Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-ui] Be more precise about event dispatching of pointer events on the ellipsis

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Be more precise about event dispatching of pointer events on the ellipsis`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: Clarify in level 3 that the UA should dispatch the event to the elided element.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;eae> Topic: Be more precise about event dispatching of pointer events on the ellipsis<br>
&lt;eae> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1637<br>
&lt;eae> Florian: We have a statement in the spec, text-overflow ellipsis should not affect dispatching of pointer events.<br>
&lt;tantek> q+ re: https://test.csswg.org/harness/results/css-ui-3_dev/grouped/filter/ I would be strongly concerned with any test that fails in blink, edge, gecko, *and* webkit - per CR impl experience the spec&amp;tests should likely change for those (postpone or whatever is appropriate per feature)<br>
&lt;eae> Florian: When you click the ellipsis the block that hosts it gets the event. Not clear to me that the statement normatively requires how the event is dispatches. Should it be dispatched directly yo the element hosting it or the one ellided.<br>
&lt;tantek> tries to remember what he was thinking with this text<br>
&lt;eae> Florian: Leave level 3 somewhat ambiguous about how events are eing fired (but not that they *are* being fired) and be more specific in level-4.<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: It is better than before<br>
&lt;eae> Florian: Block with nested block, event to block vs in0between spans. Not iterop.<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: Are there any strong preferences about how it should work?<br>
&lt;eae> Florian: Firefox seems better.<br>
&lt;eae> fremy: Agree, edge should match Firefox.<br>
&lt;eae> eae: Chrome thinks it is resonable to./<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: Can we add a SHOULD here to capture the consensus?<br>
&lt;eae> Florian: Haven't worked out the implications.<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: It is already in issue description.<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: Resolve on that same phrase, without being overly precise<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: Sounds like we have rough consensus<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: "dispatches the event to the ellided inline element"<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: That is all it takes, add it as a should. Capture consensus and keep moving.<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: We have one impl and verbal agreement from other vendors.<br>
&lt;eae> Florian: Normative change.<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: Not all normative changes need to go to CR<br>
&lt;eae> Florian: If we can do this without process changes that's fine.<br>
&lt;eae> tantek: We need to document ever change in the PR to CR process.<br>
&lt;eae> Rossen:  No problem with that.<br>
&lt;eae> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Clarify in level 3 that the UA should dispatch the event to the elided element.<br>
&lt;eae> RESOLVED: Clarify in level 3 that the UA should dispatch the event to the elided element.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1637#issuecomment-319926574 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 3 August 2017 10:05:28 UTC