- From: Oren Freiberg <oren.freiberg@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:14:03 +0000
- To: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
>I think a less error-prone approach to separating them is to have separate boolean rules, eg. 'fine-pointer' and >'coarse-pointer'. This is >also more extensible (eg. what if we decide there's another option than just coarse >and fine, 'both' would be pretty confusing <grin>). You make a good point and I can both agree with it and align with this. If it goes this direction I think we should align hover to this model where they act as Boolean rules. >We also haven't talked about 'hover' yet. The spec language there still uses the "least capable primary >pointing device" >terminology. Are you guys OK with that? Hover right now we are okay with because of 'on-demand' assuming other UAs align with this and utilize this. I would prefer that hover acts very similar to pointer if we go with the above though.
Received on Monday, 28 April 2014 18:14:37 UTC