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

Pointer Lock status. Was: pointerLock vendor prefixes, shims and usability

From: Vincent Scheib <scheib@google.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:04:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK-EfXk8TeF3vaH14yEA6WuCyv=OoqafQ69wUzfXzZbK0LV3KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, curtisk@mozilla.com, David Humphrey <david.humphrey@senecacollege.ca>, jruderman@gmail.com
Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> Hi Vincent,
> Seeing this discussion, and noting two open [Bugz], I was wondering about
> the plan to get this spec to a feature complete status (and hence ready for
> Last Call Working Draft). Would you please provide a short status/plan for
> Pointer Lock spec vis-ā-vis LCWD?
> -Thanks, AB
> [Bugz] <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/buglist.cgi?product=**
> WebAppsWG&component=Pointer%**20Lock&resolution=---&list_id=**3760<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWG&component=Pointer%20Lock&resolution=---&list_id=3760>
> >

The discussion about how easily javascript shims can be created is
orthogonal to the pointer lock spec. I'll leave that discussion on that
thread, which I note has concluded in "pointer lock has apparently already
been shimmed".

Of the two open issues, one [1] was already resolved (adding
allow-pointer-lock to HTML). I've closed the issue.

The other [2] is blocked on Mozilla's security review [3].

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18647
[2] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19297
[3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=822654
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 18:05:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:51 UTC