- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:36:49 -0400
- To: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- CC: Sangwhan Moon <sangwhan@iki.fi>, Dave Methvin <dave.methvin@gmail.com>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
On 4/13/15 9:19 PM, Rick Byers wrote: > > Agreed. I prefer #1, but I'm biased , having never implemented level > 1 ;-) > I also prefer #1. If someone wants a `delta view` of the spec (aka #2 below), that should be relatively easy to generate. I would also recommend we keep the `Changes since last publication` section up to date. -ArtB > > I'll wait for your house keeping before submitting any PRs. > > On Apr 13, 2015 7:45 PM, "Jacob Rossi" <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com > <mailto:Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>> wrote: > > I was going to do some house cleaning to the spec (e.g. make it > say “Level 2” or something) to prepare for this stuff first. > /But/, it made me realize we should have a conversation about the > spec approach. There’s basically 2 options: > > 1)Continue with the current spec and call it Level 2. Adapt > features and make changes/extensions to existing algorithms/APIs > inline. > > 2)Write an extension spec that just documents what’s new and changed. > > I could see either one as being acceptable (e.g. I abstain from a > vote :-p). But they would substantially change your PR. So maybe > we should just put a stake in the ground and go with one or the other? >
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 11:37:22 UTC