Copyright © 2026 World Wide Web Consortium . W3C ® liability , trademark and permissive document license rules apply.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C standards and drafts index .
A history of changes to this document can be found at https://github.com/w3c/pointerlock/commits/gh-pages/index.html
Summary of changes since W3C Recommendation 27 October 2016 :
This document was published by the Web Applications Working Group as an Editor's Draft.
Publication as an Editor's Draft does not imply endorsement by W3C and its Members.
This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than a work in progress.
This document was produced by a group operating under the W3C Patent Policy . W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent that the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy .
This document is governed by the 18 August 2025 W3C Process Document .
This section is non-normative.
The Pointer Lock API provides applications the ability to directly interpret mouse movements as an input method, rather than being limited to only read the position of the mouse cursor. A popular example is that of first person movement controls in three dimensional graphics applications such as games: movement of the mouse is interpreted to control the rotation/direction of the player's camera; no mouse cursor is displayed, and the movement is not limited to the traditional boundaries (such as the user agent's window, or the overall screen) that the mouse cursor is usually subject to, meaning that any mouse movements can be tracked indefinitely in any direction.
Pointer Lock is related to Mouse Capture [ MDN-SETCAPTURE ] (Mouse Capture is unspecified: bug 14600 ). Capture provides continued event delivery to a target element while a mouse is being dragged, but ceases when the mouse button is released. Pointer Lock differs by being persistent, not limited by screen boundaries, sending events regardless of mouse button state, hiding the cursor, and not releasing until an API call or specific default unlock gesture by the user.
Pointer Lock deals with capturing a single resource and relating it to a single element. This is similar to the Fullscreen API [ FULLSCREEN ], which promotes a single element to be full screen. The Pointer Lock API chooses to pattern the resource capture, state change, and release API as closely as possible after the Fullscreen API.
The Pointer Lock interaction mode was previously referred to as mouse lock. The name was changed as many different controller types besides mice can manipulate the on screen pointing cursor, and they are all impacted.
The pointer lock state is the state where a single DOM element, which we will call the pointer-lock target , receives all mouse events and the cursor is hidden.
Once
in
the
pointer
lock
state
the
user
agent
has
a
pointer-lock
target
,
a
pointer-lock
options
,
which
is
a
PointerLockOptions
and
a
cursor
position
which
is
a
pair
of
numbers
representing
the
location
of
the
system
mouse
cursor
when
the
Pointer
Lock
State
was
entered
(the
same
location
that
is
reported
in
screenX
,
screenY
).
The
pointer-lock
target
receives
all
relevant
user
generated
MouseEvent
events:
namely,
all
user-generated
mousemove
,
mousedown
,
mouseup
,
click
,
dblclick
,
auxclick
,
and
wheel
[
ui-events
POINTEREVENTS
].
No
other
elements
receive
these
events
while
in
pointer
lock
state
.
There
will
be
no
dispatching
of
events
that
require
the
concept
of
a
mouse
cursor:
namely,
mouseenter
,
mouseleave
,
mouseover
,
mouseout
,
drag
,
and
drop
.
This came up in this thread on #49 :
Would it be possible to list these events normatively, instead of only giving some examples?
I think the current text is OK, because the lack of precision here is just a symptom of the larger lack of precision in how mouse events are specified in general. Some progress is being made there, in w3c/uievents#200 , and if that lands then eventually this paragraph can move into the UI events spec as an actual change to the processing model.
But in the meantime, it would help achieve interoperability if you were precise about the list of events.
For example, it's not clear to me whether pointer events are impacted by this change.
While
in
the
pointer
lock
state
if
the
pointer-lock
options
'
unadjustedMovement
member
is
true
,
the
event
coordinates
will
not
be
affected
by
the
underlying
platform
behaviors
such
as
mouse
acceleration.
In
other
words,
the
user
agent
uses
the
APIs
provided
by
the
underlying
platform
to
guarantee
getting
the
raw
events.
If
the
PointerLockOptions
'
unadjustedMovement
member
is
false
,
the
user
agent
relies
on
the
default
behavior
of
the
underlying
platform
regarding
the
mouse
acceleration.
In the pointer lock state , the system mouse cursor is hidden and the window is prevented from losing focus, regardless of mouse movement or button presses. This is directly or indirectly achieved utilizing the underlying operating system API.
Synthetic mouse events created by application script act the same regardless of lock state.
WebIDLdictionary PointerLockOptions {
boolean unadjustedMovement = false;
};
PointerLockOptions
dictionary
The options dictionary to customize how the pointer behaves in the locked mode.
unadjustedMovement
member
If
this
value
is
set
to
true
,
then
the
pointer
movements
will
not
be
affected
by
the
underlying
platform
modifications
such
as
mouse
accelaration.
