Re: pointerID shouldn't have restrictions (was: Re: Last Call comments)

This feels related to my objection about these not being opaque. If they *
are* opaque, this largely goes away.

On Thursday, April 11, 2013, Sangwhan Moon wrote:

> On Friday, April 12, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Scott González wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com<javascript:;>(mailto:
> mbrubeck@mozilla.com <javascript:;>)> wrote:
> > > 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." I
> have no objection. I believe there were others who didn't object the last
> time this was discussed, but I don't think there's a record of who was
> included in that group.
> > >
> >
>
> I for one would like to see this limitation go, as it gives the users a
> false impression that the the pointer IDs have some sort of meaning. I
> highly suspect that this will be not be the case, and quite possibly in
> every implementation will be completely different _unless_ the spec defines
> a pre-allocated range for each pointer type. (which I think is a even worse
> idea)
>
> Sangwhan
>
> P.S. I've changed the subject as this "Last Call comments" thread is
> branching into to way to many diverged discussions. The W3C mailer will
> retain the thread ID so it'll be in the same thread, but at least you'll
> know what this branch is about before you click on the mail.
>
>