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

[css-scroll-snap] Clarifying that CSS Snap Points doesn't dictate any particular input method #1305

Closed
bgirard opened this Issue Apr 28, 2017 · 11 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@bgirard

bgirard commented Apr 28, 2017

I’d like to propose a clarification to the CSS Snap Point specification in Section 3:
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-scroll-snap-1/#overview

If we could add the following sentence in the Overview:
“Any input method for scrolling is outside the scope of this specification.”


I believe this modification is minor and reflects the current intent of the specification. This clarification would help Facebook join the CSSWG. Posting this as a revised CR spec would help Facebook join the CSSWG sooner.

@fantasai

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fantasai

fantasai Apr 28, 2017

Contributor

The problem is... your sentence doesn't quite make sense. I could interpret it as saying that "This specification does not define the input methods used for scrolling", which is an obvious statement that's perhaps unnecessary, but could be added. I could also interpret it as saying that "This specification does not apply to scrolling methods that require user input", which defeats the whole point of the spec.

So, I think you need to clarify what you're asking for here. :)

Contributor

fantasai commented Apr 28, 2017

The problem is... your sentence doesn't quite make sense. I could interpret it as saying that "This specification does not define the input methods used for scrolling", which is an obvious statement that's perhaps unnecessary, but could be added. I could also interpret it as saying that "This specification does not apply to scrolling methods that require user input", which defeats the whole point of the spec.

So, I think you need to clarify what you're asking for here. :)

@bgirard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bgirard

bgirard May 1, 2017

I agree it's not very clear. Your first suggestion covers what I intended to capture.

What about adding a new paragraph at the end of Section 6.1:
This specification only applies to scrolling methods supported by the user agent. It does not require the user agent to support any particular input or scrolling method.

I think either that or your suggestion should be sufficient.

I can send a PR if the edit is appropriate.

bgirard commented May 1, 2017

I agree it's not very clear. Your first suggestion covers what I intended to capture.

What about adding a new paragraph at the end of Section 6.1:
This specification only applies to scrolling methods supported by the user agent. It does not require the user agent to support any particular input or scrolling method.

I think either that or your suggestion should be sufficient.

I can send a PR if the edit is appropriate.

@tabatkins tabatkins closed this in 9760282 May 15, 2017

@tabatkins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tabatkins

tabatkins May 15, 2017

Member

All right, we added your suggested sentence in a note at the end of section 6.1. Let us know if this satisfies your concern!

Member

tabatkins commented May 15, 2017

All right, we added your suggested sentence in a note at the end of section 6.1. Let us know if this satisfies your concern!

@bgirard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bgirard

bgirard May 16, 2017

Looks good. It is possible to get minor edit?
This specification only applies to scrolling methods supported by the user agent, but it does not require the user agent to support any particular input or scrolling method.

Sorry for not spotting it correctly the first time.

bgirard commented May 16, 2017

Looks good. It is possible to get minor edit?
This specification only applies to scrolling methods supported by the user agent, but it does not require the user agent to support any particular input or scrolling method.

Sorry for not spotting it correctly the first time.

@fantasai

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fantasai

fantasai May 17, 2017

Contributor

I think it was more correct the first time, actually. :)

Contributor

fantasai commented May 17, 2017

I think it was more correct the first time, actually. :)

@bgirard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bgirard

bgirard May 18, 2017

Hey -- Sorry to push on this but our lawyers are just concerned the grammar is ambiguous and could be confusing here. Any chance we could put this through to make them happy? I think they have a point adding the "but" helps clarify the intent -- "you must implement touch scrolling for all scrolling methods BUT this specification doesn't require you to implement any specific method". Without the conjunction it's unclear the two concepts are related.

bgirard commented May 18, 2017

Hey -- Sorry to push on this but our lawyers are just concerned the grammar is ambiguous and could be confusing here. Any chance we could put this through to make them happy? I think they have a point adding the "but" helps clarify the intent -- "you must implement touch scrolling for all scrolling methods BUT this specification doesn't require you to implement any specific method". Without the conjunction it's unclear the two concepts are related.

