W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Feedback on pointer events

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:33:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78hhUoPvAnsnJowa1egbxtqp1rDWn+Vz-DFoSDJ07AdOmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Are you proposing that the synchronous events also need further definition?

What do you mean synchronous? User input is not synchronous.


> Second, cancelling a pointer event will also cancel the corresponding compatibility mouse event (if there is one). Hence, the remaining cancellable pointer events are so by nature of their corresponding mouse events being cancellable.  The specific default action & steps for those mouse events is out of scope for this group. But I think this is solved by modifying steps 4 & 5 in section 11.1 and steps 5 &6 in section 11.2 to set the cancelled flag of the mouse event being fired to true.

If you declare fundamental bits out of scope, how do you expect
interoperable implementations?


>> Nit: "boundaries of all of its children", you want descendants there.
>
> Indeed.

But you did not fix it?


>> I'm a bit concerned too by the language of y is fired after x if z.
>> Can we not make that a concrete set of steps around firing x? It's not
>> clear e.g. if those are fired on the same task or on different tasks
>> at the moment. Or in other words, the modeling is somewhat sketchy.
>
> If you can propose spec text that might make this clearer, I'm happy to take a look.

Usually when a reviewer points out a problem, it's up to the editor to
be grateful (optional, I suppose, but it helps in getting more
reviews) and fix it.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 10:34:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:26 UTC