- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:31:10 +0100
- To: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
On 28/07/2015 16:06, Jonathan Avila wrote: >> This would still fulfill the "revocable" requirement, just in a >> different way to "must be lifted inside the element > > On our last call I also mentioned other ways that this could pass. > For example on iOS Input controls -- holding for longer than a few > seconds will put the control in edit mode without a touch end. > This seems ok because there is a time delay. Unless it's explicitly suppressed by the author (with contextmenu event and preventDefault() or similar). But yes, I think in general, the wording should avoid already advocating a very specific technical solution, and instead be open-ended enough to allow for different ways in which something can still pass as long as it fulfills the intent of the SC. P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 15:31:37 UTC