Re: Web input brainstorming face-to-face notes

Right, that was definitely NOT the consensus.  Sorry for the sloppiness in
the notes.  I've updated the summary to make that point clear by adding the
following text:

Google proposes exploring extending touch events with all the good
properties of pointer events - no consensus on this (IE and Firefox teams
feel pointer events are still the better path)

I've also accepted your edits further down.  Hopefully this didn't result
in too much confusion - there were other notes like "This is controversial…
web devs want Pointer Events".  Feel free to propose other edits if it's
still not crystal clear.


On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Jacob Rossi <>

>  Hey Rick,
> Tab and I were having a conversation the other day and it seems there was
> some confusion about the "consensus" regarding pointer and touch events
> coming out of this meeting. Looking at the latest meeting notes, it does
> indeed look like we all agreed to change our focus to modifying touch
> events to have pointer events features (e.g. fire touch events for mouse,
> etc). While that was Google's proposal, there wasn't consensus that this
> was the correct next step.
> Could we update these minutes to clarify this was a Google proposal?
> Thanks,
> Jacob
>  ------------------------------
> From: Rick Byers <>
> Sent: ‎7/‎3/‎2014 6:52 AM
> To:;;
> Cc: Jacob Rossi <>
> Subject: Web input brainstorming face-to-face notes
>   On June 23rd, a few people from the Firefox, Safari, IE and Chrome
> teams met at Microsoft to brainstorm
> <> [1]
> about opportunities for better collaboration in improving input-related
> APIs (where interoperability has historically been relatively poor).
>  Detailed notes from the meeting and links to presentations are here
> <>
> [2].
>  We identified the following areas as the most promising, and have agreed
> to follow up in the relevant W3C lists:
> Speccing mobile viewport behavior [CSSWG]
>  Exposing the visual viewport (eg. device-fixed) [CSSWG]
>  Future of touch events / pointer events [PEWG/TECG]
>  Hover/active rationalization [CSSWG]
>  Scroll response effects [FXTF/TECG]
>  Fractional scroll offsets [CSSWG]
>  If you've got questions about any specific area, rather than spam this
> thread please *start a new thread on one of the relevant w3c lists *(and
> feel free to cc me and Jacob).
>  Overall the mood was quite positive and I'm personally optimistic about
> the opportunities here.  Although we identified some substantial
> differences in philosophy, I got the impression we all felt the urgency for
> improving the web platform and recognized that interoperability (and hence
> collaboration) was essential.
>  Rick
>  [1]
> [2]

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 16:56:47 UTC