- From: Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 04:05:04 +0900
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: "public-webevents@w3.org WG" <public-webevents@w3.org>
On Mar 21, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 3/20/13 1:39 PM, ext Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On 3/20/13 12:47 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>> Boris - I updated the spec per your requests [1], [2]. >>> >>> For the purposes of Last Call comment tracking, would you please review >>> the changes and let us know if the changes are OK or not. >> >> The changes are mostly fine. >> >> The only one that's not is the change to item(). I think what you want is more like this: >> >> returns the Touch at the specified index in the list or null if the >> index is not less than the length of the list. > > Done. > >> and you want a separate bit of prose either in a section 4.3 or at toplevel in section 4 that says: >> >> A TouchList object's supported property indices are the numbers in >> the range 0 to one less than the length of the list. > > Done. > >> with bonus points for "supported property indices" linking to http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-supported-property-indices > > Reference to WebIDL added but not a direct link to that definition. > > The changeset is <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/0edc668e7910>. > >> P.S. An editorial nit: "Return type: getter Touch" is pretty weird; I assume that's being auto-generated by some software that's not actually using a full-fledged WebIDL parser... > > Yeah, that's an artifact of ReSpec that I don't know how to fix but I'll make sure the "getter" is removed before the spec is copied to w3.org/TR/. I was encountering this *exact* problem while attempting to make this change. I'll look into this, as it seems like a respec bug that we'll need to work around. I recall replying to this thread on the 18th, but for some ridiculous reason the webmail client decided to only send it to Ms2ger (I'm not sure about this bit, but I find it very likely) - and not leave it in my sent box either - so I don't have the original mail.. but the points were: 1) Proposed changes look good. 2) I'm on it. (2) doesn't matter anymore it seems, thanks a lot for looking into this. -- Sangwhan Moon, Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 19:05:47 UTC