IRC log of pointerevents on 2024-04-24
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:57:06 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
- 14:57:11 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-pointerevents-irc
- 14:57:57 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Meeting: PEWG
- 14:58:07 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Chair: Patrick H. Lauke
- 14:58:14 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6246bc85-4dae-43a8-a50c-9bc5a0829585/20240424T110000/
- 14:58:23 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Scribe: Patrick H. Lauke
- 14:58:30 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- ScribeNick: Patrick_H_Lauke
- 14:58:33 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- present+
- 15:01:38 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- present+ flackr
- 15:02:40 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- regrets smaug
- 15:02:48 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- present+ plh
- 15:04:05 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- present+ mustaq
- 15:04:17 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- TOPIC: Multi-pen support and persistent pointerId #353 https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/353
- 15:04:55 [flackr]
- https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/495
- 15:06:38 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Mustaq: commented on the PR about reporting -1 before EVERY pointerdown...
- 15:06:53 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Rob: yes, wasn't sure it was clear in the spec
- 15:07:18 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Rob: can continue iterating on the PR to make sure things are clear to authors, I think Olli asked for the same
- 15:09:00 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- ACTION: continue iterating over the draft PR
- 15:09:25 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- TOPIC: Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 #445 https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/445
- 15:10:14 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Patrick: last time we discussed possibility to make manual tests for things like predicted events based on demos
- 15:10:31 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Rob: yes, Olli said he'd look at some of this, as there's no WPT support yet
- 15:10:47 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Mustaq: I also looked at some of these, I think I assigned this (494) to me
- 15:11:04 [mustaq]
- https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/494
- 15:11:10 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- ACTION: continue work on these
- 15:12:17 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- TOPIC: Wide review requests
- 15:13:01 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Patrick: I have admittedly been slack with some of these https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/482 but I have now sent an explicit wide review request (on top of the automated one that went out) to DAS, Touch Events, WebApps. Will do Security and Privacy after this call
- 15:14:00 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- PLH: question about https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/494 - it looks like you're monkeypatching, not following UI events algorithm fully
- 15:14:55 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- PLH: in recent years we've tried to move away from monkeypatching - changing another spec. we'd ideally ask the original spec to add another step, then refer back from that original spec to our spec
- 15:15:41 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Mustaq: blocker here is that UI events spec is not algorithmic yet. we can't follow the proper steps
- 15:16:51 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Rob: two issues. i don't even recall where UI events defines target of event. we've defined a higher level. UI events says the target comes from the mouse events, but because our spec sits higher than mouse events, it should come from pointerdown (?)
- 15:17:10 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Rob: but there's no functional difference in the end
- 15:17:31 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- PLH: looking where UI events defines event target...
- 15:18:10 [mustaq]
- https://w3c.github.io/uievents/#events-mouseevent-event-order
- 15:18:14 [flackr]
- https://w3c.github.io/uievents/#events-mouseevent-event-order:~:text=SHOULD%20fire%20click%20and%20dblclick%20events%20on%20the%20nearest%20common%20inclusive%20ancestor%20when%20the%20associated%20mousedown%20and%20mouseup%20event%20targets
- 15:19:03 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- PLH: worth adding an issue against UI events making them aware that we're adding an extra step. if it was WHATWG HTML we'd ask for a hook
- 15:20:21 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Rob: the other oddity here is possibly capture...though it shouldn't, as up is still sent to capture target
- 15:20:45 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Rob: agree it's a bit of a patch, as it tries to explain how pointer events "come first" at a higher level
- 15:21:17 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Patrick: so should we file an issue against UI events about this?
- 15:21:44 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Rob: yes we should, also the fact that node removal isn't explained fully - how node removal affects the targets of things still attached
- 15:22:07 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Mustaq: found Gary's pull request....
- 15:22:41 [mustaq]
- This is a proposed PR to make UI event dispatch "more algorithmic": https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/285#issuecomment-680311755
- 15:23:14 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- Mustaq: not an official PR, but a separate copy to make this more algorithmic
- 15:23:52 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- PLH: would be good if we could have an issue in UI events to track that, and fine to point back to Gary's comment on that
- 15:24:50 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- ACTION: Mustaq to file issues in UI events for making algorithmic and node removal
- 15:26:15 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- rrsagent, set logs world-visible
- 15:26:20 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- rrsagent, generate minutes
- 15:26:22 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-pointerevents-minutes.html Patrick_H_Lauke
- 15:26:39 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
- rrsagent, bye
- 15:26:39 [RRSAgent]
- I see 3 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
- 15:26:39 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: continue iterating over the draft PR [1]
- 15:26:39 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-pointerevents-irc#T15-09-00
- 15:26:39 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: continue work on these [2]
- 15:26:39 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-pointerevents-irc#T15-11-10
- 15:26:39 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Mustaq to file issues in UI events for making algorithmic and node removal [3]
- 15:26:39 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-pointerevents-irc#T15-24-50