On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:02:25 +0100, Frederico Knabben
wrote:
On Friday, 12 December 2014 at 14:40, Simon Pieters wrote:
How about "device-independent events"?
Aren’t we missing what kinds of events we’re talking about? We would
just know that those events are device-independent.
So far w
You all have excellent points, thank you! Device Independent Events gets
straight to the point, and I like that. Are there any objections to calling
this concept Device Independent Events?
My goal with "Responsive Input Events" was to encourage web developers to use
them as part of the responsi
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27597
Bug ID: 27597
Summary: [Shadow]: ShadowRoot is an interface (change section
title)
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
On 12/12/2014 13:40, Simon Pieters wrote:
How about "device-independent events"?
I always liked "input agnostic", but that's probably too religiously
loaded a term for some...
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | htt
On Friday, 12 December 2014 at 14:40, Simon Pieters wrote:
> How about "device-independent events"?
Aren’t we missing what kinds of events we’re talking about? We would just know
that those events are device-independent.
So far we’ve been talking about “input” events. If this is still the case,
+1 to device-independent events (di-events...hopefully not become die-events
per the time perspective conversation)
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryla...@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
Office: 703-371-5545
sounds quite reasonable to me.
12.12.2014, 16:41, "Simon Pieters" :
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:39:47 +0100, Tobie Langel
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Arthur Barstow
>> wrote:
>>> What is your counter-proposal?
>> Heh.
>>
>> Fair enough, I guess. :)
>>
>> These seem related to
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:39:47 +0100, Tobie Langel
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
What is your counter-proposal?
Heh.
Fair enough, I guess. :)
These seem related to what Java calls semantic events [JAVADOC], so I'd
give that a try to see if it fits the mod
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
> What is your counter-proposal?
Heh.
Fair enough, I guess. :)
These seem related to what Java calls semantic events [JAVADOC], so I'd
give that a try to see if it fits the model. If not, would "abstract
events" or simply "high-level even
On 12/12/2014 08:38, Frederico Knabben wrote:
At a frist glance I almost agreed with you, Björn.
Note though that, in terms of output, these events we’re talking about
are adapted to the input method used to generate them. We’re not any
more talking about device specific events, like “mouse clic
On 12/12/14 6:25 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
I'd be extremely wary of naming a category of DOM events after a term
that has a high buzz factor.
Hi Tobie,
What is your counter-proposal?
-Thanks, AB
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Ben Peters
wrote:
> There has been a lot of debate [1][2] about the correct name for device
> independent events [3] as a concept*. We have considered Intention Events,
> Command Events, and Action Events among others. I believe we now have a
> good name for them-
At a frist glance I almost agreed with you, Björn.
Note though that, in terms of output, these events we’re talking about are
adapted to the input method used to generate them. We’re not any more talking
about device specific events, like “mouse click” or “key press”. One of these
events could
13 matches
Mail list logo
