W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: CfC: Start a new Community Group for TouchEvent and PointerEvent Mapping; deadline October 22

From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:13:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFUtAY99bN23uXbY0CHAfJ=-tFpgJGd9V1DXZ0u3f1WqMpHSHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
I think this is a great way forward, beyond just the PE/TE mapping.  I'd
love to have a vendor neutral place to discuss other differences in touch
event behavior between browsers and try to form consensus on the best
approaches for interoperability outside of what's already standardized.
 He's some of the things I can imagine being in scope:

   - How touch-action should be implemented in browsers that support touch
   events (eg. my
   - What the right TE/PE interaction is for both browsers and pointer
   event polyfills (eg. I have some initial notes
   - Trying to form consensus on how exactly browsers should behave in
   sending touch events when scrolling stars (eg. public-web-events thread
   - What other differences exist between
   - Discuss problems web/framework devs are having with the design of
   touch events (eg. my issues

Would it be reasonable to define the community group as the touch events
community group, primarily for browser and framework developers to discuss
the issues with touch events and make proposals for potential future
standards (including the PE/TE mapping)?


On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> Hi All,
> During the October 15 call [1], we discussed the Touch Events and Pointer
> Events mapping document including its scope, important issues and questions
> to document, etc. We also discussed options for how to create and maintain
> the document.
> A key conclusion of the discussion is we currently do not have
> interoperable implementations of Pointer Events nor do we have at least two
> browsers that fully support both events. Additionally, we believe it will
> be several months before we have sufficient implementation and deployment
> data to create a useful mapping document. At the same time, the group's
> charter expires in the middle of November (three years after the group
> started).
> Doug and I discussed the various options regarding how to structure the
> mapping work and we propose a new Community Group (CG) be created for this
> work. A CG has a number of advantages including light-weight process to
> start and run, an open environment for the work and the potential to
> publish the mapping as a CG Final Report/Spec. At the end of the CG's work,
> the CG could propose their work be `furthered` by a Working Group (an
> existing WG or a new WG).
> We would like everyone's feedback on this proposal so please consider this
> e-mail as a Call for Consensus (CfC) to start a new Community Group for the
> mapping document.
> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
> public-webevents@w3.org by October 22 at the latest. Positive response is
> preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with
> the proposal.
> -Thanks, Art and Doug
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-**webevents-minutes.html#item03<http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html#item03>
> >
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 14:14:14 UTC

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