- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 16:59:04 -0500
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Cc: "public-touchevents@w3.org" <public-touchevents@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY8H-tQpiGN5WoFwYdUpCzzU4VrhWbvA4HFmwaEy4HhM8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Better (very) late than never. I think I finally replied to all of your comments - so sorry for taking so long. This is important to me, I'll be more responsive in the future (this all just came at a really bad time for me where I was totally overloaded). Anything else I need to do to move this forward? On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > On 07/10/2014 13:47, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> [...] for *each* change, we must >> decide if the change is substantive enough ("class" 3 or 4 in [ProcDoc]) >> to require the spec to be published as an "Edited Recommendation" and >> let's just say things get "a little complicated". >> > > To set the ball in motion again on the boatload of errata proposals I sent > recently, I had a quick skim over them in light of the above. I believe > that most of them fall under simple editorial errata (no changes to text > content - e.g. my insistence on using <code> etc) and clarifications > (corrections that do not affect conformance - e.g. introducing the term > "compatibility events" and tidying up the language a bit to be clearer). > The only potential substantive change would be the errata I just queried > again, concerning the fact that UAs seem to (mostly) fire compatibility > events only for a single finger interaction - this is not mentioned at all > in the current TE, and it does seem that UAs already behave slightly > differently...but my proposed change (if you feel like it's worth doing) > would be mostly a "we don't actually define here what happens when there's > more than one finger...but here's some informative thing about only firing > them generally when it's a single finger" kind of addition, so perhaps this > is more borderline clarification (as it would be informative, not > normative, and would not change conformance/non-conformance status of UAs > that have already implemented TEs) > > Anything else needed to move forward on these? > > > P > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > > www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke > http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke > >
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2014 21:59:51 UTC