- From: Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:46:16 +0900
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: public-webevents@w3.org
On 1/5/13 10:31 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 1/4/13 3:21 PM, ext Rick Byers wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM, <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com >> <mailto:Cathy.Chan@nokia.com>> wrote: >> >> Along a somewhat similar vein (of v1 goal being documenting existing >> implementations), how do we plan to resolve the issue with >> TouchList.identifiedTouch()? As a reminder, the identifiedTouch() >> method is >> implemented in Firefox and Opera but not in WebKit. Should we, for >> example, >> consider making the method optional? >> >> >> Also as another reminder: I agreed to implement this is WebKit, but we >> realized this would have no effect on iOS (since their touch support >> is in a private fork, as far as I can tell) so it's not sufficient to >> satisfy our goal of the spec defining interoperability. Perhaps we >> should just remove it from v1 (and leave it in TEv2) if we're changing >> the spec anyway? > > Making features "optional" creates other problems (e.g. interop). As > such, I tend to agree with Rick that removing identifiedTouch() from v1 > is a reasonable solution. However, I would like to hear from others, at > least: > > * Gecko/Mozilla; Matt, Olli, Boris? > > * Opera: Sangwhan? Making it optional has it's risks, but I would consider making it optional since it is a simple helper method a possibility. The method is implementable using scripts after all, but for implementations that have a native version developers can use that. I'm not sure how many will agree with this though. Sangwhan
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 06:46:58 UTC