On 12/12/2011 01:45 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > 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.
Pushed to inputproto branch multitouch-devel. Thanks! -- Chase _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
