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: <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:08:31 +0000
To: <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, <public-webevents@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A46437648ECB3D4F852B077AFF9099F51C8EB02D@008-AM1MPN1-062.mgdnok.nokia.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)
> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 10:34 AM
> To: public-webevents@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Touch events] createTouchList should probably take a
> sequence, not an IDL array
> 
> 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?)

Indeed the change will be fairly trivial.
- Cathy.

> 
> 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 Monday, 10 December 2012 20:09:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 December 2012 20:09:04 GMT