Re: Pointer Events Published (was: Pointer Events Recommendation delayed by a Formal Objection)

Never mind, I see it now.  Must have been a caching issue.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> wrote:

> Quick question.  I see http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/ still links to
> the PR version.  Shouldn't that link be updated to point to the REC?
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, folks–
>>
>> I'd like to thank and congratulate everyone who contributed to the
>> Pointer Events specification. As you probably know now, Pointer Events has
>> now been published as a W3C Recommendation [1][2].
>>
>> Scott González (jQuery Foundation) and Jacob Rossi (Microsoft) published
>> some good blog posts on the publication [3][4].
>>
>> These blog posts address a serious issue: the lack of universal
>> interoperability, and competition with the Touch Events technology (also
>> published by W3C). We hope that with work and developer interest, this will
>> change over time.
>>
>> This same issue was the basis for some valid concerns and a Formal
>> Objection by Yandex, on behalf of developers, a point which I'm sure we all
>> appreciate; we are all trying to improve the experience for users and
>> developers. W3C's Director took this feedback seriously, but ultimately
>> decided that publication of Pointer Events as a Recommendation was the best
>> path forward. Here is an excerpt of the Member-only decision:
>>
>> [[
>> In considering this objection, we note […] that the Pointer Events
>> specification provides application access to additional data for some
>> devices (e.g. pen) that is not provided by the Touch Events specification.
>> The lack of an Recommendation for access to these devices is an impediment
>> to developers whose applications wish to use these devices to the full
>> extent of their capability.
>>
>> While in general having one technology design per feature is often
>> better, it has never been a criterion for W3C that two Recommendations may
>> not cover common features with different techniques.  In this case both
>> sets of interfaces have been implemented in the market and we believe that
>> it is in the best interest of the Web Platform at this time to allow
>> developers to innovate on both Pointer Events and Touch Events.
>> ]]
>>
>> Again, thanks to you all, and it's been a pleasure to work with you in
>> this working group!
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-pointerevents-20150224/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4430?pk_campaign=
>> feed&pk_kwd=pointer-events-is-a-w3c-recommendation
>> [3] http://blog.jquery.com/2015/02/24/getting-on-point/
>> [4] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2015/02/24/pointer-
>> events-w3c-recommendation-interoperable-touch-and-
>> removing-the-dreaded-300ms-tap-delay.aspx
>>
>>
>> Regards–
>> –Doug
>>
>> On 2/5/15 10:58 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> [I got the core of our objection onto the public list now, so we can
>>> continue the discussion there if you like]
>>>
>>> 05.02.2015, 18:39, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Patrick–
>>>>
>>>> On 2/5/15 9:45 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/02/2015 14:29, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>  In principle, what's the process here? Do we get a chance to
>>>>> respond to the objection?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to let you know the process:
>>>>
>>>
>>> [sensible process as far as I can tell]
>>>
>>>  3) No formal decision by the Director has been made yet, but it
>>>> will be made and announced soon. At this point, the Director is
>>>> making another attempt to find a mutually acceptable path forward.
>>>> I expect this to be resolved (one way or another) in the next
>>>> week.
>>>>
>>>> I apologize for the delay, and the lack of clarity thus far. I'm
>>>> somewhat hampered in what I can say because of member and team
>>>> confidentiality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yup. Sorry.
>>>
>>>  At the same time, however, it's important that we treat Formal
>>>> Objections (from anyone) seriously, and try our best to find a
>>>> mutually acceptable path forward, even if it causes a short delay.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>  I can see an argument for this whole process to be more open and
>>>> transparent, with a notification to the WG about the Formal
>>>> Objection right away.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's really an argument about process, not one for this group, but
>>> I would have been fine with that - and it might have pushed my
>>> priority stack in a way that would have made life better for people.
>>>
>>>  However, that would invite an even lengthier discussion, and we
>>>> hoped that an initial call with objector and the Director might
>>>> make that unnecessary. Unfortunately, that did not happen, putting
>>>> the publication on hold until a final decision has been made.
>>>> Because of that, at this point, Art appropriately decided to let
>>>> the WG know why the spec wasn't published.
>>>>
>>>> (Personally (e.g. not an official W3C stance), I think Formal
>>>> Objections, and the meeting with the Director to discuss them,
>>>> should all be done on the public record. But that's not my decision
>>>> to make; it's up to the Advisory Committee.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Noted for the process task force and the AC. But my personal position
>>> is that this won't always fly, and I would prefer to prioritise the
>>> input over transparency if it really came down to it. My experience
>>> is that there has generally been a reasonable amount of transparency
>>> provided "post hoc", without compromising the confidence that enables
>>> frank input to be heard by the director and judged.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Chaals
>>>
>>> -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>>> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>