- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:10:13 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-touchevents@w3.org" <public-touchevents@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY-L=3gyVoBdO5bXrO6f_NfYytQQYdRH4oYiub+aF0L2SQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote: > 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 > I finally got around to doing this (sorry for the delay): https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/pull/14. The diff is a little messed up because it represents merging all the v1-erata work into master (when really it's mostly about adding a couple paragraphs from the TEE into the v1-erata document). More useful is to look just at the diff of touchevents.html here <https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/compare/v1-errata...RByers:merged-v2>. You can see the final result here <http://rawgit.com/RByers/touch-events/merged-v2/touchevents.html>. If we approve this, then I can follow-up with a big branch clean-up - closing v1-eratta and renaming 'master' to gh-pages so that we'll effectively have the same simple setup as for pointerevents. Thoughts? > 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 >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 3 July 2015 00:11:13 UTC