- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:31:32 -0500
- To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY_ujyj_worNcJzxRp8JS1ciSrmDhz8qQsx2aATbwPR4pg@mail.gmail.com>
Looks great, thank you very much for the super-fast turn-around! We're already beginning to implement this in chromium (http://crbug.com/349016). Rick On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>wrote: > 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 02:32:19 UTC