- From: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:37:15 +0000
- To: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.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 2:38 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote: > > 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 :-) The results I have from Bing yielded no known usage of "touch-action: <something> manipulation;" or "touch-action: manipulation <something>;". That only covers statically defined properties; but in my experience with compat and touch-action this has shown to be a sufficient measure. This also assumes my regex fu was strong. :-) touch-action:([\s]*[a-z-]+[\s]manipulation)|([\s]*manipulation[\s]+[a-z-]+)[\s]*;
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 20:37:45 UTC