Re: Errata for Touch Events?

On 07/10/2014 13:47, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> [...]  for *each* change, we must
> decide if the change is substantive enough ("class" 3 or 4 in [ProcDoc])
> to require the spec to be published as an "Edited Recommendation" and
> let's just say things get "a little complicated".

To set the ball in motion again on the boatload of errata proposals I 
sent recently, I had a quick skim over them in light of the above. I 
believe that most of them fall under simple editorial errata (no changes 
to text content - e.g. my insistence on using <code> etc) and 
clarifications (corrections that do not affect conformance - e.g. 
introducing the term "compatibility events" and tidying up the language 
a bit to be clearer). The only potential substantive change would be the 
errata I just queried again, concerning the fact that UAs seem to 
(mostly) fire compatibility events only for a single finger interaction 
- this is not mentioned at all in the current TE, and it does seem that 
UAs already behave slightly differently...but my proposed change (if you 
feel like it's worth doing) would be mostly a "we don't actually define 
here what happens when there's more than one finger...but here's some 
informative thing about only firing them generally when it's a single 
finger" kind of addition, so perhaps this is more borderline 
clarification (as it would be informative, not normative, and would not 
change conformance/non-conformance status of UAs that have already 
implemented TEs)

Anything else needed to move forward on these?

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 15:46:27 UTC