- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:45:52 -0500
- To: Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>, olli@pettay.fi
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-webevents@w3.org WG" <public-webevents@w3.org>
Thanks for pushing on this Sangwhan, I agree having some wording is valuable given the issues we've had. I want to make sure I understand what the wording means (and ideally matches our implementation). When you say 'touch sequence' you mean the sequence of events for a given touchID, right? Don't we want to be stronger than that - making restrictions across multiple touches? Perhaps something along the lines of the following (with improved wording - this is rough): User agents must ensure that all Touch objects available from a given TouchEvent are all relative to the same document that the TouchEvent was dispatched too. To implement this, user agents should maintain a notion of the current touch-active document. On first touch, this is set to the target of the touch. When all active touch points are released, the touch-active document is cleared. All TouchEvents are dispatched to the current touch-active document, and each Touch object it contains refers only to DOM elements (and co-ordinates) in that document. If a touch starts entirely outside the currently touch-active document, then it is ignored entirely. Does this match all the implementations? I'm pretty sure this is what Chrome does. Olli? I'm ok with the wording being less prescriptive, but it should have something like the first sentence above at least (this is the key restriction). Rick On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com> wrote: > Draft proposal: > > User agents must ensure a TouchEvent dispatched from a single > Document origin stays within the Document boundaries. > > In the event of the TouchEvent crossing Document boundaries, > only the original Document which the first touchstart event > of a single touch sequence was created will receive consequential > events, and all event targets of the TouchEvent must only expose > event targets within the same document. > > I'm not sure where would be the best location for this to be placed - > for now I tacked it in the "List of TouchEvents types" section. > > Comments are welcome. > > Sangwhan > > On Feb 26, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> Sangwhan - this is one of two comments that is blocking the progression of this spec to Proposed Recommendation [LC-comments]. >> >> Would you please either withdraw your comment or make a specific proposal by March 1? >> >> -Thanks, ArtB >> >> [LC-Comments] <http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TouchEvents-LCWD-24-Jan-2013> >> >> >> On 1/30/13 1:53 PM, ext Sangwhan Moon wrote: >>> On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/30/13 12:17 AM, ext Sangwhan Moon wrote: >>>>> Bumping Art's comment from another place. >>>>> >>>>> Since there has already been cases where implementations had issues with event targets >>>>> in multiple frame documents, I've been thinking about adding a explicit but non-normative >>>>> implementor's note about event targets since the spec has been re-opened. >>>>> >>>>> Ideas? >>>> Please make a specific proposal (including where you think it should be inserted in the spec) and is this a v1 and/or v2 proposal? >>> It should apply to both as it is a bit ambiguous at the moment, I'll write something more >>> specific and where it would probably belong best after giving it some thought. >>> >> > > -- > Sangwhan Moon, Opera Software ASA > >
Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 14:46:39 UTC