Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Microsoft proposed changes to PEWG charter #10

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jan 5, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@jacobrossi
Copy link
Member

commented Jan 5, 2016

Summary of changes:
•For the Scope intro, I've used similar text to the previous PEWG charter. ◦I've added specific example features we intend to pursue for 2.0 that weren't in 1.0. These are meant to be examples and not a commitment nor an exhaustive list.

•For Out of Scope, I have copied the same scope as the previous PEWG charter.
•Pointer Events 2.0 deliverable ◦I've removed the language about building on the Touch Events specification. I don't believe it's a goal for the PE 2.0 deliverable to incorporate any Touch Events features.

•Added Github as a forum for technical discussion and communication
•Added Touch Events Community Group as a point of coordination for the PEWG given the related technology

@shepazu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jan 5, 2016

Thanks for making these suggestions! I'd like to make sure that this meets the expectations of the other PEWG participants, as well… I'm not sure if I should just merge this PR or wait for other comments… suggestions?


<p>W3C has two competing standards for defining touch interfaces: the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/touch-events/">Touch Events specification</a> and the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/">Pointer Events 1.0 specification</a>. Each has browser implementation, dependent script libraries, and developer uptake. This Working Group will reconcile the relationship and best features between these technologies.</p>
<p>Pointer Events provide support for handling mouse, touch, and pen input for web sites and web applications through DOM Events.For example, a content creator using Web Pointer Events would have only use a single model, rather than separate code paths for mouse events, touch events, and pen-tablet events, making authoring content much more efficient and inclusive.</p>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@RByers

RByers Jan 5, 2016

Nit: missing space in "DOM Events.For example"

<p>This Working Group seeks to enhance the features delivered in the Pointer Events Level 1 Recommendation by exploring changes, such as:</p>
<ul>
<li>Add direction-specific values for finer=grained control of panning touch behaviors</li>
<li>Reducing hit-testing via implicit capture</li>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@RByers

RByers Jan 5, 2016

As you know, this is key for me - thanks for including it!


<li>Higher level APIs used to convey user intent.
<ul>
<li>High-level representational events, which are in the scope of the Web Events and IndieUI working groups.</li>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@RByers

RByers Jan 5, 2016

"Web Events" doesn't exist anymore - should it still be listed here?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jacobrossi

jacobrossi Jan 5, 2016

Author Member

I think they're ok to keep because those groups' charters still exist which help serve as an example of what's out of scope.

@@ -211,7 +246,7 @@ <h3 id="out-of-scope">Out of Scope</h3>
<div>
<h3 id="w3c-coordination">W3C Groups</h3>
<dl>
<dt>none</dt>
<dt><a href="https://www.w3.org/community/touchevents/">Touch Events Community Group</a></dt>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@RByers

RByers Jan 5, 2016

Perhaps we should also list WPWG for UI Events? It's possible that some of what we want to do to imprive pointer events is best done instead in the UI Events spec (eg. thinking of the systemTime vs. timeStamp issue we had in level 1, and with the odd state of 'button').

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jacobrossi

jacobrossi Jan 5, 2016

Author Member

Makes sense to me!

@RByers

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jan 5, 2016

Other than a couple minor suggestions, Jacob's version is good with me.

shepazu added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 5, 2016

Merge pull request #10 from jacobrossi/pointerevents-jrossi
Microsoft proposed changes to PEWG charter

@shepazu shepazu merged commit be0074f into w3c:gh-pages Jan 5, 2016

@jacobrossi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jan 5, 2016

See #11 for additional changes that takes some of this feedback into account.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.