- From: Sahir Vellani via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 18:45:13 +0000
- To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
> While discussing the concerns, this seemed like a neat way to avoid having a second identifier with slightly different semantics and a convenient way for developers to use it without having to create a map of their own. I discussed this with our partners, and they will still need to create an identifier and add it to `deviceProperties`. They will also need their own map to keep track of state when the pointer is not in contact with the digitizer. I think the proposed solution is quite neat and simplifies the example in this spec pr; however, I think it is still important to provide an id because in most cases the web developer will need to create one themselves. Ultimately, it is my opinion that the current impl of supplying the id is the simplest, most intuitive and most versatile solution to the problem. There are some more hardware specific attribute proposals that would be good candidates for being under `deviceProperties`. [Hover Distance](https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/469) is one and the previously mentioned [Pen Customizations](https://github.com/darktears/pen-customizations) is another. If it doesn't make sense to add these under `deviceProperties`, perhaps we should just revert back to `PointerEvent.deviceId` as @annevk suggests. @flackr @smaug---- Would love your thoughts :) -- GitHub Notification of comment by sahirv Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/495#issuecomment-2138048843 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2024 18:45:15 UTC