Re: [April2014Meeting] Seeking status and plans from Editors not attending meeting; deadline April 9

On 4/3/14 11:29 AM, ext Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> Implementation status:

Thanks for this information Ted!

Re testing, are you and/or Scott going to submit tests? If not, is there 
someone else that can help/lead the testing effort?

> Plan for last call status:
> I think we'd consider the spec primarily feature complete at this point.
> It seems to meet the use cases we intended. There's a lot more that
> could be added to a future version, but we have two compatible
> implementations shipping right now so it seems like a good place to
> stop.

Yes, I think that makes sense.

> The only compelling thing I've seen mentioned that we should
> address soon is the interaction with systems where the gamepad is also
> used for controlling the browser UI, such as on consoles, which was
> discussed recently on the list[2].

By soon, do you mean in v1 or a subsequent version of the spec.

> There is one spec bug filed that I know describes an incompatibility
> between the Chrome and Firefox implementations[3]. It's not terrible for
> content authors to work around (if their code works in Chrome it will
> work in Firefox), but we should tighten the spec language to make the
> expected behavior there clear. I think that's the only thing that
> absolutely needs doing before we could get to last call status.

Given this, perhaps the "best" way forward is to address this high 
priority bug before a LCWD is published.

I also think it would be helpful if new features and requirements beyond 
what is already specified were documented. As I mentioned to Vincent re 
PointerLock, such features can be documented in a wiki (such as 
[IDB-Features], Bugzilla, etc.

(If you want to use a wiki for tracking, I'm willing to bootstrap 

-Thanks, Art

[IDB-Features] <(If you want to use a wiki, I'm willing to bootstrap it.) >

Received on Friday, 4 April 2014 12:41:03 UTC