On 4/8/2013 6:26 AM, Konstantinov Sergey wrote:
> 08.04.2013, 17:07, "Sangwhan Moon" <sangwhan@iki.fi>:
>> On Monday, April 8, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Sergey Konstantinov wrote:
>>> I can't see why we should include this requirement in a specification. No existing implementation breaks if we just omit this requirement.
>>> I also can't understand why are to accept the proposal with obvious flaws instead of waiting for this "v2" specification.
>> Do note that as it stands, it's quite unlikely anyone is going to implement multiple mice support.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Not saying pointerID == 1 makes a whole lot of sense, since as the spec stands
>> (pointerID == 1) and (pointerType == POINTER_TYPE_MOUSE) mean the same thing,
>> but the former being less obvious unless you read the spec.
> I do not insist on the importance of the two-mice case.
> I just can't understand why we keep such a restriction if we can just omit it.
I haven't seen any justification for the pointerID == 1 requirement for
mouse input. I agree with Konstantinov that it seems to serve no
purpose, and I agree with Sangwhan that it provides a redundant and
less-clear way to handle an already-covered use case. I'm also worried
it encourages a misconception that other pointerIDs might have meaning
other than as opaque identifiers.
Are there any objections to removing this sentence from section 3.1?
"If the device producing the event is a mouse, then the |pointerId|
/must/ be 1. Device types other than mouse /must not/ have a
|pointerId| of 1."
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 16:34:16 UTC