Re: Adding implementor's note about event targets?

Looks good to me.  Thanks Art!


On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> On 3/20/13 1:42 PM, ext Olli Pettay wrote:
>
>> On 03/01/2013 03:45 PM, Rick Byers wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for pushing on this Sangwhan, I agree having some wording is
>>> valuable given the issues we've had.
>>>
>>> I want to make sure I understand what the wording means (and ideally
>>> matches our implementation).  When you say 'touch sequence' you mean
>>> the sequence of events for a given touchID, right?  Don't we want to
>>> be stronger than that - making restrictions across multiple touches?
>>> Perhaps something along the lines of the following (with improved
>>> wording - this is rough):
>>>
>>> User agents must ensure that all Touch objects available from a given
>>> TouchEvent are all relative to the same document that the TouchEvent
>>> was dispatched too.  To implement this, user agents should maintain a
>>> notion of the current touch-active document.  On first touch, this is
>>> set to the target of the touch.  When all active touch points are
>>> released, the touch-active document is cleared.  All TouchEvents are
>>> dispatched to the current touch-active document, and each Touch object
>>> it contains refers only to DOM elements (and co-ordinates) in that
>>> document.  If a touch starts entirely outside the currently
>>> touch-active document, then it is ignored entirely.
>>>
>>> Does this match all the implementations?  I'm pretty sure this is what
>>> Chrome does.  Olli?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, matches Gecko. (and I believe Safari+Webkit too)
>>
>
> I went ahead and checked in a change that includes the text proposed
> earlier [1]. This commit puts the Note in a new non-normative section 5.2.
>
> Changeset: <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**webevents/rev/6f2c52cd50f6<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/6f2c52cd50f6>
> >
> Spec: <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**webevents/raw-file/v1/**
> touchevents.html#touchevent-**implementer-s-note<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html#touchevent-implementer-s-note>
> >
>
> Sangwhan, Rick - for the purposes of the LC comment tracking, please let
> us know if this is acceptable or not, and in case it is not, please propose
> text that will address your concerns.
>
> -Thanks, Art
>
> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webevents/**
> 2013JanMar/0073.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013JanMar/0073.html>
> >
>
>
>
>
>>> I'm ok with the wording being less prescriptive, but it should have
>>> something like the first sentence above at least (this is the key
>>> restriction).
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Draft proposal:
>>>>
>>>> User agents must ensure a TouchEvent dispatched from a single
>>>> Document origin stays within the Document boundaries.
>>>>
>>>> In the event of the TouchEvent crossing Document boundaries,
>>>> only the original Document which the first touchstart event
>>>> of a single touch sequence was created will receive consequential
>>>> events, and all event targets of the TouchEvent must only expose
>>>> event targets within the same document.
>>>>
>>>
>> Sound ok to me.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I'm not sure where would be the best location for this to be placed -
>>>> for now I tacked it in the "List of TouchEvents types" section.
>>>>
>>>> Comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Sangwhan
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 26, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Sangwhan - this is one of two comments that is blocking the
>>>>> progression of this spec to Proposed Recommendation [LC-comments].
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you please either withdraw your comment or make a specific
>>>>> proposal by March 1?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Thanks, ArtB
>>>>>
>>>>> [LC-Comments] <http://www.w3.org/2010/**webevents/wiki/TouchEvents-**
>>>>> LCWD-24-Jan-2013<http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TouchEvents-LCWD-24-Jan-2013>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/30/13 1:53 PM, ext Sangwhan Moon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On 1/30/13 12:17 AM, ext Sangwhan Moon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bumping Art's comment from another place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since there has already been cases where implementations had issues
>>>>>>>> with event targets
>>>>>>>> in multiple frame documents, I've been thinking about adding a
>>>>>>>> explicit but non-normative
>>>>>>>> implementor's note about event targets since the spec has been
>>>>>>>> re-opened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please make a specific proposal (including where you think it should
>>>>>>> be inserted in  the spec) and is this a v1 and/or v2 proposal?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should apply to both as it is a bit ambiguous at the moment, I'll
>>>>>> write something more
>>>>>> specific and where it would probably belong best after giving it some
>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sangwhan Moon, Opera Software ASA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>