- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:39:21 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-touchevents@w3.org" <public-touchevents@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY9k9QCn94ksWgvA67Y-Kwtz_NnWfvn_ycObEmJ_=c9M+g@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote: > 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? > I've now merged this (with some small improvements suggested by Patrick). Happy to make additional improvements as a follow-up if there's any other feedback. 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 Wednesday, 8 July 2015 19:40:11 UTC