Re: Errata for Touch Events REC

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 4/13/15 5:21 PM, Rick Byers wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com
>> <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi All,
>>
>>     The errata for the Touch Events REC [1] is still mostly empty and
>>     it contains what I would characterize as a somewhat surprising
>>     statement:
>>
>>     [[
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-touch-events-20131010/REC-
>> touch-events-20131010-errata.html>
>>     ...
>>
>>     An updated specification will be located at WebPlatform Specs.
>>     ]]
>>
>>     I say "surprising" because I don't recall us agreeing to publish
>>     an update at specs.webplatform.org <http://specs.webplatform.org>.
>>     Would someone please clarify?
>>
>>
>> IIRC Doug said that was the new preferred path for publishing errata the
>> last time we discussed the errata process on a call.  Perhaps "updated
>> specification" is misleading though :-)
>>
>>     Anyhow, what, if anything should be added to the errata document?
>>     Does the CG have consensus about text for the errata document?
>>     Alternatively, perhaps the errata document could link to a version
>>     of the spec that is the REC + agreed errata text (all inlined, and
>>     perhaps styled such all of the changes from the REC are very
>>     clearly identifiable and enumerated in the Changes Since last Pub
>>     section)?
>>
>>     Personally, I think having a document that is the REC + agreed
>>     errata changes is more useful than adding text to the errata document.
>>
>>
>> I like that plan too.  From our recent call though it sounds like some of
>> the 'errata' changes we've made may need to be considered normative.  Eg.
>> fractional co-ordinates.  That one change alone is important enough to me
>> (and, IMHO, the platform) that I wouldn't want to let it fall through the
>> cracks.  So perhaps we should be talking more about publishing a minor v1.1
>> update instead of worrying about errata?
>>
>
> Yes, I think the consensus is to put all of the changes in a single
> document and then Doug and I (and anyone interested in the `sausage
> making`) will figure out how to get that doc published as a Technical
> Report.
>
> BTW, what is the rough status and plan of that document (perhaps we should
> call it TE Level 2)? Have all of the changes we want to make been added to
> one of the branches (and if yes, which branch)?  Do we want to block
> publication pending more feedback from implementations and deployment? I
> noticed there are some open issues <https://github.com/w3c/touch-
> events/issues>.
>

We've got two branches/documents at the moment - v1-errata and 'master'
which has the TEE.  It sounds like we should merge the errata and TEE back
into a single document in master (returning us to single-branch sanity), is
that right?  I'd want to make sure we have consensus on this before making
the change.

There are still a few outstanding issues / changes.  I haven't been in any
big rush to get them done (as I don't currently have any impl work blocked
on further spec changes), but perhaps I should be making that a priority?


> -Thanks, AB
>
>
>