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

RE: Add 'manipulation' touch-action property?

From: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:53:16 +0000
To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
CC: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
Message-ID: <bf6802e3a7ea4b50845611cc685f5fbe@BY2PR03MB457.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hi folks,

Per our discussion in today's meeting, I've added "manipulation" to the latest editor's draft using the language proposed by Rick below. Let me know if there are issues with the change.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/rev/018f1b69c985


-Jacob

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Rossi [mailto:Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 4:12 PM
To: Patrick H. Lauke; Rick Byers
Cc: public-pointer-events@w3.org
Subject: RE: Add 'manipulation' touch-action property?

I have no problems with this addition iff we have strong consensus and support by implementers. We have an opportunity for this type of change given we intend to publish another LC draft soon and it would be helpful for interop.  

But I wouldn’t block on the spec’s progress for this. So if we don’t reach consensus very soon or if a 2nd interoperable implementation doesn’t soon arise, then I’d rather move this to V2. 

I think Rick’s text is fine as-is for me. 

-Jacob


On 26 Feb 2014, at 01:33, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose we add IE's 'touch-action: manipulation' [1] property to the pointer events specification.  We've avoided the Microsoft-specific properties because they're explicitly out of scope for the working group, but I think we can word the definition of 'manipulation' such that it's within the scope of the group and consistent with the existing language.  In particular, how about something like:

manipulation: The user agent MAY consider touches that begin on the element only for the purposes of panning and continuous zooming.  Any additional behaviors supported by 'auto' are out of scope for this specification.  

I'm happy to go into why I think this is important, but my biggest reasons out out of scope for this group.  Instead we can focus on:
 - improves compatibility with existing sites (manipulation seems to be the most commonly used of the non-standard properties)
 - acts as a nice shorthand replacement for the more awkward 'touch-action: pan-x pan-y'

Alternately, I'd even be content to spec 'manipulation' as a synonym for 'pan-x pan-y' but say that user agents may choose to associate with it additional semantics that are out of scope with this specification.

Thanks,
   Rick

[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh767313.aspx

Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 01:53:45 UTC

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