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

Semantics behind list #49

Open
annevk opened this issue May 20, 2019 · 6 comments
Open

Semantics behind list #49

annevk opened this issue May 20, 2019 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented May 20, 2019

https://wicg.github.io/event-timing/#considered-for-event-timing has a list of event types. How were these chosen?

@tdresser
Copy link
Collaborator

Our objective was to construct a list of the events which would be caused by directly by user input.
We should be clearer about this in the spec (and it's very possible we missed something!).

@annevk
Copy link
Member Author

annevk commented May 24, 2019

What about pointerrawupdate or any other new input event type? Would that require changes? If so, we should really abstract this somehow. The inert attribute @alice is working on would also benefit from this.

@tdresser
Copy link
Collaborator

Yeah, we should figure out how to abstract this somehow. I'm really not sure what the best approach to doing this is though. Would we just want to move the list to the DOMEvent spec?

@annevk
Copy link
Member Author

annevk commented May 24, 2019

Letting UI Events own it sounds like a good start, as "user interaction event types" or some such.

An alternative I somewhat prefer would be to set a specific internal slot on the Event object, "due to user interaction" or some such, at the time of firing. Specifications could then check for the value of this internal slot. New user interaction event specifications would have to set this bit appropriately in order to integrate with the ecosystem. This might be a bit more involved though as it'd require finding and updating all the relevant specifications, some of which don't have the appropriate infrastructure.

@tdresser
Copy link
Collaborator

The internal slot approach does seem preferable, that's a good thought.

@clelland
Copy link

@mmocny, can you take a look at the spec changes that would be required for this?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants