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: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 17:38:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFUtAY8V-M20=wDBdqA8XJvpjQz6DTwMh+Hc-fnkAcAo7pimKw@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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

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