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: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:03:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFUtAY-CkiRxPbRmNpO8MauR=n-VJBM3ZkjAdwn528YeHZgf-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-pointer-events@w3.org, ext Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, Nikolay Lebedev <nicklebedev37@gmail.com>
If the compat risk is low, then perhaps we should consider using the more
logical definition?  IE would of course be free to continue to implement a
superset of the specd grammar.
On Mar 10, 2014 4:37 PM, "Jacob Rossi" <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 11 March 2014 00:04:02 UTC

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