Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add the missing pointerover/enter events #36

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 3, 2016

Conversation

@NavidZ
Copy link
Member

commented Feb 26, 2016

In "Process Pending Pointer Capture" section, likewise the
pointerout/leave that is mentioned in this section in some
cases we need to send pointerover/enter when the capture
is lost and pointer is on another node that is not the
capturing node.

Add the missing pointerover/enter events
In "Process Pending Pointer Capture" section, likewise the
pointerout/leave that is mentioned in this section in some
cases we need to send pointerover/enter when the capture
is lost and pointer is on another node that is not the
capturing node.
@NavidZ

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

commented on d6591b4 Feb 26, 2016

@RByers @mustaqahmed
The current spec does not mention pointerover/enter firing when processing pending pointer capture. Similar to pointerout/leave that are mentioned in that section we need to fire pointerover/enter events as well in some situation.
I doubled checked with Edge and it does fire pointerover/enter the same as it is explained in the proposed patch as far as I found.

@RByers

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 26, 2016

Thanks Navid, this looks reasonable to me! But this space is pretty complicated and I'm not an expert, so let's see if someone from Edge can also review the precise wording before we land it (eg. @teddink?).

Presumably this was also a test hole in the tests, right? Can you submit an update for that as well?

@NavidZ

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 26, 2016

I haven't looked at the tests for the pointer capturing coverage yet. I will keep this in mind when I'm reviewing and testing those on Chrome to add anything that's missing.

@RByers

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 26, 2016

Oh right, of course - we're starting capture implementation now so haven't tried to run those tests yet. I knew that, sorry.

@teddink

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 26, 2016

The change sounds good to me as well, but like Rick, I am not yet an expert in the area so I am reaching out to folks internally like @jacobrossi

@mustaqahmed

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 29, 2016

One quick suggestion while we are into it: it seems to me that the section "Process Pending Pointer Capture" should really belong to the "Pointer Capture" section, perhaps between Sec10.2 & Sec10.3, because it is impossible to follow this section w/o skimming through 10.1 & 10.2 first. Only thing we need in the current section (Sec5.2.1) is a reference to the fact that we need to process pending capture before firing a "non-capture" PointerEvent.

@jacobrossi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 3, 2016

LGTM and +1 to adding test coverage for this. Regarding moving this section, I'm supportive but let's open a separate issue for that.

RByers added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2016

Merge pull request #36 from navidzolghadr/fixProcessingPendingPointer…
…Capture

Add some missing pointerover/enter events

@RByers RByers merged commit 6d2014b into w3c:gh-pages Mar 3, 2016

@RByers

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 3, 2016

Thanks everyone!

@NavidZ NavidZ deleted the NavidZ:fixProcessingPendingPointerCapture branch Jul 27, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.