@bgirard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bgirard

bgirard May 24, 2017

@tabatkins Wanted to follow-up since the issue is now marked as closed.

bgirard commented May 24, 2017

@tabatkins Wanted to follow-up since the issue is now marked as closed.

@tabatkins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tabatkins

tabatkins May 24, 2017

Member

They're related because they're adjacent sentences in a paragraph containing only them. There's no way a reasonable person can interpret those as being independent, unrelated statements. Plus, even if we did assume someone existed in the world who could interpret them in that way, it means the same thing.

Lawyers don't matter here - it's an informative note. There is literally no legal connection to this text.

I'm also extremely confused as to how and why lawyers are involved in the first place. This entire thread has had a weird legal subtext running thru it, and we don't understand how any of it is relevant.

Member

tabatkins commented May 24, 2017

They're related because they're adjacent sentences in a paragraph containing only them. There's no way a reasonable person can interpret those as being independent, unrelated statements. Plus, even if we did assume someone existed in the world who could interpret them in that way, it means the same thing.

Lawyers don't matter here - it's an informative note. There is literally no legal connection to this text.

I'm also extremely confused as to how and why lawyers are involved in the first place. This entire thread has had a weird legal subtext running thru it, and we don't understand how any of it is relevant.

@fantasai

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fantasai

fantasai May 25, 2017

Contributor

@bgirard My problem with the proposed wording change is that “but” is not the correct conjuntion to use here; and therefore as the editor I refuse to make that edit. If you want it all in one sentence, I can use “and”. But, like Tab, I don't think that actually changes the meaning of anything and is rhetorically more awkward. Also, this spec is not limited to devices with touch interfaces, so your comment doesn't really make sense. If your lawyers are giving you trouble, maybe put them directly in touch with me and we can talk it through? I can send you my direct contact info.

Contributor

fantasai commented May 25, 2017

@bgirard My problem with the proposed wording change is that “but” is not the correct conjuntion to use here; and therefore as the editor I refuse to make that edit. If you want it all in one sentence, I can use “and”. But, like Tab, I don't think that actually changes the meaning of anything and is rhetorically more awkward. Also, this spec is not limited to devices with touch interfaces, so your comment doesn't really make sense. If your lawyers are giving you trouble, maybe put them directly in touch with me and we can talk it through? I can send you my direct contact info.

@bmaurer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bmaurer

bmaurer Jun 3, 2017

@fantasai -- hey just wanted to follow up here that I sent you an email from my fb.com email address to your email on fantasai.inkedblade.net/contact. No rush, just wanted to make sure I had the right point of contact for you. feel free to reach out at bmaurer@fb.com and we can talk this through directly

bmaurer commented Jun 3, 2017

@fantasai -- hey just wanted to follow up here that I sent you an email from my fb.com email address to your email on fantasai.inkedblade.net/contact. No rush, just wanted to make sure I had the right point of contact for you. feel free to reach out at bmaurer@fb.com and we can talk this through directly

@bmaurer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bmaurer

bmaurer Jun 16, 2017

Thanks @fantasai, we're happy from our side with this change now.

bmaurer commented Jun 16, 2017

Thanks @fantasai, we're happy from our side with this change now.

Loirooriol added a commit to Loirooriol/csswg-drafts that referenced this issue Jun 18, 2017

triple-underscore added a commit to triple-underscore/triple-underscore.github.io that referenced this issue Jun 24, 2017

[css-scroll-snap] 各種更新
Commits on Jun 17, 2017

Convert period to semicolon per lawyers demands.
w3c/csswg-drafts#1305
w3c/csswg-drafts@0a7ab91
e81cf1be236

Commits on Jun 20, 2017

Update Changes list.
w3c/csswg-drafts@617e94f
ec7c6599f3b

Rearrange prose to be clearer about value mapping to longhands, link to
css-logical.
Fixes w3c/csswg-drafts#1050 .
w3c/csswg-drafts@38caa2e
debcac0cc21

Commits on Jun 22, 2017
add that shorthand interactions are also governed by css-logical
w3c/csswg-drafts@393d993
6fff215f060
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment