Re: [w3c/touch-events] Consider defaulting to use passive listener on window/document/document.body (#74)

Wondering if changing the definition here in the spec would have any real-world effect, considering:

- it would be most relevant for authors who write touch handling after the change has happened and has found its way in browsers
- the hope (wish?) would be for authors in future to migrate to pointer events as the more holistic/sensible event model
- the one browser that is currently refusing to even consider pointer events is also the one that (to my knowledge?) is not signaling any intent to follow anything we may come up with/decide in this spec
- there's the potential of unforeseen breakage

I'll be honest, I personally think we should leave this as is and focus perhaps on more developer outreach ("adding touch handlers can have perf issues, m'kay?" as one compelling argument to switch to pointer events, and offer the idea of explicitly setting them to passive as a stopgap solution - for browsers that do support passive event listeners)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/touch-events/issues/74#issuecomment-288832148