- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:19:40 -0700
- To: Oren Freiberg <oren.freiberg@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Oren Freiberg <oren.freiberg@microsoft.com> wrote: >>>> Tab Atkins wrote: >>>>> I think this is probably a reasonable approach to the problem of >>>>> detecting whether it's even *possible* for a user to do something. >>>>> I'd keep the MQs as written today, and just add another pair called >>>>> "any-pointer" and "any-hover" which address the rest of the inputs. > >>>> Yes, that would be ok; "any-hover" looked a bit strange to me, which >>>> is why I figured out we should maybe merge the two, but it seeems >>>> understandable. > >>> That seems OK to me. This also has the nice benefit (in contrast to >>> some of the other options we've discussed) as being compatible with >>> what we've already shipped in Chrome. > > It does sounds reasonable but let me recap to make sure I do understand it correctly. > > So we will keep the syntax today and add 'any-pointer' and 'any-hover'. > To clarify the existing syntax will match the primary form of input 'pointer' and will only match one value at a time but the 'any-pointer' keyword could match multiple values if there are multiple input devices. [...] > Also the UA would determine the primary form of input. Yes. > So for example on a hybrid device like a laptop with a touch screen (Yoga) we would match the fine input device to the existing keyword 'pointer' while we would match coarse to 'any-pointer'? any-pointer would match both "fine" and "coarse", since among all the pointers both are present. Yeah, 'pointer' would likely match only "fine", since on a laptop the touchpad is the primary input, not the touchscreen. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 19:20:27 UTC