- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:24:43 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, W3C WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>, "glenn.adams@cox.com" <glenn.adams@cox.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > That was my preference as well, but reading through the bug discussion [1] > I see that it was proposed to include pointer-events:none elements because > (1) that's what IE's implementation currently does, (2) this method is not > intrinsically about hit testing and (3) you can filter pointer-events:none > elements out of the sequence if you like. > > I find (3) somewhat convincing - your code can ignore those elements if > you like, but the elements are provided if you have a need for them. But I > would be happy with either including or excluding pointer-events:none > elements in the sequence. Personally, I don't find these convincing enough arguments to justify the difference in behavior from elementFromPoint(). This will result in *much* confusion and gnashing of teeth if it stands. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 18:25:30 UTC