Re: Can we change default radius to 0 in the touch events extensions

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:

> Thanks Matt.  I've made the following changes and pushed an update here
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/tip/touchevents.html>:
>
>    - added rotationAngle back, and updated text for radiusX to indicate
>    that it's along the axis specified by rotationAngle, while radiusY is
>    perpendicular to that axis.
>    - changed unsupported radius value from 1 to 0
>    - changed radius units from long to float (matching proposed
>    screenX/screenY changes in the v1-errata spec)
>    - updated document date
>    - added myself as an editor (I assume since these changes are
>    non-trivial that's the right procedure, let me know otherwise).
>
> Any feedback?
>

Regarding rotation and radius, while I wasn't a huge fan myself, the
biggest reason for dropping those properties was to ensure interoperability
across implementations. Considering the fact that:

1. WebKit will most likely not change.
2. Gecko's values are dummies values, which can be removed.
3. Presto will not change.
4. IE will most likely not implement.

Unless Mozilla is actually intending to implement it with real values, I
really think existing implementations should drop support for radius and
angle and move that over to the scope of the next iteration of
PointerEvents rather than try to completely scatter interoperability
around. Chromium being the only implementation of a already dead spec that
will break interoperability doesn't sound like a good direction to drive
towards.

So the only implementation that has even a remote possibility of getting
these changes implemented is Gecko, and unless Mozilla will implement a
patch to a dead spec I don't think we should do this - I would actually
vote on trying to *remove* these properties on existing implementations and
move it into the scope of PE where we can get at least one more
implementation to ship. Changing it and making Chromium the only compliant
implementation doesn't seem right.

That said, I probably won't (or more of, can't) proactively try to remove
it on Chromium upstream. (Although there is a chance that I might suggest
removal within the scope of Opera.)

-- 
Sangwhan Moon [Opera Software ASA]
Software Engineer | Tokyo, Japan