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

What do we want to put in the Touch Events v2 WG Note? [Was: Re: ACTION-105 ...]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:12:34 -0400
Message-ID: <525FF052.8010107@nokia.com>
To: Web Events Working Group <public-webevents@w3.org>, Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>
Hi Matt, All,

During WebEvents' October 15 call, we discussed the Touch Events version 
2 Working Group Note [1]. Rather than merging important changes from v1 
to v2 and publishing v2 in its entirety, Rick suggested that it could be 
simpler and more useful if the Note just contained deltas of interfaces 
that have two or more implementations.

I just scanned the v2 ED and noted the following additions and 
differences regarding the interfaces:

1. Touch interface: includes 4 additional attributes: radiusX, radiusY, 
rotationAngle, force

2. TouchList interface: includes 1 additional method: identifiedTouch()

3. TouchEvent interface: includes 1 addtional attribute: relatedTarget

4. Document interface extensions: a) the signature of the createTouch() 
method is different to accommodate the 4 additional attributes of the 
Touch interface; b) v2 has 2 createTouchList() methods rather than one 
and the v1 interface doesn't match either of the v2 interfaces. [I 
believe we consolidated these interfaces based on feedback from Boris 
and that the v1 interface is the `correct` one.]

What are your thoughts on just documenting the key differences?

We also talked a little bit about the criteria for a feature to be 
included in the Note. More specifically, it seems like a feature would 
only be included in the Note if it has two or more implementations. 
Another consideration is the degree of deployment `in the wild` for 
these features. Thus, if (for example) Touch.force has never been 
implemented, it probably should not included. Feedback on these 
considerations is also welcome.

A separate issue is the "Status of the Document" text that describes the 
relationship between the Note and v1, states work on this spec has 
stopped, etc. My expectation is the Editors will propose this text for 
the group to review.

-Thanks, Art

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-webevents-minutes.html#item02>


On 10/15/13 11:24 AM, ext Web Events Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> ACTION-105: Followup with matt re if tev2 note should be `full spec` or just the `extra pieces` that have been implemented (Web Events Working Group)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/actions/105
>
> On: Arthur Barstow
> Due: 2013-10-22
>
> If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please update your settings at:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/track/users/7672#settings
>
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 14:16:13 UTC

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