- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 17:38:30 -0500
- To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Nikolay Lebedev <nicklebedev37@gmail.com>, Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY8V-M20=wDBdqA8XJvpjQz6DTwMh+Hc-fnkAcAo7pimKw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>wrote: > The MSDN docs certainly don’t match our implementation (we’ll fix > that). The spec’s current grammar does match our implementation. > > > > I agree it’s a tad quirky that “manipulation pan-x” works but “pan-x > pan-x” doesn’t (seeing as manipulation is essentially shorthand for “pan-x > pan-y other-goo”. “auto” / “none” are typically never combinable with other > values in any property though. > > > > While it is probably sub-optimal, It passes the “I can live with it” test > for me too. > I assume changing this has a non-trivial risk of breaking some website, right? Do you have any data on this? I can query the google search index for sites that specify them together in CSS if you think there's a chance we'd change the spec and IE behavior if it was found to be sufficiently non-breaking. If we can be confident that it's unlikely to break anyone, then we might as well make it right - no? I.e. we should only apply the "I can live with it" test if there's some reason to live with it :-) -Jacob > > > > *From:* Rick Byers [mailto:rbyers@google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:19 PM > *To:* Nikolay Lebedev > *Cc:* Matt Brubeck; Jacob Rossi; Patrick H. Lauke; > public-pointer-events@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Add 'manipulation' touch-action property? > > > > I just checked IE11, and (despite what the MSDN docs grammer says) it does > treat 'touch-action: manipulation pan-x' as valid. So the grammar as > written in the spec seems to match IE. > > > > This is surprising to me. We don't allow 'auto pan-x' (since pan-x is > redundant with auto) or 'pan-x pan-x', why would we allow 'manipulation > pan-x'? That said I think this is very minor. If IE is already behaving > this way, then perhaps sites are depending on it. Although it seems > slightly sub-optimal I'm OK using that grammar (although we'll need to > change blink to match). > > > > Jacob, can you comment on this please? Is this just an error in the MSDN > docs? > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Nikolay Lebedev <nicklebedev37@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > could you let me know - is there spec bug filed regarding changing > touch-action grammar from the "auto | none | [pan-x || pan-y || > manipulation]" to "auto | none | [pan-x || pan-y ] | manipulation" ? > > Or it is still under discussion which form is correct ? > > > Thanks, > Nick > > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com> > wrote: > > I filed a bug to implement 'manipulation' in Gecko: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=979345 > > > > >
Received on Friday, 7 March 2014 22:39:21 UTC