Re: Mousewheel [ISSUE-122] (was: CfC: to publish a Last Call Working Draft of DOM 3 Events; deadline September 3)

Hi Anne,

The mousewheel event was removed per implementer feedback. In response to your raised issue, we reconsidered this removal. However, implementers again expressed a reluctance to specify mousewheel due to a lack of useful interoperability and that any change to improve interop would likely break a number of sites.

Therefore, this issue has been rejected and the mousewheel event is not included in the specification. 



From: Doug Schepers <>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:26:54 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: www-dom <>
Hi, Anne-

I've added this as a Last Call comment in our issue tracker as ISSUE-122 
[1].  I'd be especially interested in further feedback from browser vendors.

Comments inline...

Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 8/29/10 4:07 AM):
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:48:18 +0200, Doug Schepers <> wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> Looking through it a bit more the mousewheel event seems gone. I thought
>>> we agreed long ago that would be part of it. (Various notes in the
>>> specification do mention it, but it seems they are included by
>>> accident.)
>> Yes, we included 'mousewheel' as recently as 7 months ago, but I
>> removed it based on implementer feedback. I've now removed the stray
>> reference to it in the "Changes" section.
> Do you maybe have a pointer to that implementor feedback? I would have
> expected at least some kind of announcement email like "mousewheel event
> dropped". I just searched through www-dom and could not find any
> discussion.

You're right, I should have sent out a notice.  I meant to, but it seems 
I forgot.  I thought it would be in the minutes, but it's possible I 
failed to send a record of that telcon to the list (purely by 
accident... I've been editor, issue tracker, telcon chair, and sometimes 
scribe for DOM3 Events, and it's normally fallen on me to send the 
minutes even when I didn't scribe; this may have happened when my 
schedule was particularly hectic doing other things.  I apologize for 
not publicizing this change more).

I agree that the WebApps WG should discuss it further, and we should do 
so during Last Call.

I have a mild preference for keeping 'mousewheel' out, and simply 
encouraging content authors to use 'wheel' instead, but won't object to 
adding it back in.

>> The only other place it's mentioned is in the 'wheel' event as an
>> informative comparison.
> It also says user agents may dispatch one of those events. I'm not
> really sure how this is supposed to give us interoperability.

The goal there is to inform authors about the relationship and define 
loosely what happens for the legacy event in different implementations, 
more than a normative assertion on implementations.  I could put that in 
an appendix if you would prefer.


-Doug Schepers

Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 06:43:14 UTC