W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Issues blocking Last Call Working Draft [Was: Re: Draft minutes: 29 January 2013 call]

From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:30:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFUtAY9RdtiF1cUu6Jp-k_=OAPuF04zJbETB-rCF5MM5DuRvNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> On 1/29/13 12:56 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> The draft minutes from the January 29 voice conference are available at <
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/01/29-**pointerevents-minutes.html<http://www.w3.org/2013/01/29-pointerevents-minutes.html>>
>> and copied below.
>>
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> The last topic of the meeting was a discussion about moving Pointer Events
> to Last Call WD [LC]. The gist of the conversation is that LC is blocked on
> agreeable resolutions to:
>
> 1. Bug 20217 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20217<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20217>
> >
>

> RESOLUTION: Pending feedback from Rick Byers, the group
> tentatively concludes that there is not a sufficient use case
> for adding a "zoom" value for the touch-action property.

I concur.  Thanks for the details of why IE has this.

If something like IE's content zooming is standardized then I think we
might end up wanting zoom here too.  Jacob, you were going to do some
thinking around extensibility of touch-action, right?  How do we design it
now such that we can add things in the future without breaking sites and
(ideally) without it being obviously discontinuous?


> 2. Bug 20222 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20222<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20222>>;
> see also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0041.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0041.html>
> >
>

   JR: There's been some discussion on the list about this.
>    ... Since we don't have great consensus on how to solve the
>    "hover menu" problem interoperably,
>    ... for this version of the spec it might just be appropriate
>    for us to put some leeway into the compatibility mouse events
>    section regarding mouseover/mouseout events.
>    ... like, "Implementations MAY do something different in
>    specific cases like :hover menus"
>    ... and just make sure the spec is forward-compatible with
>    changes we might make to address this in a future version.


I'm OK with this, but I agree with Matt's concerns about leaving things
unspecified.

Jacob has mostly convinced me that solving this problem really must be an
'opt-in' mechanism (there probably is no good general solution that doesn't
involve opt-in).  In that case, are we OK with the idea that some
implementations (and ideally some future version of PE) augment the rules
here to define a different behavior when a site explicitly asks for it?  In
particular, IE10 has this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/jj152135(v=vs.85).aspx.  If
we're OK with such implementation-specific extensions to the standard and
with the idea of adding such an extension in the future, then I'd probably
prefer we keep the current strict wording.


> 3. Making click/contextmenu use PointerEvent interface; <
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-pointer-events/**
> 2013JanMar/0024.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JanMar/0024.html>
> >
>
> I agreed to followup with you to make sure you know we want your feedback
> on these issues (via the list and/or directly in the bugs).
>

Will reply to the thread.


>
> -Thanks, Art
>
> [LC] <http://www.w3.org/2013/01/29-**pointerevents-minutes.html#**item05<http://www.w3.org/2013/01/29-pointerevents-minutes.html#item05>
> >
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 19:30:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:17:04 GMT