Repository navigation
spec(AST-017): touch work changes desktop behavior only for a defect or deliberate consistency - #8347
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
AI review status for this pull request.
|
github-actions
Bot
added
the
needs:spec-owner-review
PR Analysis Report
|
meta-cla
Bot
added
the
CLA Signed
![astracat-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/4796231?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This spec change is on hold for an owner decision: FR55, DEC-24, the new Current-state impact line and the FR55 Verification row add new requirements to the current spec:AST-017, and no engineering owner has approved this exact head yet. An engineering owner records that decision by commenting /approve-spec 5131d781f69707c265af37700db19c9806a6d864 on this pull request, and the author may do so as an engineering owner. Two fixes are needed either way:
- Add
FR55andDEC-24to the record'sreview-applicability:v1block (for example undercompatibility, beside FR54 and DEC-22), so reviews that load global claims by trigger apply the rule. - Agree numbering with #8006, which adds a different FR55 to
spec:AST-017and needs a new decision number too, and list it as overlapping work.
It would also help to state whether "deliberate cross-device consistency" can ever carry a new fine-pointer look, or whether every new look needs its own owner decision as FR55's third sentence says.
[Automated review]
| (FR35), never in a patch release, and no surface record can make it patch-eligible by | ||
| redefining a release rule. Components keep the rules in this record, including FR3 and | ||
| FR53. | ||
| - **FR55 — Touch work leaves fine-pointer behavior alone unless it has a reason.** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FR55 is not in this record's review-applicability:v1 block (lines 31-109), so reviews that load global claims by trigger never apply it. Adding "FR55" and "DEC-24" under compatibility, beside FR54 and DEC-22 (and under interaction if touch reviews without a compatibility trigger should load it), closes that gap.
| - **FR55 — Touch work leaves fine-pointer behavior alone unless it has a reason.** | ||
| A change made for touch or coarse-pointer use may change what people using a mouse, | ||
| trackpad, or other fine pointer see or do only to fix a defect those people actually | ||
| hit, or for deliberate cross-device consistency the pull request names. Either way |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can reason (b) ever carry a new fine-pointer look? Lines 737-739 say a new look or feel needs its own owner decision, and the FR55 Verification row fails one shipped without it, so (b) reads as covering only consistency that brings no new look. Saying so here would stop reviewers reading (b) as a way around that decision.
|
|
||
| Rejected: a touch presentation or open-surface touch mode callers cannot pin. | ||
|
|
||
| ### DEC-24 — Touch work changes fine-pointer behavior only for a defect or deliberate consistency |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Open #8006 also amends this record: it adds a different FR55 ("A component deprecation is staged") with FR56 to FR58, and a DEC-23 that main already uses, so its next free decision number is DEC-24 as well. Agreeing the numbering before either lands avoids two FR55s, which nothing in pnpm check:knowledge would reject.
…fect or deliberate consistency (FR55, DEC-24)
…ork; route through review triggers; a new look is never part of touch work
5131d78 to
4460dde
Compare
|
/approve-spec 4460dde |
github-actions
Bot
added
spec-auto-merge
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This spec change is ready: an engineering owner approved this exact head, and FR59 and DEC-25 fit the current records on main. The earlier points are resolved, since both are now routed under compatibility, the numbers no longer collide with the staged-retirement work, and FR59 says a new fine-pointer look is never part of touch work. Optionally, listing FR59 and DEC-25 under the interaction trigger as well would surface them in touch reviews that do not derive compatibility.
[Automated review]
| - exact-main release comparison rejects unclassified deltas; and | ||
| - a surface other than a component is classified by its own record's compatibility | ||
| contract, and the release process here applies to the result. | ||
| contract, and the release process here applies to the result; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: line 835 still ends with ; and, but the list now continues past this item. Moving the and to the end of this line keeps the list's grammar.
Exact decision needed
When touch or coarse-pointer work may change what desktop (mouse, trackpad, fine-pointer) users see or do.
Existing authority searched
spec:AST-017(release compatibility) owns which changes to a released audience are allowed and how they are classified; DEC-23 already records the touch-presentation default rule there. This rule constrains touch changes against the released fine-pointer audience, so it extends AST-017.spec:AST-013(browser and platform support) names supported browsers, not which audience a change may affect;spec:AST-012owns theme adaptation conditions;architecture:interaction-modalityowns modality state. None decides this._DEPRECATEDrename, removal (DEC-24, FR55–FR58) #8006 adds FR55–FR58 tospec:AST-017(and needs a decision number after DEC-23); this record uses FR59 and DEC-25 so the two do not collide, and spec(architecture): components are built from minimal DOM (INV7) #8300 and spec(AST-017): no file path or subpath makes an API experimental #8357 follow with FR60/DEC-26 and DEC-27.Decision
spec:AST-017gains FR59 and DEC-25: a touch change may change fine-pointer behavior only (a) to fix a defect fine-pointer users actually hit, or (b) for deliberate cross-device consistency the pull request names, and either way shows fine-pointer before-and-after evidence. A new fine-pointer look or feel is never part of touch work, including a cross-device consistency change; it needs its own owner decision. Current-state impact and Verification gain the matching line and row.Rejected alternatives
Claim scope and non-goals
The scope of touch changes only. Touch presentation defaults (DEC-23), desktop visual direction, and each component's own touch behavior stay with their records.
Evidence and implementation relationship
Spec-only. Implementation pull requests apply FR59 in review; the four listed above adjust as Current-state impact says.
Writing rubric results
Scope
Validation
pnpm check:knowledge(CI lint)git diff --check