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?

Received on Sunday, 13 January 2013 19:14:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:34 UTC