RE: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

Classification: Honeywell Internal

This particular issue may only be the tip of the iceberg.

I suspect fixing the problem will require some significant changes to both specs in order to make them consistent with each other. In this particular case, it will most likely mean making the Pointer spec pointer type a subset of the EMMA device type. Making that change, however, will likely result in other changes as well.

Steve H.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow []
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:46 AM
To: Hickman, Steve (AdvTech)
Subject: Re: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

On 10/1/13 11:11 AM, ext Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason why one spec can't just refer to the other one for this concept?

Perhaps you can solve this problem by EMMA1.1 (still in WD phase) referencing the Pointer Event spec (Candidate Recommendation).


This message classified as Honeywell Internal by Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 at 9:28:26 AM.
The above classification labels are in accordance with the Honeywell Corporate Classification Policy.  The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual/entity named above, and the information may be privileged. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the original message.

Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 16:29:03 UTC