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

Skipping non-standard layerX and layerY. Reference to the original event... #47

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Skipping non-standard layerX and layerY. Reference to the original event... #47

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

paulredmond
Copy link
Contributor

Chrome is ditching non-standard layerX and layerY properties and generates tons of console warnings:

"event.layerX and event.layerY are broken and deprecated in WebKit. They will be removed from the engine in the near future." Affects Chrome 16x

Issue documented here: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=101733

jQuery 1.7 removed these in 1.7 as well, reference (see Removed Features): http://blog.jquery.com/2011/11/03/jquery-1-7-released/

  • Built and ran tests successfully before sending pull request.

@paulredmond
Copy link
Contributor Author

I also added reference to the original event so other browsers can still have access, but I can remove that from the PR if you'd like.

…alized which properties are actually used.
@rvagg
Copy link
Collaborator

rvagg commented Dec 16, 2011

See also #46 and #39
I like that you've split up the properties but I don't think the .split() is a great idea on each call, best if that's done once at init.

@paulredmond
Copy link
Contributor Author

I did not test this enough, sorry for jumping the gun.

@rvagg
Copy link
Collaborator

rvagg commented Dec 16, 2011

I might pull your conditional property copies info #39, I wanted to do that myself but couldn't be bothered sorting out which event types need which properties.
I also like referencing the source event but perhaps @fat may have a different opinion on that.

@paulredmond
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rvagg cool, I agree that I should not have called split in the function, bad idea :) I didn't realize your PR addressed similar to mine, thanks for referencing your PR.

@rvagg rvagg mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2011
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants