Update support data for touch-action property #3331
Conversation
|
There are 2 separate files for touch-action level 1 and touch-action level 2 but caniuse.com only shows the information for touch-action level 1. Is this because touch-action level 2 is still in WD status? |
| @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ | |||
| "8":"n", | |||
| "9":"n", | |||
| "10":"a x #1", | |||
| "11":"a #1" | |||
| "11":"n" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems patently incorrect to me.
| @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ | |||
| }, | |||
| "ie_mob":{ | |||
| "10":"a x #1", | |||
| "11":"a #1" | |||
| "11":"n" | |||
| @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ | |||
| }, | |||
| "notes":"Due to scoping issues of the W3C Pointer Events Working Group, `pinch-zoom` appears in the WHATWG Compatibility Standard instead of W3C Pointer Events Level 2.", | |||
| "notes_by_num":{ | |||
| "1":"IE and Edge only support `pinch-zoom`.", | |||
| "1":"Edge only supports `pinch-zoom`.", | |||
features-json/css-touch-action.json
Outdated
| @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ | |||
| "8":"n", | |||
| "9":"n", | |||
| "10":"y x #2", | |||
| "11":"y" | |||
| "11":"n" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IE10 was the first browser to support pointer events and touch-action, what gives you the impression it disappeared in IE11?
features-json/css-touch-action.json
Outdated
| @@ -186,8 +186,8 @@ | |||
| "9":"n", | |||
| "9.1":"a #3", | |||
| "10":"a #3", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
9.1 and 10 should match 10.1 and TP
features-json/css-touch-action.json
Outdated
| @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ | |||
| }, | |||
| "ie_mob":{ | |||
| "10":"y x #2", | |||
| "11":"y" | |||
| "11":"n" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ditto previous comments re IE
|
@lpd-au thank you for reviewing. You are absolutely right, I forgot that IE11 does NOT support feature queries to begin with so that was a false negative. I've updated the pull request accordingly, as well as for the Safari data. |
|
LGTM now, thanks :) Fyi, I added the file for the spec level 2 values in a pull request that's still labelled needs data review, I'm not 100% sure who's trusted to conduct that though. The spec status shouldn't matter, afaik it's all about data integrity. |
Addresses #3325