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

Re: Moving Touch Events v1 to Recommendation

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:53:01 -0400
Message-ID: <523AAD5D.4060207@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
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>
Hi, Art–

On 9/18/13 8:05 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 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.

I don't think removing the "version 1" limits us in making a v2 Note (or 
not), and if we keep it, it could be confusing to developers or 
implementers whether there's going to be a normative v2.

I don't know of a precedent, per se, but most first specs don't include 
a version number, unless there's intent to do a follow-on.

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 07:53:10 UTC

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