W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: Automating W3C Test Execution with WebDriver for Pointer Events

From: David Burns <dburns@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:43:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAoW2AFZ1DibYkPvHDzd=BcNxU-o--p3BoJabhvtONPpm4m_dQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org" <public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org>, Pointer Events WG <public-pointer-events@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>, John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
As James said, A Bugzilla bug[1] would be preferable. Jacob I suggest
speaking to John Jansen since he is helping move forward the microsoft
implementation and has already contributed to the WebDriver spec.

David

[1]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?comment=&component=WebDriver&product=Browser+Test%2FTools+WG&blocked=20860

On 18 June 2015 at 12:06, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:

> On 18/06/15 11:48, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/15 7:51 PM, David Burns wrote:
>>
>>> When the low level actions was written when Chrome had said that they
>>> were not going to Pointer Events so they are in need of rewrite. It
>>> also needs a rewrite for other reasons so let me know what changes you
>>> would like to have and I will try to accomodate them. I will be
>>> tackling this soon.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks David!
>>
>> If someone has input, do you prefer a Bugzilla bug [B], a GG Issue [GH],
>> e-mail to [p-b-t-t], reply to this thread, and/or something else? And if
>> there is a deadline, please let us know.
>>
>
> I think bugzilla is the best place for "this is a bug in the spec" type
> feedback. For things that are more like topics of discussion I suggest
> using the list directly. So far GH issues are not really being used.
>
> The group is chartered until the end of the year so if you think about
> deadlines in Process terms, it rather behooves us to have something that
> looks like it might get published by then. If you want to think about it in
> more practical terms, there are people implementing right now, so the
> sooner the better.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2015 13:43:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 18 June 2015 13:43:40 UTC