Looks fine to me. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>wrote: > This looks good to me. > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > >> Hi, folks– >> >> TimBL (the Director), while generally supportive of moving the Web Events >> spec forward and resolving the WebIDL dependency expeditiously, wasn't >> satisfied with the wording we proposed around conforming only to the WebIDL >> syntax; he wanted for us to make as strong a claim as possible, while not >> exaggerating the conformance we anticipate. >> >> So, PLH and I asked Cameron McCormack, the editor of WebIDL, how he >> thinks we could most accurately and precisely characterized the Touch >> Events spec's conformance criterion for WebIDL, and he suggested some text >> which I've included in the Editor's Draft of the spec [1]. TimBL accepted >> this text. >> >> We believe that this is both accurate and informative, and neither >> overstates nor understates the requirements for an implementation >> conforming to WebIDL in the context of Touch Events. >> >> Assuming this WG is happy with this text, and if we have no objections >> from the WebApps WG (ArtB, can you handle that?), the next step would be to >> move the Web Events spec to Recommendation (possibly as soon as next week). >> >> Is this text acceptable to everyone? >> >> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**webevents/raw-file/v1/** >> touchevents.html#webidl-**conform<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html#webidl-conform> >> >> Regards- >> -Doug >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 13:32:12 UTC