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

Re: [Touch events] identifiedTouch

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:13:52 -0500
Message-ID: <50F30770.8040602@nokia.com>
To: ext Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>
CC: public-webevents@w3.org
On 1/8/13 1:46 AM, ext Sangwhan Moon wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I think everyone that has expressed an opinion is OK with removing 
identifedTouch for v1.

We could, however, keep it in v2. Would doing so address your concern?

-Art
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2013 19:14:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 13 January 2013 19:14:45 GMT