Meeting minutes
Multi-pen support and persistent pointerId #353 w3c/pointerevents#353
Rob: PR has been updated for this, worth having a look over again. Then the question we had before about where do we merge this
Patrick: not heard back about the process. Will just go ahead and create a vNext branch and merge it there
Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 #445 w3c/pointerevents#445
Rob: believe Mustaq made some progress
Patrick: that's my memory from last time as well, but it's ok not in a major rush
Quick sense-check of Touch Events update for CG-Final w3c/touch-events#137
Patrick: can we take a minute to check wording is ok
Rob: looks good to me
Patrick: I will push this update and contact Ian Jacobs / W3C to move it to the right place
TPAC 2024 PEWG meeting with UI Events
Patrick: don't have exact time/date, but I think it'll be Monday
Rob: I will try to register soon for TPAC, get approvals etc
Patrick: so topic of meeting generally "to discuss the Pointer Events specification and its dependencies on the UI Events specification, particularly regarding DOM mutations and interoperability issues with pointer events."
Rob: the concept of "capture" doesn't exist in UI Events, so in PE we say we change the target
Rob: similarly, changing the way mouse events are based on pointer event target as they can be different
AOB some issues in repo
Patrick: https://
Patrick: issues from Masayuki who I believe is at Mozilla https://
Patrick: would be good to triage them. if they only require clarification/wording, we can do it. If it needs more reworking, then leave after Level 3
Rob: they both seem fairly simple to address with wording
Rob: relates to targeting for click/double-click, so need to clarify this
ACTION: for all group to review unlabelled issues, decide if appropriate for Level 3, and propose new wording etc where needed
PAtrick: wanted a sense check - this came from internationalisation wide review w3c/
Patrick: we already have the PR i did that defines the logical values, but how easy/hard would it be to add this to Level 3
Patrick: we *could* add it and mark it as at risk?
Rob: if we can do it in a non-breaking way, then sure
Rob: the tricky part i can foresee is if sites rely on hardcoded computed values
Rob: but we can work around it by saying the computed value then still resolves to whatever the physical value is
Rob: would be good to review the PR first before pushing it w3c/
ACTION: group to review draft PR for next meeting and decide if we want to incorporate into Level 3
Wide review
Patrick: received reviews from DAS WG, Touch Events CG, Webapps
Patrick: i18n, TAG
Patrick: not heard from security and privacy
Patrick: thank you, adjourning until 2 weeks' time