On 12/12/2011 01:40 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:56:40AM -0800, Chase Douglas wrote: >> This just makes it absolutely clear that clients should not make any >> assumptions about future touch ID values. >> >> I also added "strictly monotonically" increasing to the definition of >> touch IDs. It's a more precise definition of the protocol. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chase Douglas <[email protected]> >> --- >> specs/XI2proto.txt | 8 +++++--- >> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/specs/XI2proto.txt b/specs/XI2proto.txt >> index ba5f7b7..8e4f948 100644 >> --- a/specs/XI2proto.txt >> +++ b/specs/XI2proto.txt >> @@ -2149,9 +2149,11 @@ may not be the logical center of the touch. >> >> Touch tracking IDs are provided in the detail field of touch events. Its >> value is always provided in every touch event. Tracking IDs are >> -represented as unsigned 32-bit values and increase in value for each new >> -touch, wrapping back to 0 upon reaching the numerical limit of IDs. IDs are >> -globally unique. >> +represented as unsigned 32-bit values and increase strictly monotonically in >> +value for each new touch, wrapping back to 0 upon reaching the numerical >> limit >> +of IDs. The distance between two touch IDs is indeterminate. Clients may not >> +assume that any future touches will have specific touch IDs. IDs are >> globally >> +unique. > > s/distance/increment/ maybe? or whatever the right word is here.
I like increment. I couldn't think of the right word, and that fits better than distance. -- Chase _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
