- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:30:47 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-touchevents@w3.org" <public-touchevents@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY9Pur57qFYVydh9xKs_wRPS-Lhv+K3SFJT+b-o=6t071Q@mail.gmail.com>
Patrick just pointed out that I somehow botched this and missed some recent v1-errata commits in the merge. Sorry, not sure how that happened! It was easy to fix here <https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/commit/4082863cc382d40c378b1d6cef00e2abdd405e02> . Rick On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/14/15 9:10 AM, Rick Byers wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 4/13/15 5:21 PM, Rick Byers wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Arthur Barstow >>>>> <art.barstow@gmail.com <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> The errata for the Touch Events REC [1] is still mostly >>>>> empty and >>>>> it contains what I would characterize as a somewhat >>>>> surprising >>>>> statement: >>>>> >>>>> [[ >>>>> < >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-touch-events-20131010/REC-touch-events-20131010-errata.html >>>>> > >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> An updated specification will be located at WebPlatform >>>>> Specs. >>>>> ]] >>>>> >>>>> I say "surprising" because I don't recall us agreeing to >>>>> publish >>>>> an update at specs.webplatform.org >>>>> <http://specs.webplatform.org> <http://specs.webplatform.org>. >>>>> >>>>> Would someone please clarify? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IIRC Doug said that was the new preferred path for publishing >>>>> errata the last time we discussed the errata process on a >>>>> call. Perhaps "updated specification" is misleading though :-) >>>>> >>>>> Anyhow, what, if anything should be added to the errata >>>>> document? >>>>> Does the CG have consensus about text for the errata >>>>> document? >>>>> Alternatively, perhaps the errata document could link to a >>>>> version >>>>> of the spec that is the REC + agreed errata text (all >>>>> inlined, and >>>>> perhaps styled such all of the changes from the REC are >>>>> very >>>>> clearly identifiable and enumerated in the Changes Since >>>>> last Pub >>>>> section)? >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I think having a document that is the REC + >>>>> agreed >>>>> errata changes is more useful than adding text to the >>>>> errata document. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I like that plan too. From our recent call though it sounds >>>>> like some of the 'errata' changes we've made may need to be >>>>> considered normative. Eg. fractional co-ordinates. That one >>>>> change alone is important enough to me (and, IMHO, the >>>>> platform) that I wouldn't want to let it fall through the >>>>> cracks. So perhaps we should be talking more about publishing >>>>> a minor v1.1 update instead of worrying about errata? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I think the consensus is to put all of the changes in a >>>>> single document and then Doug and I (and anyone interested in the >>>>> `sausage making`) will figure out how to get that doc published as >>>>> a Technical Report. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, what is the rough status and plan of that document (perhaps >>>>> we should call it TE Level 2)? Have all of the changes we want to >>>>> make been added to one of the branches (and if yes, which >>>>> branch)? Do we want to block publication pending more feedback >>>>> from implementations and deployment? I noticed there are some open >>>>> issues <https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/issues>. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We've got two branches/documents at the moment - v1-errata and >>>>> 'master' which has the TEE. It sounds like we should merge the errata and >>>>> TEE back into a single document in master (returning us to single-branch >>>>> sanity), is that right? I'd want to make sure we have consensus on this >>>>> before making the change. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, doing that merge seems right to me. >>> >>> >>>> Re getting consensus, perhaps the simplest thing to do is to create a >>>> PR and then announce it with a short-ish review cycle that will result in >>>> merging the PR if no one raises any objections by the end of the cycle. >>> >>> >>> Ok, I will do that sometime soon >>> >> >> I finally got around to doing this (sorry for the delay): >> https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/pull/14. >> >> The diff is a little messed up because it represents merging all the >> v1-erata work into master (when really it's mostly about adding a couple >> paragraphs from the TEE into the v1-erata document). More useful is to >> look just at the diff of touchevents.html here >> <https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/compare/v1-errata...RByers:merged-v2>. >> You can see the final result here >> <http://rawgit.com/RByers/touch-events/merged-v2/touchevents.html>. >> >> If we approve this, then I can follow-up with a big branch clean-up - >> closing v1-eratta and renaming 'master' to gh-pages so that we'll >> effectively have the same simple setup as for pointerevents. >> >> Thoughts? >> > > I've now merged this (with some small improvements suggested by Patrick). > Happy to make additional improvements as a follow-up if there's any other > feedback. > > There are still a few outstanding issues / changes. I haven't been in any >>>>> big rush to get them done (as I don't currently have any impl work blocked >>>>> on further spec changes), but perhaps I should be making that a priority? >>>>> >>>> >>>> If the REC being out of date is causing problems (for developers, >>>> implementers, etc.), then I would say, yes, getting a new TR published is >>>> something we should do sooner rather than later. >>>> >>> >>> I haven't seen any concrete evidence that this is causing problems for >>> people (but there is always random confusion about TE behavior which may be >>> eased by some of the editorial changes we've made). >>> >>> -ArtB >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 20:31:34 UTC