This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 26013 - Note in "10 Pointer Capture" to mention implicit pointer capture
Summary: Note in "10 Pointer Capture" to mention implicit pointer capture
Alias: None
Product: PointerEventsWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Pointer Events specification (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jacob Rossi [MSFT]
QA Contact: Pointer Events Bugzilla list
Depends on:
Reported: 2014-06-08 00:39 UTC by Patrick H. Lauke
Modified: 2014-07-15 15:40 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Description Patrick H. Lauke 2014-06-08 00:39:06 UTC
As discussed on list I'd propose adding a note to "10. Pointer Capture" in the introductory section, after Fig 4: (slightly altered from my original suggestion)

"NOTE: browsers MAY implement their own implicit pointer capture behaviour - for instance, for touch interactions, a browser may automatically capture the pointer as part of a tap on a native form control (such as a button) to improve user interaction (allowing some finger movement to stray outside of the form control itself during the tap action). As part of this behaviour, browsers MAY fire <code>gotpointercapture</code> and <code>lostpointercapture</code> events, even though no explicit pointer capture functions (<code>setPointerCapture</code> and <code>releasePointerCapture</code>) were called."
Comment 1 Jacob Rossi [MSFT] 2014-07-15 15:24:10 UTC
Added as discussed:

The only change I made to the proposed text was to remove RFC2119 keywords since this is a note.  Let me know if you see any issues with the text.
Comment 2 Patrick H. Lauke 2014-07-15 15:27:23 UTC
Two minor queries on this:

- "Implicit Set of Pointer Capture" read slightly awkward. Could it be changed to "Implicit Pointer Capture" (as the text also deals with the implicit release of pointer capture, not just setting)

- Should this be in an informative NOTE ?
Comment 3 Jacob Rossi [MSFT] 2014-07-15 15:35:09 UTC
Changing the title seems good.  It already is in an informative note. I just put a heading above it to match the flow of implicit release of capture (and to get an entry in the ToC).
Comment 4 Jacob Rossi [MSFT] 2014-07-15 15:38:22 UTC
Ah, I think I understand what you mean better now.  How does this change look?
Comment 5 Patrick H. Lauke 2014-07-15 15:40:55 UTC
Ah sorry, missed that it was already a note. Yup, all looks good to me now :)