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

RE: Add 'manipulation' touch-action property?

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>
Message-ID: <8aa68aff5e6f44f487b5f571d279ab80@BY2PR03MB457.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
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

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