Re: Next steps for Web Events WG

On 5/9/13 1:57 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Regarding the next steps for this group ...
>
> * Touch Events v1 - the next step to get v1 to Recommendation is to 
> wait until the Web IDL reference is a Proposed Recommendation or to 
> write webidlharness tests that prove two or more implementations 
> implement all of the spec's IDL. I'm not entirely sure what this 
> latter approach means in practice so perhaps Doug can clarify the 
> minimal amount of webidlharness testing that is required.

I talked to Doug and PLH about what must be done to satisfy the Touch 
Events v1 spec's normative Web IDL dependency requirement.

Doug suggested two clarifications:

1. Status of the Document:

[[
By publishing this Recommendation, W3C expects that the functionality
specified in this Touch Interface Recommendation will not be affected by
changes to HTML5 or Web IDL as those specifications proceed to
Recommendation.
]]

2. Section 2 Conformance - change statement about Web IDL to:

WebIDL
         The IDL blocks in this specification are conforming IDL
         fragments as defined by the WebIDL specification. [WEBIDL]
]]

These seem like reasonable clarifications to me.

Philippe asked about the status of WebIDL's getter and if there are any 
tests. I forwarded those questions to Cameron McCormack (the Editor of 
Web IDL) and he reported:

[[
I'd say getter is pretty stable -- it is needed for interfaces like 
NodeList, and they aren't going to be losing their array indexing any 
time soon.  There have been no requests to change the syntax used (the 
getter keyword).  There are tests for indexed property getters in my 
fork of the web-platform-tests repo, which are also in that pull request 
I recently did.

You can look at the feature index:

https://github.com/heycam/web-platform-tests/blob/submission/heycam/WebIDL-tests-1/WebIDL/tests/submissions/heycam/features-by-type.txt

and find the tests under "indexed property getter".
]]

As I understand it, PLH and Doug consider this information from Cam plus 
the proposed clarifications above as sufficient to satisfy the Web IDL 
dependencies, and if the Director agrees, the TEv1 spec can be published 
as a Recommendation.

If anyone has any comments about the proposed clarifications and/or new 
info from Cam, please reply by September 9 at the latest.

-Thanks, ArtB

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 11:05:06 UTC