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

RE: initial thoughts: pointerup and "click"/"contextmenu"

From: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:08:28 +0000
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
Message-ID: <764335f4be6140d18553d9fec4d01355@BL2PR03MB451.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> I know "click" and "contextmenu" aren't considered compatibility mouse events (and rightly so), but I'm wondering if the spec should still mention something more explicit about them in relation to pointerup.
> As an initial suggestion, based on my proposed patch for the list of event types table, maybe adding something to the default action entry for pointerup
> "Varies: when the pointer is primary, all default actions of mouseup"
> change to
> "Varies: when the pointer is primary, all default actions of mouseup; dispatch click or contextmenu events [...]"
> though on the other hand, I can see how this may require too much extra explanation (as it depends on the mouse button pressed, for instance), and I guess it would also (at least for contextmenu) need a similar note about long-pressing (on pointerdown?) for touch interfaces?
> Good idea or not? Now that I've written it out, it actually looks a lot hairier than I first anticipated. Maybe a new note after the table instead? Something a bit generic mentioning that user agents may then also dispatch click/contextmenu depending on ... something?

We've generally avoided defining click and contextmenu event behavior. This is primarily because, for input devices like touch, many user agents employ technologies outside the scope of this group when deciding to fire these events (e.g. gesture recognition) [1]. I'm of the opinion that, unless we can fully define their behavior, we shouldn't slip in partial mention of their behavior. The non-normative note about them not being compatibility events was added because we (Microsoft) kept getting the question as to whether click/contextmenu were accidentally omitted from the definition when in fact it is intentional that they are not considered compatibility events.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/#scope 
Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 00:09:09 UTC

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