Re: Adding implementor's note about event targets?

On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:37 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> On 3/20/13 1:42 PM, ext Olli Pettay wrote:
>> On 03/01/2013 03:45 PM, Rick Byers wrote:
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Yes, matches Gecko. (and I believe Safari+Webkit too)
> 
> I went ahead and checked in a change that includes the text proposed earlier [1]. This commit puts the Note in a new non-normative section 5.2.
> 
> Changeset: <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/6f2c52cd50f6>
> Spec: <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html#touchevent-implementer-s-note>
> 
> Sangwhan, Rick - for the purposes of the LC comment tracking, please let us know if this is acceptable or not, and in case it is not, please propose text that will address your concerns.

Art, Thanks for following up on this. Looks good to me too.

(As noted earlier - the last sentence doesn't match Presto's behavior, but upcoming
Opera will have matching behavior so it shouldn't be that much of a issue..)

-- 
Sangwhan Moon, Opera Software ASA

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 23:42:58 UTC