- From: Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:43:58 +0900
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>, Christophe Jolif <christophe.jolif@fr.ibm.com>, Sebastien Pereira <spereira@fr.ibm.com>
- Message-ID: <CAFWyatp4TCzmhFTNQL+tn3eztxpBpR7kVXC0Y_4kexyc9j7gnQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote: > Hi All, > > Here is my straw-man proposal for the three boilerplate items that need to > be defined when the new Community Group is proposed. You'll notice the > Group Description borrows heavily from Rick's feedback on the CfC. > > 1. Name: "Touch Events" i.e. "Touch Events Community Group". > > 2. Group Description: > > [[ > The Touch Events community group was formed by members of the Web Events > Working Group (responsible for the Touch Events specification) and the > Pointer Events Working Group (responsible for the Pointer Events spec). The > group's focus is differences in touch event behavior between browsers. The > group seeks to form consensus on the best approaches for interoperability > outside of what's already standardized. > > Among the topics in scope for this group: > > * Defining how touch-action should be implemented in browsers that > support touch events; see [1]. > > * Defining the "right" TouchEvent / PointerEvent interaction for both > browsers and pointer event polyfills; see [2]. > > * Trying to form consensus on how exactly browsers should behave in > sending touch events when scrolling stars (f.ex. see the following > public-webevents thread [3]). > > * Identifying other differences that exist between these events. > > * Discussing problems web/framework developers have with the design of > touch events; see [4]. > > Additionally, the group will define "mappings" between Touch Events and > Pointer Events" (f.ex. see [5]). The group also expects to make proposals > for potential future standards. > > [1] <https://docs.google.com/**document/d/**1CV2AXyrdPdGSRypAQcfGrgQVuWYi5 > **0EzTmVsMLWgRPM/<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CV2AXyrdPdGSRypAQcfGrgQVuWYi50EzTmVsMLWgRPM/> > > > [2] <https://docs.google.com/**document/d/**1Sasl1qYJV6agrDvGplEYlZznzc38U > **-TFN_3a67-nlSc/<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sasl1qYJV6agrDvGplEYlZznzc38U-TFN_3a67-nlSc/> > > > [3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webevents/** > 2013AprJun/0040.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013AprJun/0040.html> > > > [4] <https://docs.google.com/**document/d/12-HPlSIF7-**ISY8TQHtuQ3IqDi-** > isZVI0Yzv5zwl90VU/<https://docs.google.com/document/d/12-HPlSIF7-ISY8TQHtuQ3IqDi-isZVI0Yzv5zwl90VU/> > > > [5] < https://docs.google.com/**spreadsheet/ccc?key=** > 0AvdBn9Kvx22qdGRnRXNPb0ZBTUl3S**EkwdUdtaW9pWWc&usp=sharing<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvdBn9Kvx22qdGRnRXNPb0ZBTUl3SEkwdUdtaW9pWWc&usp=sharing> > > > ]] > > 3. Short name: "touchevents"; this will be used for things like the mail > list name (e.g. public-touchevents) and the group's home page e.g. ( > w3.org/community/touchevents/**). > > Comments, corrections, alternate proposals as well as +1's for all of the > above are welcome but please reply by October 25. > > Note that after the CG is proposed, at least 4 other people with W3C > accounts must register their support for the CG in order for it to be > created. As such, I will notify this list and the public-pointerevents list > after I submit the proposal. > > Assuming the CG is created, the details of how the group actually operates > (f.ex. if a `charter` is created or not), the group's scope, schedule, > deliverables, work mode, etc. is left for the group to decide. (FWIW, my > current expectation is that I will join the group and that others will > lead/chair the group.) > Instead of covering just touch-pointer mappings, can we cover touch-pointer-mouse relations altogether? PE only covers pointer-mouse and TE only covers touch-mouse (non-normative). Additionally it would be really awesome if we could cover how pseudo-pointers (key only navigation via spatial navigation and/or caret browsing, virtual mouse) should behave, since that's not covered/standardized anywhere and most of the compatibility event firing has been implemented based on ad-hoc testing. -- Sangwhan Moon [Opera Software ASA] Software Engineer | Tokyo, Japan
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 11:44:25 UTC