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

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

From: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:08:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFUtAY_dh9HKkU_dqi4fr38qYfzX9pQ3upc9VPs4XBSWYfxYRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
Quick question.  I see http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/ still links to
the PR version.  Shouldn't that link be updated to point to the REC?

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> 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/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4430?pk_campaign=
> feed&pk_kwd=pointer-events-is-a-w3c-recommendation
> [3] http://blog.jquery.com/2015/02/24/getting-on-point/
> [4] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2015/02/24/pointer-
> events-w3c-recommendation-interoperable-touch-and-
> removing-the-dreaded-300ms-tap-delay.aspx
>
>
> Regards–
> –Doug
>
> 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 Monday, 30 March 2015 22:08:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 30 March 2015 22:09:00 UTC