- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:38:26 -0400
- To: Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>, Sangwhan Moon <me@sangwhan.com>
- CC: Web Events Working Group <public-webevents@w3.org>
On 10/21/13 2:43 PM, ext Matt Brubeck wrote: > On 10/17/2013 7:12 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> During WebEvents' October 15 call, we discussed the Touch Events >> version 2 Working Group Note [1]. Rather than merging important >> changes from v1 to v2 and publishing v2 in its entirety, Rick >> suggested that it could be simpler and more useful if the Note just >> contained deltas of interfaces that have two or more implementations. > > That would be fine with me. I don't think we should publish the v2 > draft as-is (without merging in recent changes from v1) because of > potential confusion caused by unintentional deltas. I think we should > either merge the v1 changes and then publish v2 in its entirety, or > publish just a list of intentional changes. OK, so then I think our working assumption here is to just document the extensions that have 2 or more implementations. Matt - can you please take the lead on updating the v2 ED accordingly (including changing the stylesheet to use W3C-WG-Note)? >> We also talked a little bit about the criteria for a feature to be >> included in the Note. More specifically, it seems like a feature >> would only be included in the Note if it has two or more >> implementations. Another consideration is the degree of deployment >> `in the wild` for these features. Thus, if (for example) Touch.force >> has never been implemented, it probably should not included. Feedback >> on these considerations is also welcome. > > I don't have a strong opinion here. How many of the v2 features > actually have two implementations? Gecko implements radiusX, radiusY, > force, and identifiedTouch. Rick - which extensions do WebKit, Blink implement? Sangwhan - what about Opera? -Thanks, ArtB
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 19:47:04 UTC