On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote: > On 10/02/2012 11:55 PM, Florian Bösch wrote: > >> I'd like to point out that vendors are using additional failure criteria >> to determine if pointerlock succeeds that are not outlined in the >> specification. Firefox uses the fullscreen change event to determine >> failure and chrome requires the pointer lock request to fail if not >> resulting >> from a user interaction target. I think that Firefoxes interpretation is >> less useful than Chromes, >> > But safer Also not in conformance to the specification (hence a bug). Additionally, it will make it really difficult to follow the specification since non-fullscreen mouse capture is specifically intended by the specification by not adding that failure mode *to* the specification (there's a fairly long discussion on this on the chrome ticket for pointerlock resulting in what Chrome does now). and that Chromes interpretation should be amended > >> to the spec since it seems like a fairly good idea. >> >> I'm not yet convinced that it is safe enough. > Also, it is not properly defined anywhere. > So either Chrome is also implementing in conformance to the specification, or the specification is changed. Ipso facto, the specification is not complete since I don't think Chrome will drop this failure mode, and it seems like Firefox is intending to follow Chromes lead because otherwise it wouldn't be possible to implement non-fullscreen pointerlock.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 21:59:29 UTC