Same here.
On Thursday, November 24, 2011, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > Support. > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Arthur Barstow <[email protected]> wrote: >> Below, Darin proposes the Pointer Lock [PL] (formerly known as Mouse Lock) >> spec and the Gamepad [GP] spec be added to the Web Applications WG's charter >> and not the Web Events WG's charter. This is a Call for Consensus to accept >> that proposal. >> >> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will >> be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is >> December 1 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps at w3.org. >> >> -AB >> >> [PL] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/default/mouse-lock.html >> [GP] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/tip/gamepad.html >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: PointerLock and Gamepad APIs >> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:04:19 -0800 >> From: ext Darin Fisher <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]>, Web Applications Working Group WG >> <[email protected]>, Arthur Barstow <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Back in September, it was proposed to expand the charter of the WebEvents WG >> to include PointerLock (formerly known as MouseLock) and Gamepad APIs [1]. >> This seemed like a logical home for them given that both of these APIs >> pertain to input event systems. >> >> However, one thing that became apparent was that Apple was not willing to >> join the WebEvents WG [2]. Since we, the Chrome team at Google, work on >> WebKit alongside Apple engineers, it is a bit undesirable for us to not be >> able to work together with Apple in the WGs, which develop the specs that we >> implement in WebKit. From an efficiency point of view, it is far easier if >> we can discuss APIs in a single forum instead of having to relay concerns >> between forums. >> >> I'd like to therefore propose that instead of expanding the charter of >> WebEvents to include PointerLock and Gamepad, that we instead add those APIs >> to another WG such as WebApps. I believe they make sense in WebApps given >> the scope of work being done there and the parties involved. >> >> Thoughts? >> -Darin >> >> [1] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011JulSep/0087.html >> >> [2] Recently, Apple disclosed some patents for the Touch Events >> specification >> [ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0118.html], >> which is currently the only deliverable for the WebEvents WG. >> >> > >
