W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > January to March 2017

[pointerevents] How should PointerLock vs setPointerCapture work together?

From: Mustaq Ahmed via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 20:19:33 +0000
To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-207327970-1487017171-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
mustaqahmed has just created a new issue for 

== How should PointerLock vs setPointerCapture work together? ==
This issue covers the PointerLock part of #135. Here is the original 
comment in that bug (by @mingchou):

> One element setPointerCapture and the other requestPointerLock. 
Please ignore this case if it will be covered by issue#131. On Canary,
 requestPointerLock works but setPointerCapture not. On Edge, the 
result is opposite.

In Chrome, pointer-capture comes after pointer-lock in the event flow 
just because we chose not to worry about both together in our initial 
implementation. We need to fix it for sure.

As for Edge, @NavidZ observed that it doesn't allow a 
requestPointerLock() after a setPointerCapture() but a 
setPointerCapture() after a requestPointerLock() doesn't work 
reasonably: PointerLock overrides the effect of capturing while the 
capturing target still gets got/lostpointercapture events.

What Edge does in the first case is the most reasonable solution to 
me: don't allow both of these together. The PointerLock spec [seems to
 these two can be active together (for the similar but non-standard 
setCapture() API instead), but I don't think the text there gives a 
definitive answer.

Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/176 using your GitHub 
Received on Monday, 13 February 2017 20:19:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 February 2017 20:19:40 UTC