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

Re: Moving Touch Events v1 to Recommendation

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 20:05:18 -0400
Message-ID: <523A3FBE.5070509@nokia.com>
To: ext Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
CC: "S. Moon" <innodb@gmail.com>, "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>, Sangwhan Moon <me@sangwhan.com>
On 9/18/13 5:09 PM, ext Doug Schepers wrote:
> 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.
> ]]

This is OK with me (although this additional constraint doesn't seem 
necessary when the final argument is the first argument in when 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.

Well, our plan of record as recorded in 
<http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/ToDo#Touch_Events_v2> says we 
will produce a v2 version although it will be a WG Note.

Assuming we still intend to publish the v2 Note, we can of course 
eliminate "version 1" from our v1 Recommendation but I'm not sure if we 
should or not. Is there a good precedence here? ATM, I don't have a 
strong opinion either way.

-AB


>
> 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 Thursday, 19 September 2013 00:18:55 UTC

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