RE: Add 'manipulation' touch-action property?

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]*;
>
>
>
>