty, to avoid handwavy confusion later on.
Patrick: I conceptually quite like this, as I can imagine as a developer maybe you're not been following EVERY pointermove, but when you get a pointercancel you want to make absolutely sure you "clean up house" on whatever you were doing just when the cancel happened
[discussion about consistency: with the proposed change to pointercancel, we specify values for pointercancel. but for pointerup, we say pressure is zero in the pressure property definition as a note]
Patrick: happy to move the note from 4.1 where it talks about pressure to a similar matching paragraph in the pointerup event description. does that make sense?
[mustaq and rob agree]
ACTION: merge the proposed PR, patrick to create matching/similar PR to move note about pressure into pointerup definition
Wacom Airbrush and tangentialPressure
https://
<mustaq> https://
Mustaq: we shipped tangentialPressure and twist together, but it may be incomplete
Patrick: problem is likely that there's not many devices that have this
Patrick: will ping Olli separately to see if he knows why it's not in Firefox implementation either
ACTION: Mustaq/Patrick/Olli to investigate if implementation is incomplete in browsers
<mustaq> w3c/
should note be normative...
Mustaq: if i search spec for passive, I only see this one mention. did we want to make the note normative or did we consciously choose to make it non-normative?
Patrick: so looking in section 11 https://
Patrick: I'm happy to make this an actual normative prose, not a non-normative note. don't think there was any actual reason/rationale for us to make it a note...
<mustaq> Sounds good, I will add a test soon accordingly.
Patrick: noting that the entire section 11 is OPTIONAL, but that should not prevent us from making this normative text (normative as in "IF a UA does this, THEN this is normative")
ACTION: remove the "note" bit, and make this part of the normative text
Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 w3c/pointerevents#445
Patrick: I see that work has been progressing nicely on this, so no concerns
Mustaq: have been working on 3 at the moment, will carry on
<mustaq> I am working on #403, #404 and #457
<Github> w3c/
<Github> w3c/
<Github> w3c/
Patrick: and I know Olli has been working on a few
Heartbeat: Clarify what the target of the click event should be after capturing pointer events w3c/pointerevents#356
Patrick: I know there's not been movement. Suggest that once we closed all other issues, we have a meeting to decide what to do with this in the meantime (deferring to next version and explicitly mentioning it in spec, for instance)
Patrick: if there's no further issues, we'll adjurn for now. Thank you both