Pointer Events Published (was: Pointer Events Recommendation delayed by a Formal Objection)

Hi, folks–

I'd like to thank and congratulate everyone who contributed to the 
Pointer Events specification. As you probably know now, Pointer Events 
has now been published as a W3C Recommendation [1][2].

Scott González (jQuery Foundation) and Jacob Rossi (Microsoft) published 
some good blog posts on the publication [3][4].

These blog posts address a serious issue: the lack of universal 
interoperability, and competition with the Touch Events technology (also 
published by W3C). We hope that with work and developer interest, this 
will change over time.

This same issue was the basis for some valid concerns and a Formal 
Objection by Yandex, on behalf of developers, a point which I'm sure we 
all appreciate; we are all trying to improve the experience for users 
and developers. W3C's Director took this feedback seriously, but 
ultimately decided that publication of Pointer Events as a 
Recommendation was the best path forward. Here is an excerpt of the 
Member-only decision:

In considering this objection, we note […] that the Pointer Events 
specification provides application access to additional data for some 
devices (e.g. pen) that is not provided by the Touch Events 
specification.  The lack of an Recommendation for access to these 
devices is an impediment to developers whose applications wish to use 
these devices to the full extent of their capability.

While in general having one technology design per feature is often 
better, it has never been a criterion for W3C that two Recommendations 
may not cover common features with different techniques.  In this case 
both sets of interfaces have been implemented in the market and we 
believe that it is in the best interest of the Web Platform at this time 
to allow developers to innovate on both Pointer Events and Touch Events.

Again, thanks to you all, and it's been a pleasure to work with you in 
this working group!

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-pointerevents-20150224/
[3] http://blog.jquery.com/2015/02/24/getting-on-point/


On 2/5/15 10:58 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> Hi folks,
> [I got the core of our objection onto the public list now, so we can
> continue the discussion there if you like]
> 05.02.2015, 18:39, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>:
>> Hi, Patrick–
>> On 2/5/15 9:45 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2015 14:29, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>> In principle, what's the process here? Do we get a chance to
>>> respond to the objection?
>> Just to let you know the process:
> [sensible process as far as I can tell]
>> 3) No formal decision by the Director has been made yet, but it
>> will be made and announced soon. At this point, the Director is
>> making another attempt to find a mutually acceptable path forward.
>> I expect this to be resolved (one way or another) in the next
>> week.
>> I apologize for the delay, and the lack of clarity thus far. I'm
>> somewhat hampered in what I can say because of member and team
>> confidentiality.
> Yup. Sorry.
>> At the same time, however, it's important that we treat Formal
>> Objections (from anyone) seriously, and try our best to find a
>> mutually acceptable path forward, even if it causes a short delay.
> Agreed.
>> I can see an argument for this whole process to be more open and
>> transparent, with a notification to the WG about the Formal
>> Objection right away.
> That's really an argument about process, not one for this group, but
> I would have been fine with that - and it might have pushed my
> priority stack in a way that would have made life better for people.
>> However, that would invite an even lengthier discussion, and we
>> hoped that an initial call with objector and the Director might
>> make that unnecessary. Unfortunately, that did not happen, putting
>> the publication on hold until a final decision has been made.
>> Because of that, at this point, Art appropriately decided to let
>> the WG know why the spec wasn't published.
>> (Personally (e.g. not an official W3C stance), I think Formal
>> Objections, and the meeting with the Director to discuss them,
>> should all be done on the public record. But that's not my decision
>> to make; it's up to the Advisory Committee.)
> Noted for the process task force and the AC. But my personal position
> is that this won't always fly, and I would prefer to prioritise the
> input over transparency if it really came down to it. My experience
> is that there has generally been a reasonable amount of transparency
> provided "post hoc", without compromising the confidence that enables
> frank input to be heard by the director and judged.
> cheers
> Chaals
> -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 19:34:48 UTC