See also: IRC log
anybody up for scribing by any chance?
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/142
Navid: this looks correct, but wanted to check
mustaq: yes, we just need to add a test
Navid: should be quick
Ted: that sounds fine, we're happy to have touch and mouse match in this case
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/145
Associated PR: Clarify the hit test and capturing target for boundary events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/154
Navid: ...we wanted to make this more precise/clear so tweaked the wording. do you think this correctly covers the case now?
Patrick: just look over this in next couple of days
happy to merge once we're all happy
Patrick: as we had full consensus, I merged this
<NavidZ> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/150
Navid: we wanted touch action to work for inline elements, but we changed that. but test still tests old behavior
should i remove test altogether, or change it to not have an effect
?: yes changing it to have no effect would be best
as it's not directly referring to anything normative in text, it shouldn't be v2-blockingMustaq
Navid: i don't think it's going to take a lot of time, we want it for completeness
dtapuska: there's also things like rows/columns/cells, we should have tests for those too
Navid: we have a few tests, but
not for all those elements/cases
... we need to clarify/look at some of the CSS tests in web
platform
we should be closer to CSS tests, as that's what we're testing
Navid: do you know any tests that look relevant?
dtapuska: i'll send some over
Navid: i'll dig in more and try to get tests that reflect inline element behavior
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/29
Associated PR: Add pinch-zoom token to touch-action https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/99
Needs feedback from Ted/MS Legal
Ted: unfortunately we still need to avoid pinch-zoom as a term
as group, our charter explicitly says we won't be spec-ing gestures, so would be hard to claim pinch-zoom not a gesture
so we'd need to check our charter
dtapuska: it's a two-finger manipulation...
Ted: i couldn't get this past legal team atm, though i get it/agree with you
part of it has to do with specific IP that makes it challenging
Mustaq: do we have suggestion to move forward?
dtapuska: what is next check-in date? has legal definitely said no or still investigating?
Ted: definitive no. there might be a change of mind in future, but nothing imminent
Patrick: so is there an alternative name we can use, or really fundamentally the fact that it's a gesture?
dtapuska: [discussion on gesture versus single/two finger manipulation]
Ted: it would be an uphill battle due to vague language used in IP
happy to try, but not hopeful
not sure it matters if we implement it as de-facto behavior, not spec'd
as long as we're interoperable, but it's not defined
dtapuska: are we ok having it as web platform tests, even when it's not spec'd?
i wrote some de-facto tests, but not put them in the web platform repo. should we let those in?
Ted: at this point in time, based on wording of charter, we have to pull the pull request
for web platform test, my first inclination is no, as it insinuates everyone has to pass to get to REC
we would pass because we all have it implemented, but...should we have a web platform test for a behavior that's not in spec. feels odd
from a w3c process perspective
shepazu: i should probably chime in. ted is correct from a process perspective
we shouldn't be doing this, it's outside our charter, for legal reasons
at same time, i feel we should try fighting that fight, but not in that group
potentially a better place would be WICG, make a small spec that extends that spec
as that's a place the IP holder is involved. it's a long battle, but it's more appropriate there
suggest we put it in some repo. web platforms test not meant to reflect w3c process, but rather interoperability aspect of testing
w3c testing about demonstrating implementability of spec
contrast that with getting interoperable implementations
having a test, having it outside our repo but on webplatform, not associating it with this spec but say "this is to test an interoperability aspect"
idea of having these de-facto standards and not specifying them anywhere due to legal reasons ... violates W3C perspective
we really should get it cleared from IP perspective. we all know who/why that's a problem, but we really shouldn't punt on it
but this group doesn't have the IP clearance to do it
rather than slow/halt this group (with a PAG), we should take out the feature, put it somewhere else, and push there. but we SHOULD push the issue - here's this thing, here's a test. even if no IP commitment, it's documented with a test
and separate incubator spec
there's probably other such cases we want to spec out
perhaps we could gather these under a gesture spec, in a community group, then incubate it
and see if we can get some better IP situation going forward
Mustaq: ok to have as separate doc in same repo or problem?
shepazu: it would be a problem
Mustaq: we did an extension (for the coalesced points API). ok to do same with this in our repo?
shepazu: as long as we don't publish it as part of the TR, fine. we can keep working on this, but need to be clear we can't publish as part of PE
it could be a NOTE, need to check
second part: would group members be comfortable doing that? and microsoft would probably say no. i can't speak for MS, and Ted perhaps may not be able to either
Ted: we need to be cogniscent in group that work on anything that smells like a gesture wouldn't be publishable
move it to incubator group, gives us clean separation, doesn't raise eyebrows...but IANAL
shepazu: maybe i should look into this and come back with suggestion
going to be leaving w3c at end of year, won't be the one who'll help you resolve this, but will check with colleague at w3c and get back to you
Patrick: in meantime, should we close issue/PR?
Ted: i think we can leave it open to ensure it doesn't fall between cracks
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/134
Patrick: i lost track of where we are at
Mustaq: [gives quick overview of current situation about hovering pointer and eraser]
on Surface, hovering pen with button press doesn't fire event (?)
Navid(?): the correct behavior will depend on the application and how it wants to handle things like hovering pointers/clicks/eraser
Mustaq: but we want to make the API intuitive. current way doesn't seem intuitive
Navid: if i was drawing, and press the eraser button, you'd need to fire pointerout/pointerleave for the pen, then pointerover/pointerenter for eraser type pointer. and it may cause a click along the way
[...]
Navid: the pens that you flip over, you'd naturally see the pen leave digitizer area, then you'd see the eraser appearing
if we kept it as just type=pen, the second step you'd see the pen reappear but with the eraser button pressed?
Mustaq: ... there are many small solutions, but we should get more feedback and possible approaches
Ted: not spent enough time with pen interface to work out the finer points, but plan to
Navid: worth seeing how drawing apps handle it
Ted: i can have chat with our OneNote team for some feedback
<mustaq> http://lazynezumi.com/
<mustaq> "Position Smoothing"
<mustaq> I think eraser mode has some use case similar to this.
<mustaq> Eraser mode being active always makes it impossible.
Navid: as we have all v2 blocking issues now addressed with relevant PRs, are we happy to move to next step?
Ted: i don't see why not
Navid: should we call the meeting
Patrick: yes we seem to have addressed all issues
thanks everybody. meeting next week unless you hear otherwise on mailing list
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148 of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Rick/mustaq/ Succeeded: s/Mustaq/Navid/ Succeeded: s/?/Mustaq/ Succeeded: s/plce/place/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: patrick_h_lauke Inferring Scribes: patrick_h_lauke Present: patrick_h_lauke shepazu teddink Mustaq_Ahmed scott_gonzalez Navid_Zolghadr dtapuska Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2016OctDec/0083.html Got date from IRC log name: 09 Nov 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-pointerevents-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]