Thanks Simon and Dimitri, I wasn't familiar with the procedure for attacking these sorts of things.
I've started a discussion on public-webapps, which will hopefully help to clarify a sensible API. Please add your voice if you have the time and inclination: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1019.html If the discussion proves fruitful, I will re-approach the WebKit community to figure out the best way to work on a prototype implementation. I've closed the previously mentioned bug for now. scott On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@chromium.org> wrote: > We should do this right, you won't hear any arguments from me. But I > am also sure that "W3C time investment" is a code word for years of > soul-sucking bureaucratic drudgery. As such, I don't think you meant > we should be using W3C process as the measuring stick for doing things > "right" in WebKit. There would not be WebKit if we did. > > What I hope you meant instead is: > * study the problem in the larger context of a Web platform > * come up with a set of use cases that cover the problem > * design a solution based on the use cases > * build consensus with browser vendors while prototyping it in WebKit > * write a spec and a test suite that makes sense > * submit this to W3C as time permits. > > That's what we've always done, right? > > :DG< > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com> wrote: >> My main objection to adding this is that it's just one of many different >> types of input device, and if we add these piecemeal for each device that >> takes our fancy, we'll end up with a horrible mishmash of different input >> events. >> >> I'd prefer a more general strategy of thinking about all the various types >> of input events (e.g. joysticks, remote controls, assistive devices), and >> having an API that caters for all of them. This of course would require >> significant W3C time investment. >> >> Simon >> >> On Aug 24, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Scott Graham <scot...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think it's too early to implement this. We should wait until it's a W3C >>>>> draft at least. >>>> >>>> There's certainly work to be done in improving the design. I'm not >>>> proposing >>>> to slavishly implement the API exactly as specified there. >>>> However, I would like to prototype and help with the design of this API by >>>> iterating an implementation in the Chromium port. >>>> Is a feature flag inappropriate for this? i.e. Should that sort of >>>> prototype >>>> work be kept downstream indefinitely or until we have a draft spec? >>> >>> FWIW, keeping implementation "downstream" (that is in Chromium) is >>> basically an equivalent of forking, and we should work hard to avoid >>> that. But certainly not by just rejecting prototyping outright -- >>> because the only workaround for that is forking. >>> >>> :DG< >> >> > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
