- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:23:39 -0400
- To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>, "gnanasekar.s@samsung.com" <gnanasekar.s@samsung.com>, Douglas Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY8vHPOSqrn3zDZveLfXTqroDRRQ-Ohsni-BFdz2bB=JDA@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Jacob! To re-iterate what I said on the call today: this definition seems fine to me, we'll update our implementation to match after the draft spec has been updated. Blink bug: https://crbug.com/356215 Thanks, Rick On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>wrote: > Following up on this thread (and action 65). > > From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:17:47 -0500 > > > *Jacob, *do you agree that the behavior we see in IE is what we want the > spec to describe (touch-action supported on <svg> elements, but not other > types of SVG elements)? > > Yes. > > > *Jacob/Doug*, what's the right wording to convey this precisely? My > reading of the SVG spec is that "SVG elements" includes things like <path>, > etc. > > > > In addition, it seems IE applies touch-action on inline-block elements > (which I think makes sense). My reading of the CSS spec is that > inline-block isn't necessarily included with "block level elements". Is > there a more precise term to encompass display: block and display: > inline-block? > > > > What about the other display types that establish a BOX but aren't > themselves BLOCKS (eg. table-row, table-cell), what's the expected behavior > for them? Sorry I'm not enough of a CSS expert to know the precise terms > we're looking for here (and it wasn't obvious to me from the CSS spec). > > I consulted with some of our CSS WG reps and also did testing to confirm > IE's behavior. It looks like <svg> shouldn't be a special case. It is no > different than <img>, which is a replaced inline element (not block-level) > and supports touch-action. So the current spec text is incorrect. > > The correct definition should match that of the intersection of the height > and width properties from CSS2.1 [1,2]: > Applies to: all elements but non-replaced inline elements, table > rows, row groups, table columns, and column groups > > Put another way, it applies to any element that *both* width and height > apply to in CSS. Note table rows only accept height and table cols only > accept width, therefore touch-action applies to neither by this definition > (also cols are effectively display: none; so they were already irrelevant). > > This means block elements (like div), inline-block elements (like button), > replaced inline elements (like img, svg, canvas, video), tables, and table > cells/headers/captions are supported. But non-replaced inline elements > (like span), table col/row elements, and table col/row groups are not > supported. > > I propose we change the spec to match the applies to text above. Testing > briefly [3] Chrome, it looks like the replaced inline elements (img, svg, > canvas, etc) and input controls aren't supported but should be. Firefox has > the same issue as Chrome, except that <img> is already correctly supported. > We should probably convert this page into an actual test case. > > -Jacob > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#the-width-property > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#the-height-property > [3] http://jsfiddle.net/S9C5Y/3/embedded/result/ >
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 16:24:27 UTC