- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:46:15 +0100
- To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
On 23/09/2014 05:41, Jacob Rossi wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Patrick H. Lauke [...] >> "Normally, even with Pointer Events, if you move your touch point >> too much (again, there are a few pixels of wiggle room), it is >> again considered that you're really doing some gesture or scroll >> behavior - so the pointer is cancelled (pointercancel is fired) and >> it's left up to the UA to handle any further >> movement/interaction." >> >> Unless I'm mistaken, this aspect is not explicitly mentioned in the >> PE spec at the moment? And if I'm right and it isn't, should it? > > Defining this behavior is out of scope for the spec since it involves > gesture recognition [1]. Wonder if a small non-normative note (which doesn't even need to go into any detail, but just flag up that UAs may implement their own gesture) could be added? Or do we think the first bullet point in "9.1 The touch-action CSS property" is enough? "The user agent has determined (via methods out of scope for this specification) that touch input is to be consumed for a touch behavior," I'm easy either way... >> Also, just before the examples in that section, we have >> >> "...the user agent must fire a pointer event named pointercancel >> (and subsequently a pointerout event) whenever all of the following >> are true, in order to end the stream of events for the pointer:" [...] >> There's also pointerleave that's usually being fired, again to "end >> the stream of events for the pointer". I'd suggest >> [...] adding pointerleave as well? > > Yes listing pointerleave here makes sense. Let's get a resolution to > do this on tomorrow's call. Filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26888 for this. Should be a fairly non-controversial tweak (most likely a remnant of an earlier version of the spec that did not include pointerenter/pointerleave, I suspect?) Also, can this bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26809 be closed? I think I've answered it exhaustively enough to show it's not a bug in the spec, just something the person who filed the bug didn't like/understand about PE and how they differ from TE. P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2014 07:46:35 UTC