Re: Moving Touch Events v1 to Recommendation

Hi, Sangwhan, Matt, Art–

Thanks for the approval.

I just made a couple more changes:

1) I removed the “optional” keyword from the WebIDL, because WebIDL says:
[[
The final argument in an operation MUST NOT explicitly be declared to be 
optional if the operation is variadic.
]]

2) I removed the “version 1” from the name of the spec, since we don't 
intend to do a v2.

Let me know if all of this is okay with you.

Regards-
-Doug



On 9/18/13 6:52 AM, S. Moon wrote:
> Doug,
>
> Looks good to me. (Minor nitpick would be to just remove the LC dates
>  rather than comment them out, but since /TR will get the rendered
> page I'd say it's just me being picky) Thanks a lot for the
> follow-up.
>
> Sangwhan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org
> <mailto:schepers@w3.org>> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
<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 21:09:15 UTC