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

RE: Confusing thing about lostpointercapture event

From: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 17:43:13 +0000
To: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>, "Maksim Lebedev" <alessarik@gmail.com>
CC: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4b296792395f4ba0a4430a46a4bb35d0@BY2PR03MB457.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I’ve updated the spec to list Document and Element in the non-normative table.  Maksim, let us know if that doesn’t fully address your concern.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/rev/0467403d9e5e


-Jacob

From: Scott González [mailto:scott.gonzalez@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 8:25 AM
To: Maksim Lebedev
Cc: public-pointer-events@w3.org
Subject: Re: Confusing thing about lostpointercapture event

You're correct that 5.2.1 List of Pointer Events should be updated to include Document as a trusted proximal event target type. We will update the table to list both Document and Element. Does that change alone address your concern?

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Maksim Lebedev <alessarik@gmail.com<mailto:alessarik@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi folks.

Latest draft of specification of pointer events have point 10.3.1 Implicit Release of Pointer Capture:
If the pointer capture target override is removed from the document tree, clear the pending pointer capture target override and pointer capture target override nodes and fire a Pointer Event named lostpointercapture at the document.

But according with point 5.2.2 List of Pointer Events
lostpointercapture event can be fired only at element.

This dissonance has confusing actions for me. Maybe we should change something?

Thanks, Maksim Lebedev.

Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 17:43:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:10 UTC