- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:30:17 -0400
- To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Daniel Freedman <dfreedm@google.com>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY_kjOtbVGfR_s87biP_8AyHrp2cv2QG4rwZshLnphhENw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Addressing your first question: > >> > >> The processing model is designed so that you can incorporate > scrollable/zoomable elements as "ceilings" for the inheritance. Your map > example illustrates this. Put a different way, we want it such that when > you touch in a scrollable/zoomable element then you only need to consider > the elements inside the scrollable/zoomable element to determine the > touch-action. Happy to add a note if that helps. > > > > > > Thanks. And is having a ceiling beneficial for any reason other than > particular implementation details in IE? I'm not quite done the Chrome > implementation yet, but I don't think it makes anything easier for us. > > > > As a web developer I'm definitely glad I don't have to remember to > explicitly specify touch-action: auto on scrollable elements that might > occur inside of touch-action: none regions. > > Not an implementation detail. It's precisely your last comment that > justifies the design. Generally speaking, we want to avoid scenarios where > developers have to think to add touch-action:auto for a scroller inside of > a touch-action:none region. One way to think about this model is > effectively "event bubbling." When you touch, the even "bubbles" up the > ancestor tree looking for the first "handler." It stops when it reaches the > scroller because the scroller can "handle" the event. Likewise, it also > stops at the first element that says explicitly "touch-action: none." > Perfect, thanks. This is what I expected, but I wanted to confirm there wasn't something else motivating this I hadn't thought of. -Jacob > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 19:31:09 UTC