Re: Writing expanded notes for (now closed) Touch Events spec?

On 2/27/14 11:16 PM, ext Rick Byers wrote:
> I had intended to talk about some of this in the touch events 
> community wiki.  I'm not sure how much value there is in publishing an 
> updated spec and going through the whole w3c process.  I'm not opposed 
> to it though if someone else wants to do the work <grin>.  But I think 
> there was consensus in the former TouchEvents WG that we considered 
> this spec dead to enable us to focus on pointer events instead (except 
> perhaps in the case of any serious errors).

I think Rick's characterization of the TEWG's position on future work on 
the Touch Events spec is accurate.

On 2/25/14 5:05 AM, ext Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Based on a quick conversation with Doug on Twitter the other day 
> I'm 
> wondering if there's any desire in this CG to expand on the current 
> W3C Touch Events spec to define things that have been left quite vague? 

I think executing the CG's plan to flesh out compatibility issues and 
such should continue to be the group's main focus. (If/when there is 
convincing evidence and consensus the Touch Events spec must be updated, 
we can discuss the relevant process issues.)

> Or should I just file some open issues here 
> ?

Could you use what Rick started instead: 

Doug should clarify the process question here but it is my understanding 
that  CGs aren't supposed to use Tracker (although if Doug says its OK 
and folks agree to use it, that would be fine with me).


Received on Friday, 28 February 2014 12:29:20 UTC