Re: Errata for Touch Events REC

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 4/14/15 9:10 AM, Rick Byers wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com
>> <mailto: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>
>>         <mailto: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> <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.
>>
>
> Yes, doing that merge seems right to me.


> Re getting consensus, perhaps the simplest thing to do is to create a PR
> and then announce it with a short-ish review cycle that will result in
> merging the PR if no one raises any objections by the end of the cycle.


Ok, I will do that sometime soon

 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?
>>
>
> If the REC being out of date is causing problems (for developers,
> implementers, etc.), then I would say, yes, getting a new TR published is
> something we should do sooner rather than later.
>

I haven't seen any concrete evidence that this is causing problems for
people (but there is always random confusion about TE behavior which may be
eased by some of the editorial changes we've made).

-ArtB
>
>
>