On Aug 24, 2011, at 19:21 , Simon Fraser wrote: > My main objection to adding this is that it's just one of many different > types of input device, and if we add these piecemeal for each device that > takes our fancy, we'll end up with a horrible mishmash of different input > events. > > I'd prefer a more general strategy of thinking about all the various types of > input events (e.g. joysticks, remote controls, assistive devices), and having > an API that caters for all of them. This of course would require significant > W3C time investment.
You don't need to loop in W3C or any other organisation to make an API that universally caters to all possible input event types a massive time investment. There is such a thing as trying too hard for consistency; furthermore different input methods do tend to require (or at least benefit) from having their specificities exposed. I think that it makes sense to prototype as much as possible, and once prototypes are roughly usable look for areas of overlap with existing input methods. This isn't very different from a lot of what's been done with touch events. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
