W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > July to September 2013

Moving Touch Events v1 to Recommendation

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:28:19 -0400
Message-ID: <5238F3A3.5080707@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>, Sangwhan Moon <me@sangwhan.com>
Hi, Matt, Sangwhan–

I preparation for transitioning the Touch Interface specification to 
Recommendation status, I've made the two changes in the spec that Art 
lists below.

Since you are editors of the specification, we'd like your explicit 
approval to make this change at this stage. Could you please review the 
specification and reply with your approval, in the next couple of days? 
It should only take you 5 minutes or so.

Regards-
-Doug

On 9/4/13 7:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 5/9/13 1:57 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Regarding the next steps for this group ...
>>
>> * Touch Events v1 - the next step to get v1 to Recommendation is to
>> wait until the Web IDL reference is a Proposed Recommendation or to
>> write webidlharness tests that prove two or more implementations
>> implement all of the spec's IDL. I'm not entirely sure what this
>> latter approach means in practice so perhaps Doug can clarify the
>> minimal amount of webidlharness testing that is required.
>
> I talked to Doug and PLH about what must be done to satisfy the Touch
> Events v1 spec's normative Web IDL dependency requirement.
>
> Doug suggested two clarifications:
>
> 1. Status of the Document:
>
> [[
> By publishing this Recommendation, W3C expects that the functionality
> specified in this Touch Interface Recommendation will not be affected by
> changes to HTML5 or Web IDL as those specifications proceed to
> Recommendation.
> ]]
>
> 2. Section 2 Conformance - change statement about Web IDL to:
>
> WebIDL
>          The IDL blocks in this specification are conforming IDL
>          fragments as defined by the WebIDL specification. [WEBIDL]
> ]]
>
> These seem like reasonable clarifications to me.
>
> Philippe asked about the status of WebIDL's getter and if there are any
> tests. I forwarded those questions to Cameron McCormack (the Editor of
> Web IDL) and he reported:
>
> [[
> I'd say getter is pretty stable -- it is needed for interfaces like
> NodeList, and they aren't going to be losing their array indexing any
> time soon.  There have been no requests to change the syntax used (the
> getter keyword).  There are tests for indexed property getters in my
> fork of the web-platform-tests repo, which are also in that pull request
> I recently did.
>
> You can look at the feature index:
>
> https://github.com/heycam/web-platform-tests/blob/submission/heycam/WebIDL-tests-1/WebIDL/tests/submissions/heycam/features-by-type.txt
>
>
> and find the tests under "indexed property getter".
> ]]
>
> As I understand it, PLH and Doug consider this information from Cam plus
> the proposed clarifications above as sufficient to satisfy the Web IDL
> dependencies, and if the Director agrees, the TEv1 spec can be published
> as a Recommendation.
>
> If anyone has any comments about the proposed clarifications and/or new
> info from Cam, please reply by September 9 at the latest.
>
> -Thanks, ArtB
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 00:28:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:55 UTC