W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Mouse Lock

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:53:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDP9FAd=R2DSvAVSKz_QTX8MmYE0cijYVMVbUt+_Qbd6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Vincent Scheib <scheib@google.com>, Klaas Heidstra <klaas1988@gmail.com>, Brandon Andrews <warcraftthreeft@sbcglobal.net>, Olli@pettay.fi, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "Gregg Tavares (wrk)" <gman@google.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> If your implementation had to warp the mouse cursor on Windows to get
> accurate delta information, the mouse position in the existing mouse
> events would no longer be very meaningful and a new event type seemed
> more logical. But assuming Klaas is right, we no longer need to worry
> about this. It seems we can unconditionally add delta information to
> existing mouse events. So I withdraw that comment.

I suspect that, while locked, we still don't actually want to expose
the various x and y properties for the mouse.  I agree with Vincent
that the *other* mouseevent properties are all useful, though, and
that the delta properties are really useful in non-mouselock
situations.

We should just zero all the position information.  Even if we can
switch all OSes to a delta mode, the position will be arbitrary and
meaningless.  This seems easier than making a new type of mouse event
that exposes all of normal mouse events except the position, and
ensuring that the two stay in sync when we add new info.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 16:54:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT