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
