- From: Sebastien Pereira <spereira@dojomobile.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:10:41 +0200
- To: public-webevents@w3.org
+1. The topics in scope currently cover all issues/questions we found in dojo to provide an interoperable PE implementation that should allow a smooth transition to a future PE adoption by the browsers we support. On 10/23/2013 07:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > I created a wiki doc with the information I sent in my original email > on this thread, plus the first point in Sangwhan's proposal: > > A few of us (Rich, Sangwhan and I) briefly discussed Sangwhan's second > proposal in IRC and we agree not to include that because it is mostly > a separate subject. > > Comments from all are welcome and feel free to edit the document > directly: > > <http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/DraftTouchEventsCG> > > -Thanks, ArtB > > On 10/23/13 11:53 AM, ext Rick Byers wrote: >> Your proposal looks good to me - thanks Art! My list of specific >> topics doesn't need to be definitive though - others should feel free >> to add/remove/replace, they're just the things on the top of my mind... >> >> Inline: >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com >> <mailto:smoon@opera.com>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Arthur Barstow >> <art.barstow@nokia.com <mailto: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/1CV2AXyrdPdGSRypAQcfGrgQVuWYi50EzTmVsMLWgRPM/> >> [2] >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sasl1qYJV6agrDvGplEYlZznzc38U-TFN_3a67-nlSc/> >> [3] >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2013AprJun/0040.html> >> [4] >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12-HPlSIF7-ISY8TQHtuQ3IqDi-isZVI0Yzv5zwl90VU/> >> [5] < >> 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/ >> <http://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). >> >> >> Agreed, this is important (and really one of the trickiest points of >> touch/pointer interop). >> >> 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. >> >> >> I agree we should have a place to discuss that, but I'm worried that >> would broaden the scope of this group too far - potentially reducing >> it's value. I'd prefer to keep this group scoped to issues that >> involve touch events in some form. >> >> -- Sangwhan Moon [Opera Software ASA] >> Software Engineer | Tokyo, Japan >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 09:11:16 UTC