Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

Hickman, Steve (AdvTech)

Classification: Honeywell Internal

Section 5.1 of the Pointer Event spec defines pointerType as follows:

 

pointerType of type DOMString, readonly

Indicates the device type that caused the event (mouse, pen, touch, etc.). If a user agent is to fire a pointer event for a mouse, pen stylus, or touch input device, then the value of pointerType must be according to the following table:

Pointer Device Type

pointerType Value

Mouse

mouse

Pen Stylus

pen

Touch Contact

touch

 

 

Section 4.2.11 of the EMMA 1.1 spec defines emma:device-type as follows:

 

Definition

The type of device, or list of types of device through which the input is captured. An attribute of type xsd:nmtokens which contains a space delimited set of values from an open set of values including: {microphone, touchscreen, mouse, keypad, keyboard, pen, joystick, touchpad, scanner, camera_2d, camera_3d,thumbwheel...}.

 

 

These definitions overlap but do not appear to be consistent between each other.   In particular, the EMMA definition isn’t an extension of the Pointer Event spec definition. Nor do they have the same type name. Nor do they reference each other.

 

Can this be corrected? If not, can it be explained?

 

I’m trying to implement a system that handles all of the W3C event specifications in a consistent manner.

 

 

Steve Hickman

System Architect, Flight Deck of the Future

480-236-8367

 

============================================================================================================================================================================================================
This message classified as
Honeywell Internal by Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) on Monday, September 30, 2013 at 11:02:34 AM.
The above classification labels are in accordance with the Honeywell Corporate Classification Policy. The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual/entity named above, and the information may be privileged. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the original message.
============================================================================================================================================================================================================

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

Arthur Barstow
On 9/30/13 2:02 PM, ext Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) wrote:
>
> Can this be corrected? If not, can it be explained?
>

If EMMA used "touch" instead of "touchscreen", would that `worky`?

-AB

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

Hickman, Steve (AdvTech)
Classification: Honeywell Internal

Having 2 different terms for the same concept seems like a bad idea. The problem here is that the same concept shouldn't be implemented in 2 different ways. Doing so means that software attempting to process events that could be either Pointer events or EMMA events has to check for both values, no matter what they are. This will inevitably result in bugs when some code fails to do this dual check somewhere.

Is there a compelling reason why one spec can't just refer to the other one for this concept?

---
Steve H.


-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 7:55 AM
To: Hickman, Steve (AdvTech)
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

On 9/30/13 2:02 PM, ext Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) wrote:
>
> Can this be corrected? If not, can it be explained?
>

If EMMA used "touch" instead of "touchscreen", would that `worky`?

-AB

============================================================================================================================================================================================================
This message classified as Honeywell Internal by Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 at 8:11:32 AM.
The above classification labels are in accordance with the Honeywell Corporate Classification Policy.  The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual/entity named above, and the information may be privileged. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the original message.
============================================================================================================================================================================================================

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

Arthur Barstow
On 10/1/13 11:11 AM, ext Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason why one spec can't just refer to the other one for this concept?

Perhaps you can solve this problem by EMMA1.1 (still in WD phase)
referencing the Pointer Event spec (Candidate Recommendation).

-AB



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

Hickman, Steve (AdvTech)
Classification: Honeywell Internal

This particular issue may only be the tip of the iceberg.

I suspect fixing the problem will require some significant changes to both specs in order to make them consistent with each other. In this particular case, it will most likely mean making the Pointer spec pointer type a subset of the EMMA device type. Making that change, however, will likely result in other changes as well.


---
Steve H.


-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:46 AM
To: Hickman, Steve (AdvTech)
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

On 10/1/13 11:11 AM, ext Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason why one spec can't just refer to the other one for this concept?

Perhaps you can solve this problem by EMMA1.1 (still in WD phase) referencing the Pointer Event spec (Candidate Recommendation).

-AB



============================================================================================================================================================================================================
This message classified as Honeywell Internal by Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 at 9:28:26 AM.
The above classification labels are in accordance with the Honeywell Corporate Classification Policy.  The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual/entity named above, and the information may be privileged. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the original message.
============================================================================================================================================================================================================

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1 spec [Honeywell Internal]

Arthur Barstow
On 10/1/13 12:28 PM, ext Hickman, Steve (AdvTech) wrote:
> This particular issue may only be the tip of the iceberg.
>
> I suspect fixing the problem will require some significant changes to both specs in order to make them consistent with each other. In this particular case, it will most likely mean making the Pointer spec pointer type a subset of the EMMA device type. Making that change, however, will likely result in other changes as well.

I'm not sure of the usefulness of the hyperbole (e.g. "tip of the
iceberg", "significant changes") and vagueness (e.g. "may", "suspect",
"most likely"). However, if you have any concrete analysis and data,
especially _specific_ interop issues (`in the wild`) this "issue" is
causing, please provide the relevant URLs.

FYI, your comment is included in the PE CR's comment tracking doc [ctd].

-Thanks, AB

[ctd] <http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/CR-pointerevents-20130509>