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

Re: Add 'manipulation' touch-action property?

From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:31:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFUtAY_ujyj_worNcJzxRp8JS1ciSrmDhz8qQsx2aATbwPR4pg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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).


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

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