Re: Is touch-action implicitly applied to any elements?

In the second version of your example, switching to -ms-touch-action: auto
on the outer div leaves no -ms-touch-action: none area in the page.
IE10 has a default action on document ( or window?) to use x-axis panning
for back/forward history gesture.
The finger can move around a little bit in the x-axis when dragging, and it
appears the history gesture has no hysteresis.
If you quickly tap the area instead, you will see a MSPointerMove event.


On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:

> Oh, I totally missed that the spec says touch-action isn't inherited -
> duh.  Sorry.
>
> Ok then I'm seeing different behavior that is surprising.  If touch-action
> isn't inherited, then why does changing outer between 'none' and 'auto'
> affect the behavior of inner when it's not overflow scroll?  Is IE using
> the touch-action of the parent somehow in deciding how to implement "auto"?
>
> Sample code updated: http://jsfiddle.net/rbyers/YTSuu/.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:
>
>> In the absence of additional CSS rules that also specify touch-action,
>> the following two should be equivalent, right?
>>
>> <div id="outer" style="touch-action: none">
>>   <div id="inner"> </div>
>> </div>
>>
>> and
>>
>> <div id="outer" style="touch-action: none">
>>   <div id="inner" style="tocuh-action: inherit"> </div>
>> </div>
>>
>> In the current IE implementation this seems not to be the case.  In
>> particular, if the inner div is overflow: scroll, then it seems to take on
>> the behavior of '-ms-touch-action: auto'.  Explicitly specifying inherit
>> gets the behavior I expect.  Sample code here:
>> http://jsfiddle.net/rbyers/YTSuu/.
>>
>> I can see why this might be a good thing (probably makes it really easy
>> to convert certain mouse based games to support touch without breaking
>> inner scrollable elements), but I also find it surprising.  If this is
>> really the intended behavior, then the spec should probably say something
>> about it, right?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    Rick
>>
>>
>>
>
>