W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [Touch events] createTouchList should probably take a sequence, not an IDL array

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 10:33:38 -0500
Message-ID: <50C4AF52.2020206@nokia.com>
To: public-webevents@w3.org
Hi All,

If we decide this bug (now issue-25) is a "must fix" for v1, then since 
the change could affect an implementation of the December 2011 CR, the 
spec would need to go back to Working Draft although it could be a Last 
Call WD.

When the new LCWD review period is over, _if_ we already have interop 
data that satisfies the CR's exit criteria, then (assuming there are no 
substantive changes as a result of the LC review period), the process 
would permit us to skip a new CR and go straight to a Proposed 
Recommendation (this is often called a "zero-length CR"; see ^Process). 
Note the publication of a LCWD would start a new 60-day Call for 
Exclusion period (^CfE).

As I understand it, the proposed API change would affect 
implementations  as follows:

* Webkit - no change  needed (the proposed change  aligns  with WebKit, 
one of the agreed requirements for v1)

* Gecko - would need to change. Matt, Olli - is this true? Are you 
willing to update your implementation and if so, what is the timeframe?

* Opera - I don't know. Sangwhan?

* Others? - are there other implementations to consider?

Cathy - if this change is agreed, how much work will be requiredto 
update the test suite? (Fairly trivial?)

I don't feel real strongly here but if we are going back to WD, I would 
like to do so as soon as possible.

-AB

^CfE <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion>
^Process <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call>


On 12/6/12 5:21 PM, ext Rick Byers wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com 
> <mailto:mbrubeck@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 12/6/2012 12:59 PM, Rick Byers wrote:
>>     Since the goal for the V1 spec is interoperability, I'd vote for
>>     changing the spec and adding this form to the Gecko
>>     implementation - but I don't know what that means for the spec
>>     (do we have to go back to WD?).  I filed
>>     https://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/issues/27 to track.
>     Yes, I think we would have to go back to WD.  I agree that
>     correcting the spec (and Gecko) to match WebKit is the right thing
>     to do, as long as we think it's worth the effort.
>
>
> Thanks Matt.  I don't have a strong opinion on whether it's worth the 
> effort (I guess I don't have a good idea of how much effort that 
> entails).  I'll defer to you guys.  Sorry I didn't raise this issue as 
> soon as I realized that WebKit didn't match the spec (at the time, I 
> thought the right thing to do was just fix WebKit).
>
>     For what it's worth, when we were considering changing
>     createTouch/createTouchList for Touch Events v2, we were not able
>     to find any uses in the wild (outside of test code).  We also
>     planned at one point to drop these methods in v2 and replace them
>     with DOM4-style constructors.  But for now, having an
>     interoperable createTouchList would definitely be beneficial for
>     use cases like automated testing (especially since the v2 work is
>     abandoned).
>
>
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2012 15:34:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 9 December 2012 15:34:07 GMT