W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: PFWG comments on Touch Events

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:47:26 -0500
Message-ID: <4ED6884E.2040806@nokia.com>
To: ext Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, public-webevents@w3.org
CC: List WAI PF <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, List WAI Liaison <wai-liaison@w3.org>
Hi Michael,

During WebEvents' November 22 voice conf, we agreed to move this spec to 
Candidate Recommendation and a related CfC is now open (until December 
1). Given this, I think your response today, to my October 13 reply to 
you, is more than a "little late" ;-).

Nevertheless, we propose to proceed this way ...

Section 7 is all about normative UA requirements. We view your proposed 
addition as a non-informative note/hint/advice for Web applications 
(developers). As such, a few of us discussed your proposal today in 
#webevents. We agreed your proposed text would be a good addition as a 
non-normative Note and I added it as such in the version of the spec we 
will publish as a CR (in December):


For the purposes of LC comment tracking, we will assume this is an 
acceptable resolution for PFWG unless we hear otherwise (a response 
either way is preferred).

WebEvents members - if you have any additional feedback on this new 
text, please speak up by December 1 at the latest.


On 11/30/11 1:10 PM, ext Michael Cooper wrote:
> Below are comments from the Protocols and Formats Working Group on the 
> 27 October 2011 Touch Events Last Call Working Draft 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20111027/. Apologies they 
> are a little late, it takes us a while to get group discussion 
> together. Approval to send these as PFWG comments is archived at 
> https://www.w3.org/2011/11/30-pf-minutes.html#item13.
> We have no new comments, but wanted to provide a disposition on our 
> previously submitted comments that the PF working group submitted for 
> the 13 September version of the specification.
> > 1) If a Web application can deal with touch events, it can intercept
> > them, and the idea is that in this case no corresponding mouse events
> > will be dispatched. However, if the Web application is not
> > specifically written for touch input devices, it can react to the
> > subsequent mouse events instead. This can be a powerful paradigm, but
> > it is not fully described in this spec. The relation between touch
> > events and mouse events should be explained in more detail for authors
> > who want to achieve device independence.  There is a general need for
> > a "primer" document in the W3C space explaining the various DOM events
> > and how they relate to each other, also providing best practices of
> > device-specific and device-independent authoring.
> For Section 7 of the document we propose the following text is 
> inserted into the first paragraph before the last sentence:
> If a Web application can process touch events, it can intercept them, 
> and no corresponding mouse events would need to be dispatched by the 
> user agent. If the Web application is not specifically written for 
> touch input devices, it can react to the subsequent mouse events instead.
> > 2) Minor editorial issues with the spec:
> >
> > - Section 3.1: For each of the attributes, the unit should be
> > mentioned (device pixels, CSS pixels, etc.)
> >
> > - Section 7: The "preventDefault" method should be explained or listed
> > in the glossary.
> The updates that have been made are sufficient to address these 
> editorial comments.
> -- 
> Michael Cooper
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
> E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
> Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 19:48:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:54 UTC