Re: PFWG comments on Touch Events

Thanks for checking with us and apologies for the delay in our review
timeline. The PFWG accepts your disposition of this comment.
http://www.w3.org/2011/12/07-pf-minutes.html#item11

Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 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):
>
>  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html#mouse-events
>
>
> 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.
>
> -AB
>
> 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/>
>>
>

-- 

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/>