- From: Rick Byers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 20:14:14 +0000
- To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
> so i guess that's kosher? I don't see why not. REC specs can reference ED specs if necessary, right? It probably needs to be clear what the behavior is supposed to be when that API isn't supported (as I think it is in this case). > by refactoring i assume you mean moving the "direct manipulation pointing device" bit into the glossary https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#glossary and then reworking both 10.3 and the top of section 9 accordingly? if so, happy to give it a shot... The glossary is non-normative to help readers understand the meaning of terms. Is that good enough here? Or do we need some normative section like one that's defining an algorithm? Personally it doesn't really make a difference to me - as long as (as a group) we'd be OK having a test for this (though I'm not sure if this change itself necessarily warrants a new test). @NavidZ I guess we don't have a way currently to test the difference between a "touch-like pen" and "mouse-like pen" in our automation API, right? Perhaps we should? -- GitHub Notification of comment by RByers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/202#issuecomment-299564845 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 5 May 2017 20:14:20 UTC