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

Specification status report for TPAC 2019 #50

Closed
LJWatson opened this issue Aug 21, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Specification status report for TPAC 2019 #50

LJWatson opened this issue Aug 21, 2019 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@LJWatson
Copy link

Please can you respond to this comment with a brief specifications status report for the WebApps meeting at TPAC. The report should address the following:

  • What progress has your spec made in the last 12 months?
  • Is anything blocking your spec from moving to CR?
  • If yes, what is your plan to unblock it and do you need any help?
  • What do you want to achieve for your spec in the next two days (of breakout sessions)?

We're tracking these status reports in WebApps issue #19

Thanks.

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

@NavidZ, we are looking forward to seeing you at TPAC. Any chance you could provide some details for the above questions?

@NavidZ
Copy link
Member

NavidZ commented Sep 3, 2019

@marcoscaceres Thanks for pinging me on the issue. I guess I missed it before. Here is the update:

What progress has your spec made in the last 12 months?

Aside from some editorial changes and whatnot, we have started adding a new capability to the request API so that it matches more platform like features such as disabling mouse acceleration. We are still working on it to get more feedback from other vendors and also investigate how different underlying platforms could support the feature.
Aside from this new feature we wanted to clear the coordinate space for some of the attributes as part of this issue but we didn't make much progress on that due to the lack of feedback from others and some oppositions on more aggressive changes in the early proposals.

Is anything blocking your spec from moving to CR?

Nothing actually. I believe we should be okay if we land the new capability above and also hopefully rewrite parts of the spec to make it more like a procedural/algorithmic spec it should be ready to go for V2. If we could also clear the coordinate space in this issue for V2 that will be fantastic.

What do you want to achieve for your spec in the next two days (of breakout sessions)?

Although the discussions are already happening on the issue if anyone has any comment I'd love to hear in person. I do like to hear if other vendors have heard any new requirements that we might need to address in V2.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants