RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

[Léonie Watson]

From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] 
Sent: 21 June 2016 11:18

Yes, CR requires at least two implementations in shipping browsers. Once 
Pointer Lock is at Recc, hopefully the Shadow DOM content will be stable enough 
to include in Pointer Lock next.

 

Correction: A CR doesn’t require 2+ implementations, but we do have to 
demonstrate that the spec has received wide review. The implementations are 
needed to exit CR as we move to PR though. Sorry, my fault for not paying 
attention!

 

We plan to move Pointer Lock to CR, then to Recc within a few weeks. It seems 
like the most painless way to do things.

 

The alternative was to include the Shadow DOM features but mark them as “at 
risk” during the CR. Given that Shadow DOM is still not stable, it’s likely 
we’d have to take those features out again for PR – which seems like extra work 
for the editor.

 

Instead we encourage the editors to publish a WD of Pointer Lock 2 as soon as 
there is concensus on the Shadow DOM content.

 

 

 

HTH

Léonie.

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

[Léonie Watson]

 

 

From: Takayoshi Kochi [mailto:ko...@google.com] 
“I'm fine without Shadow DOM changes, because no one yet implemented the 
intended change to the spec yet,

and so it could be immature to include in a "CR".   (Does CR require at least 2 
implementors exist?)”

 

Yes, CR requires at least two implementations in shipping browsers. Once 
Pointer Lock is at Recc, hopefully the Shadow DOM content will be stable enough 
to include in Pointer Lock next.

 

 

Thanks for your help with this.

 

 

 

-- 

@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

 

Léonie.

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

[Léonie Watson]

Important: This CFC is extended for 48 hours. Please provide comments by end of 
day on Thursday 23rd June 2016.

 

From: Vincent Scheib [mailto:sch...@google.com] 
Sent: 21 June 2016 05:09
“I've discussed more with Xiaoqian and Léonie and support a CR now with this 
proposal:

 

Move to a CR for the v1 Pointer Lock specification without Shadow DOM changes, 
and a note on accessibility. Implementations are nearly consistent for v1 and 
it can move to a published status sooner. We can follow up with a v2 requiring 
more implementation work afterwards.”

 

Thanks Vincent.

 

Per the note above, this CFC [1] is extended for 48 hours to give WG members 
more time to respond now we have clarified the path.

 

Léonie.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2016AprJun/0127.html 

 

 

 

-- 

@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

 

 

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

[Takayoshi Kochi]

I'm fine without Shadow DOM changes, because no one yet implemented the
intended change to the spec yet,
and so it could be immature to include in a "CR".   (Does CR require at
least 2 implementors exist?)

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Vincent Scheib  wrote:

> I've discussed more with Xiaoqian and Léonie and support a CR now with
> this proposal:
>
> Move to a CR for the v1 Pointer Lock specification without Shadow DOM
> changes, and a note on accessibility. Implementations are nearly consistent
> for v1 and it can move to a published status sooner. We can follow up with
> a v2 requiring more implementation work afterwards.
>
>


-- 
Takayoshi Kochi