Microsoft offers Pointer Events specs to WebKit developers

In September, Microsoft announced that it had submitted a new website standard proposal to the The World Wide Web Consortium called Pointer Events. Microsoft's proposal offers a new way for websites to be accessed from a number of different inputs, including the old fashioned mouse and keyboard, along with the more recent pen and touch screen interfaces.

This week, Microsoft's Open Technologies subsidiary announced it had released a prototype patch for its Pointer Events specifications for use in the development of WebKit-based web browsers, such as Google's Chrome browser. In their announcement, Microsoft asked for feedback on the patch from the WebKit community as it tries to get the full specs available to those projects.

So why would Microsoft want to help out WebKit, and its main web browser rival Google, with this action? Microsoft stated, " ... we are obviously interested in moving forward existing and new input types on the open web and, as the spec evolves, maintain interoperability between WebKit and Internet Explorer."

Ars Technica reports that Microsoft, Google, Firefox creator Mozilla and Opera are all working together to refine the Pointer Events specifications, along with other companies such as Nokia and Zynga. The major holdout on working with Pointer Events is Apple, which recently cut off support for the Windows version of Safari. Ironically, Safari's rendering engine is based on WebKit.

Source: Webkit.org | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Need some ice for that burn? MySpace Tom scorches Twitter user

Next Story

Steam 2012 holiday sales start; Linux beta open to all

15 Comments

The only multi touch gesture that i use is zoom and most of the time, i use double click instead of zoom. For me, multi touch is pretty much useless mainly because touch screen is anything but precise.

What we will really need is a total revamp. For example to put objects in a very specific position or anchored to some other.

Brony said,
The only multi touch gesture that i use is zoom and most of the time, i use double click instead of zoom. For me, multi touch is pretty much useless mainly because touch screen is anything but precise.

What we will really need is a total revamp. For example to put objects in a very specific position or anchored to some other.


Please, do not comment about things you have no idea about.

Brony said,
The only multi touch gesture that i use is zoom and most of the time, i use double click instead of zoom. For me, multi touch is pretty much useless mainly because touch screen is anything but precise.

What we will really need is a total revamp. For example to put objects in a very specific position or anchored to some other.

What in the heck are you talking about??

Please, enlight me.

About multitouch, Microsoft addes multitouch capabilities years ago but no applications uses it. Why?, because it is not so trivial to do that and because customers don't use that.

Right now, there is not a perfect browser and now MS is saying "let's add more bloat". it makes sense. /s

I agree where customers ask for new features but i consider stupid where a company accepts to add new features without thinking in the end result. It is similar when Homer Simpsons designed a new vehicle adding a lof of features that sounds cool but the final result was.. well, not so well.

:-P

Edited by Brony, Dec 21 2012, 2:37pm :

I repeat, as a developer, it is a PITA and most customers don't use that so it is not a deal at all.

So, it is not strange that most applications relies only in click, double click and swipe (with inertia).

Adding new features that don't bring any really special only helps to bloat the applications.

Microsoft finally understand that the Web platform is more powerful when they get every browser vendor involved. (If it wasn't obvious the past two years.)

They want to create new features to be used by developers for Windows Store apps, but they know that the only way they can do that is by improving the Web platform. This benefits everyone.

Edited by Meph, Dec 20 2012, 7:05pm :

Microsoft has a long history of contributing to open web standards. Or, at least, trying to. They often face stiff opposition from people with competing interests.

The youngsters don't remember the days of W3C stagnation where MS just plowed ahead with DHTML/CSS. They got lazy in the mid 00's but it would be nice to see them really push forward again.

Edit: The W3C never really got better I guess.

I never said they didn't. But things have really improved after they took a real interest in Web standards since IE8. As a Web developer, I can finally recommend IE10 as a default Web browser to people. I'm happy with its standards support and the more frequent release cycle it's going to have.

MrHumpty said,
Edit: The W3C never really got better I guess.

That's because Sir Tim is still ploughing ahead with his precious RDF. At least we have the WHATWG, now, but the W3C have improved a lot from back in the day.

Joshie said,
Opera = The New Netscape Communicator

I always wonder why Opera isn't as popular as other browsers like Firefox/ Chrome.

Because it is paid software? No (at least not any more).
Because Opera is slow? No (from my experience).
Because Opera isn't standard compliant? No (and I guess Opera is the most standard compliant browser out there?).
Because Opera is available on 1~2 platforms only? No (Windows, Mac, Linux... and smartphones too).

...Because Opera isn't open source? I don't know (but does it really matter?)

WHY?

alxtsg said,

WHY?

Because it's bloated and too many websites aren't coded to render properly in it. Settings for how to handle downloads are at a 1993 level of UX (when was the last time anyone had to even know what 'mime' meant?), so not only is it inexplicable why it bothers to have its own torrent downloader, it's infuriating to disable it.

The application itself renders[ed?] oddly, and resizing the window would have the damnedest visible wonkiness that made the whole app feel clunky.

And again, bloated. I wasn't kidding when I connected it to Netscape Communicator (not Navigator). Opera makes the 90s mistake of trying to do everything when the rest of the world has already figured out that the modular approach is more successful and more agile.

If the Opera model had a chance in hell of being interesting enough to win any marketshare, you can bet people would still choose Seamonkey instead, since at least it supports Firefox addons.

Commenting is disabled on this article.