- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:03:33 +0100
- To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>
* Jacob Rossi wrote: >From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-pointerevents-20130115/ proposes "In order >> to facilitate differentiating button state transitions in any pointer >> event (and not just pointerdown and pointerup), the button property >> takes on a new value when no mouse buttons are depressed" specifically >> the value -1 would be for "Mouse move with no buttons pressed". So, for >> 'mousemove' with no button pressed you will get MouseEvent.button == 0, >> while for "pointer events" you get MouseEvent.button == -1? > >Trusted mouse* events will not change (preserving compat). So for a mousemove, >you'll get 0. But for pointermove you would get -1. Expressing the same state through the same interface using two mutually exclusive attribute values strikes me as bad interface design. So does using the value -1 for this more generally, and using magic numbers here more generally; using a bitmask in `MouseEvent.buttons` is not much of an improvement, but given `MouseEvent.buttons`, I do not see why using the `-1` value in `MouseEvent.button` is necessary or desirable. Perhaps the Pointer Events Working Group could make a better argument for this design than pointing out that they "want it"? Then we could come up with alternatives and evaluate them. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 12:04:01 UTC