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

Re: Proposed Boilerplate Information for Touch Events CG; deadline Oct 25

From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:48:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO8i3ifWAJ094Qa1Aromf_zyFXs4q+xVKWEHj+qGb70hpCHPWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastien Pereira <spereira@dojomobile.org>
Cc: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
This looks good to me.


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Sebastien Pereira
<spereira@dojomobile.org>wrote:

> +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<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/**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/
>>>         <http://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 12:48:46 UTC

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