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

RE: Touch-action to SVG elements

From: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:58:32 +0000
To: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Cathy.Chan@nokia.com" <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>, "gnanasekar.s@samsung.com" <gnanasekar.s@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <12496bc691e642a9a0f728fd440bbdb0@BY2PR03MB457.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I don’t have a problem removing the sentence. As you said, I don’t really think it makes a difference whether the sentence exists or not—the decision to or not to expand it to other elements would be made on its own merits at that point in time (not on whether the previous spec allowed or disallowed it).

From: Rick Byers [mailto:rbyers@google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:34 PM
To: Jacob Rossi
Cc: Arthur Barstow; Cathy.Chan@nokia.com; public-pointer-events@w3.org; gnanasekar.s@samsung.com
Subject: Re: Touch-action to SVG elements

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com<mailto:Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>> wrote:
I agree "except" is clearer.  I pushed an update to fix this and the out of date note that Rick pointed out:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/raw-file/tip/pointerEvents.html#the-touch-action-css-property


"Applies to: all elements except: non-replaced inline elements, table rows, row groups, table columns, and column groups"

"Note: The touch-action property applies only to elements that support both the CSS width and height properties (see [CSS21] ). This restriction is designed to facilitate user agent optimizations for low-latency touch actions. For elements not supported by default, such as <span> which is a non-replaced inline element (see [HTML5]), authors can set the display CSS property to a value, such as block, that supports width and height. Future specifications could extend this API to all elements.."

Love it!  One pre-existing issue: I've always been uneasy about the 'future specifications' part - that would be a breaking change with potential web compat impact (eg. preventing scrolling in scenarios that scrolling is possible today).  I'd prefer we just remove any speculation here (whether or not we could make such a change won't be impacted by what we write here).  I.e. just axe the last sentence.  WDYT?

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 22:59:03 UTC

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