On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > 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. > Can we instead add an extra argument for this new magical behavior? Element elementFromPoint(x, y, includePointerEventsNoneStuff); sequence<Element> elementsFromPoint(x, y, includePointerEventsNoneStuff); I feel like I should be able to do: ASSERT( elementFromPoint(x,y) == elementsFromPoint(x, y)[0]); Not having that definitely violates the principle of least wtfery :) - EReceived on Monday, 24 June 2013 19:11:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:31 UTC