Re: Inclusion of overflowScrolling in coremob specification

On 9 Oct 2012, at 21:32, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> 
>>  
>> From: Robert Shilston [mailto:robert.shilston@ft.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:12 PM
>> To: Paul Bakaus
>> Cc: public-coremob@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Inclusion of overflowScrolling in coremob specification
>>  
>> On 8 Oct 2012, at 10:35, Paul Bakaus wrote:
>>  
>> 
>> I'm fine with tests on scroll performance. I just don't want to see useless cruft added to CSS.
>>  
>> I am going to jump in to speak for some of the mentioned people and say that this demand, and production use case, is very real. We (Zynga) want scrolling, panning (in two directions) and zooming. We want to implement snapping, pagination between simulated pages.
>>  
>>  
>> I'd add that, if people have to write JS libraries (eg FTScroller [1]) to achieve things, then that ought to be considered and captured into the appropriate specs.  We've had to do just that, and are very keen for the features Zynga mention to be available from the browser rather than faking them with javascript.
>>  
>> [1] https://github.com/ftlabs/ftscroller
>>  
>> Best wishes,
>>  
>> Rob
>> -- 
>> Dr Robert Shilston [07940 387593 | skype:rtshilston | @rtshilston]
>> Director, FT Labs [labs.ft.com | 0870 085 2038 | @ftlabs]
>>  

> Do you mean that polyfills or other needed support libraries should be referenced informatively in the CoreMob specs? I had suggested that earlier but got some pretty strong pushback. Or perhaps you meant that bugs need to be filed against the referenced specs?
>  
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan


Bryan,

I think that polyfills show need, and that spec writers should review them and see where the spec needs to evolve.  I'm not sure if that's the CoreMob spec, or other specs that CoreMob has referenced.  I was trying to argue that "I just don't want to see useless cruft added to CSS" needs to be balanced with ensuring that browsers offer a great experience for users, and that if developers need features, then they ought to be considered for addition and whilst the spec gets longer it shouldn't be considered cruft.



Rob
-- 

------------------------------
This email was sent by a company owned by Pearson plc, registered office at 
80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL.  Registered in England and Wales with company 
number 53723.