- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:08:11 -0400
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY_dh9HKkU_dqi4fr38qYfzX9pQ3upc9VPs4XBSWYfxYRw@mail.gmail.com>
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