On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:48:18 +0200, Doug Schepers <schep...@w3.org> wrote:
There are still still some outstanding issues, which we intend to
address in LC; many of them are marked up specifically to solicit wider
review and comments, which is generally more forthcoming during LC. The
goal is to collect these comments so we are ready to discuss them during
TPAC. We expect we will have to have another LC.
So, are these intended as LC comments (which I'm happy to address), or
as an argument against going to LC?
Somewhat against a Last Call. After all, Last Call is for when we think we
are done. Although this is often not the case (see e.g. XMLHttpRequest),
if we know it is not, it seems too early to issue one.
Looking through it a bit more the mousewheel event seems gone. I thought
we agreed long ago that would be part of it. (Various notes in the
specification do mention it, but it seems they are included by
accident.)
Yes, we included 'mousewheel' as recently as 7 months ago, but I removed
it based on implementer feedback. I've now removed the stray reference
to it in the "Changes" section.
Do you maybe have a pointer to that implementor feedback? I would have
expected at least some kind of announcement email like "mousewheel event
dropped". I just searched through www-dom and could not find any
discussion.
The only other place it's mentioned is in the 'wheel' event as an
informative comparison.
It also says user agents may dispatch one of those events. I'm not really
sure how this is supposed to give us interoperability.
I'll try to review more closely on Monday.
Thanks. Please let us know if you object to us going to LC, given our
plan of record.
(Note: I will be at the SVG Open conference and SVG WG F2F starting on
Monday, for the next week and a half, and will probably not be very
responsive.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
