- From: Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:26:30 +0200
- To: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "public-touchevents@w3.org" <public-touchevents@w3.org>, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>, Mustaq Ahmed <mustaq@chromium.org>
On 01/22/2015 06:21 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 01/22/2015 05:55 PM, Rick Byers wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi <mailto:olli@pettay.fi>> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/22/2015 06:09 AM, Rick Byers wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl <mailto:annevk@annevk.nl> <mailto:annevk@annevk.nl
>> <mailto:annevk@annevk.nl>>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org <mailto:rbyers@chromium.org> <mailto:rbyers@chromium.org
>> <mailto:rbyers@chromium.org>>> wrote:
>> > Is my earlier proposal (a single "derivedFromTouchEvent" bool on Mouse
>> > events) preferable in your opinion? Or does it just suffer from the exact
>> > same problem?
>>
>> I think that might be better as it is more scoped. Since we don't
>> really understand this space much from a theoretical perspective I
>> would be hesitant to add generic APIs.
>>
>>
>> Understood, thanks. Jacob, you are the strongest proponent for the 'firedFrom' model over the 'derivedFromTouchEvent' one. Any thoughts?
>>
>> Here's a 3rd option we haven't discussed in detail yet:
>>
>> What if input events all had a 'sourceDevice' attribute which returned an object with an attribute like 'firesTouchEvents'.
>>
>>
>> In Gecko MouseEvents have the non-standard 'readonly attribute unsigned short mozInputSource;'
>> and the value can be MOZ_SOURCE_UNKNOWN, MOZ_SOURCE_MOUSE, MOZ_SOURCE_PEN etc.
>>
>> enum InputEventSource {
>> "",
>> "touch",
>> "mouse"
>> "pen",
>> "keyboard" // for 'enter' key event triggering 'click'
>> };
>> readonly attribute InputEventSource inputSource;
>>
>> might work pretty well.
>>
>>
>> Just exposing the type of source device is insufficient. Eg. in IE desktop the source device is touch, but since it didn't generate any touch events
>> the logic shouldn't assume touch event handlers have run.
>
> We shouldn't use this thing for feature detection. If touch events aren't supported, they aren't.
> But the source can still be touch.
> For feature detection, ("TouchEvent" in window) should work.
>
>
>> Conversely Firefox for Android fires touch events for a mouse, so even though the actual
>> source device was a mouse, app logic should still expect the mouse events to be redundant with touch events.
> Why, if also mouse events are fired?
I mean, if we add inputSource also to TouchEvents/PointerEvents, then it is up to the application logic to decide what to do with the events.
>
>
>>
>> So we need some indication about the relationship between events types. But doing this via some InputDevice object seems like good step forward along
>> a path we wanted to go down anyway.
>>
>> I wouldn't add derivedFromTouchEvent. That makes the APIs depend on each others too much, and given we probably want to expose
>> different derivedFrom values too, it would easily become very ugly.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Olli
>>
>> I've argued that the
>> problem here is NOT one of source device but of related events, but if the source device says explicitly what event types it fires and
>> developers test
>> that (rather than inferring it from some "device class") then that's just as good.
>>
>> In the pointer events working group we had other reasons to want an input device API (eg. 'navigator' is really a poor place for
>> 'maxTouchPoints').
>> Perhaps this is as good as a reason as any to start exposing an input device properties object. I wouldn't argue here for hanging a bunch of
>> extra
>> stuff of it, but it's reasonable to think that over time we'll want an API surface like this. Most other platforms have such a facility (eg.
>> MotionEvent.getDevice <http://developer.android.com/__reference/android/view/__InputEvent.html#getDevice()
>> <http://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/InputEvent.html#getDevice()>>() on Android).
>>
>> As your document suggests it is unclear what to include. Which also
>> suggests it does not fall out automatically from some underlying
>> primitive. Rather, we do this in various places as localized hacks and
>> there is probably not a generic framework that encompasses them well.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree this is a good legitimate argument against this design.
>>
>> > That said, if this group is interested in trying to spec this out in detail,
>> > I'm happy to help from the chromium side (explaining our implementation,
>> > trying to tweak it to align with the model you all agree on, etc.).
>>
>> I've been trying to get the people defining UI Events to do this for a
>> while now without much success.
>>
>>
>> --
>> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 16:26:57 UTC