Meeting minutes
ChairNick: Patrick_H_Lauke
Presentation/demos submitted to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/TPAC/demos/pointer-events.html
Patrick: was good experience to put the slides/demos together, to rationalise some use cases myself
Patrick: had interesting discussion with somebody on mastodon about "if we have getCoalescedEvents(), why do we need pointerrawupadte?@
Patrick: and that made me think of situations where you MAY want to react to things quickly. but for drawing applications they're probably both solving the same situation. May be worth putting a note in the spec explaining some use cases
<smaug> WICG/
Olli: don't know if you've seen this scheduling issue. can you comment on the issue where pointerrawupdate is handled in Blink?
Review outstanding v3-blocker issues https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Av3-blocking
Clarify pointerleave and pointerout events when first pointer move after removing an element under the pointer w3c/pointerevents#477
mustaq: I think we can close this one. made a suggestion for interop/wpt
Rob: path forward on this. we've updated the WPT, submitted a patch in chrome
Rob: this requires changes in Firefox and Safari as well
Rob: Firefox, when node is removed, it's like you're over no node anymore. this is a change from that behaviour
Rob: chrome used to match previous (?) Safari behaviour where it was trying to remember the previous node
Rob: we don't have interop right now, but planned fix will match developer expectation
Patrick: do we close this issue? or do we wait until we do have interop?
Olli: what happens with shadow DOM, where you remove the content of a slot and it falls back to default slot content
Rob: the implicit node is the parent, but on the next movement you're in the new default content that is shown
Olli: mouse is over slotted element, remove that...store the parent. then it goes to the slot, but that doesn't have a box, but then it gets content on next paint...
Rob: ... on the next move you need to fire the event on the default content that went back into the slot
<mustaq> Chrome work in progress, we expect to send out an intent to ship in a few weeks.
Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues?q=is%3Aclosed+label%3Aneeds-wpt+
Patrick: still have 5 issues open
Mustaq: I started work on #411
Olli: worked on #390 - will need manual testing
Patrick: any blockers/problems/ideas/suggestions for any other ones that are still open
?
Mustaq: #474, do we still leave the issue open here as well?
Rob: it should be possible to do a test? we don't have a test yet?
Rob: we could at least get it tested. no browser is currently implementing it correctly...
Patrick: what about #318?
Olli: this was discussed last time, we should have test soon
Patrick: last one is #300 ...
Olli: this should also be easy to test. I think Firefox may not pass this ... or maybe it does?
Next steps for the spec
Plh: I opened an issue - wide review for pointer events. It's autopublishing (latest version is august 31st)
Plh: we need to notify all groups and horizontal reviews. Horizontal reviews need to do issues in 5 different repositories, but these are all listed in that issue
Plh: we will not receive review from security, because it's broken. it will time out
Plh: ... who knows what we get with privacy, and what we get for accessibility/APA
Plh: we're probably looking at a month or two for that
Plh: another subject: charter. i started the call for you two weeks ago
Plh: question if we wanted to go for living standard after v3 or not
Patrick: I seem to remember we discussed this ages ago, and the conclusion was that it didn't matter either way in that we can always decide to go for it, or not
Plh: correct. just wondering if we forgot about this when submitting charter renewal
Patrick: fairly sure we discussed this and said "whatever is easiest"
Plh: would be good to find minutes where we did say this, and link from the issue just so we can find that decision again
ACTION: Patrick to review past minutes to find the ones where we decided about living standard yes or no
Plh: actually, found the minutes, and seems we leant towards going for living standard. So our charter extension does not quite reflect that, but we can fix it later
Patrick: so from discussions with PLH we can already ask for wide review before WPTs are all done. are we all happy with this?
Patrick: anybody against the idea?
Patrick: [no objections]
<mustaq> LGTM
update to editors/former editors
Rob: wondering about whether this should be updated, as it still shows Navid as co-editor but he has not been involved over the last year(s)?
Patrick: I think when I first floated this, Navid was concerned/wanted to remain visible since coalesced events were his big contribution (if i remember correctly). I'm easy either way. Should we move him to former editors?
Patrick: [group agrees]
ACTION: update editors/former editors
rssagent, set logs world-visible