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