W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Introduction

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 05:11:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4CF61F42.4000906@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
Hi, folks-

I'm Doug Schepers, a W3C employee who is helping to manage the SVG, 
WebApps, and Web Events Working Groups.  I'm the current editor of some 
SVG specs and the DOM3 Events spec, and I expect to be one of the 
co-editors of the Web Events spec or specs.

I agree with Art that describing the current landscape, even for things 
list in the charter as out of scope, is a reasonable path forward. 
Regarding the 4-layer model detailed in the charter, while I believe 
that to be useful background to set the stage, I didn't intend it as a 
concrete starting point for the specs themselves.

I have received several comments offlist that favor the WebKit 
implementation of touch interface events, if only because it is one of 
the more common.  For example, PPK has suggested this explicitly, along 
with some additions [1]; I don't know if there are any IP 
considerations, however.  I'd be interested in different technical opinions.

With regards to the higher-level events, I've started documenting some 
previous work there, too [2].

I think it might be good for us to have an initial teleconference to 
start the work rolling.

[1] http://www.quirksmode.org/mobile/advisoryTouch.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/Landscape

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, WebApps, and Web Events WGs

Arthur Barstow wrote (on 11/27/10 10:03 AM):
> Hi All,
> My primary interest in this WG is moving the Web Events specification
> forward and I think Doug's 4-layer conceptual framework provides a good
> basis to start discussions.
> As we begin our work, I think it would be useful to flesh out our
> Problem Statement. For example: what exactly is the interoperability
> problem(s) we want to address, what are the standardization gaps we want
> to fill, what prior art (e.g. specs, deployments) is relevant, etc.
> Additionally, inputs on Use Cases and Requirements are welcome (as Cathy
> has already done).
> Our Charter's Out of Scope section identifies constraints regarding
> "normative" material. However, the topics above (UCs, reqs, landscape,
> etc.) are "non-normative" and as such, the charter's gesture constraint
> does not necessarily bind us for these non-normative topics.
> I am looking forward to others' introductions and getting this work
> started.
> -Art Barstow
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 10:11:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:53 UTC