Re: [pointerevents] Add deviceProperties.uniqueId to PointerEvent spec (#495)

> I fail to see the benefit in introducing a tear-off/namespace object here. Why can't this stay flat?

I believe @smaug---- had concerns with growing the PointerEvent structure with a bunch of one-off "optional" attributes, noting the [penCustomizationDetails]( as another one that may be added in the future, and so we reached a consensus on [Jan 31st]( to have @sahirv suggest a representative structure for these special device capabilities. @smaug----, I couldn't find notes covering the concerns you raised in some of the meetings about this, perhaps you could elaborate? I believe @patrickhlauke may have had thoughts as well.

> I guess I don't understand what @flackr means with optional there. These wouldn't be supported by everyone?

My understanding is this particular API is, at least presently, for a limited set of devices for which the particular pen you are using reports extra data so that it is uniquely identifiable from other pens used on the same touchscreen (see [Limitations of Current Hardware](

Similarly, the [penCustomizationDetails]( api would have limited hardware devices which provides particular pen customization information.

So by "optional" what was meant is likely to be unreported by the majority of hardware. It's of course entirely possible that at some point most new devices will support some of these concepts, and it is certainly also the case that many current devices don't support properties like [tangentialPressure](, so personally I don't strongly feel that it can't stay flat, however it would also be nice to avoid churn for @sahirv as to where this property belongs.

GitHub Notification of comment by flackr
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in

Received on Thursday, 16 May 2024 19:28:39 UTC