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

[Bug 24894] New: ACTION-83: Tweaks to 5.1.2 The Primary Pointer

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:32:02 +0000
To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-24894-5978@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

            Bug ID: 24894
           Summary: ACTION-83: Tweaks to 5.1.2 The Primary Pointer
           Product: PointerEventsWG
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Pointer Events specification
          Assignee: jrossi@microsoft.com
          Reporter: redux@splintered.co.uk
        QA Contact: public-pointer-events-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: public-pointer-events@w3.org

As per
and some of the discussion from
- I propose:

1) changing the first note "When two or more pointer device types are being
used concurrently, multiple pointers are considered primary. ..." to "When two
or more pointer device types are being used concurrently, multiple pointers
(one for each pointer type) are considered primary. ..." (this was not minuted,
but I seem to recall somebody suggesting this in the call)

2) adding a new note (after the first one, above), to clearly spell out the
fact that mouse compat events are fired for every primary pointer - so if there
are multiple primary pointers, they will all fire mouse compat events: "NOTE:
In the case where there are multiple <a href="...">primary pointers</a>, 
these pointer will all produce compatibility mouse events.". In effect, this is
implicit in the spec (as at the start of 5.1.2 we do say "Only a primary
pointer will produce compatibility mouse events"), but this just makes it
crystal clear, as a result of the previous note.

3) at the start of 5.1.2 we have "Authors who desire single-pointer interaction
can achieve this by ignoring non-primary pointers." - this is perhaps
incomplete in light of what we say about multiple pointers. I'd suggest adding
at the end of this sentence "(though see the note in this section about
multiple primary pointers)".  If we wanted to be even more explicit (but this
would make it overly long perhaps), we should specify that authors should only
consider the primary pointer OF A SPECIFIC pointerType...

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 00:32:03 UTC

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