Two
events
are
used
to
communicate
pointer
lock
state
change
or
an
error
in
changing
state.
They
are
named
pointerlockchange
and
pointerlockerror
.
Refer
to
algorithm
of
3.
Extensions
to
the
Element
Interface
for
detail.
Magnification
software
increases
the
size
of
content
on
the
screen.
It
uses
the
mouse
to
move
the
magnified
point
of
focus
around.
When
a
pointer
lock
is
initiated,
the
magnification
software
needs
to
switch
to
using
the
keyboard
to
move
the
magnified
point
of
focus
around
instead.
When
a
pointerlockchange
event
is
fired,
web
browsers
therefore
need
to
make
sure
the
event
is
communicated
to
assistive
technologies
like
screen
magnifiers.
The process of exiting pointer lock, given an element , is as follows:
pointerlockchange
at
the
given
element
's
node
document
.
The
Element
interface
is
extended
to
provide
the
ability
to
request
the
pointer
be
locked.
WebIDLpartial interface Element {
Promise<undefined> requestPointerLock(optional PointerLockOptions options = {});
};
const lock_element = document.getElementById("lock_element");
const lock_button = document.getElementById("lock");
lock_button.addEventListener("click", async (event) => {
try {
await lock_element.requestPointerLock({ unadjustedMovement: true });
console.log("successfully locked!");
} catch (e) {
console.log("lock failed with error: ", e);
}
});
PointerLockOptions
options)
method
A
parallel
queue
named
as
lock
requests
queue
is
used
for
queuing
all
requests.
When
requestPointerLock()
is
invoked,
perform
the
following
steps:
window
is
in
focus
,
if
the
this
's
shadow-including
root
is
the
active
document
of
a
browsing
context
(or
has
an
ancestor
browsing
context
)
that
is
not
in
focus:
pointerlockerror
at
this
's
node
document
.
WrongDocumentError
"
DOMException
.
The spec should not allow hidden documents to request pointer lock.
Additionally, should a document become hidden, it should release the pointer lock.
Document
has
not
previously
released
a
successful
pointer
lock
with
exitPointerLock
()
:
pointerlockerror
at
this
's
node
document
.
NotAllowedError
"
DOMException
.
pointerlockerror
at
this
's
node
document
.
SecurityError
"
DOMException
.
unadjustedMovement
"]
is
true
and
the
platform
does
not
support
unadjustedMovement
:
pointerlockerror
at
this
's
node
document
.
NotSupportedError
"
DOMException
.
In
PR
#49
,
PointerLockOptions
is
introduced.
However,
unadjustedMovement
of
PointerLockOptions
might
not
be
supported
on
all
platforms.
A
static
field
could
be
useful
to
determine
whether
it
is
supported
before
directly
using
it
in
PointerLockOptions
and
get
a
not
supported
error.
pointerlockerror
at
this
's
node
document
.
InvalidStateError
"
DOMException
.
pointerlockchange
at
this
's
node
document
.
pointerlockerror
at
this
's
node
document
.
NotSupportedError
"
DOMException
.
In
the
PR
#49
's
algorithm
of
requestPointerLock
is
currently
missing
the
description
for
the
scenario:
When
a
subsequent
request
failed
(for
any
possible
reason),
should
an
already
locked
target
exit
lock
state?
pointerlockchange
at
this
's
node
document
.
In
the
PR
#49
's
algorithm
of
requestPointerLock
is
currently
missing
the
description
about
how
entries
in
lock
requests
queue
are
processed.
Without
an
explicit
text,
we
will
leave
open
the
incorrect
(?)
assumption
that
all
entries
will
be
synchronously
dequeued
at
the
end.
WebIDLpartial interface Document {
attribute EventHandler onpointerlockchange;
attribute EventHandler onpointerlockerror;
undefined exitPointerLock();
};
onpointerlockchange
attribute
An
event
handler
idl
attribute
for
pointerlockchange
events.
onpointerlockerror
attribute
An
event
handler
idl
attribute
for
pointerlockerror
events.
exitPointerLock()
method
WebIDLpartial interface mixin DocumentOrShadowRoot {
readonly attribute Element? pointerLockElement;
};
pointerLockElement
While the pointer is locked, returns the result of retargeting the element, which is the target for mouse events, against this element if the result and this element are in the same tree, otherwise returns null.
Returns null if lock is pending or if pointer is unlocked.
<body>
<div id="host1">
<shadow-root id="root1">
<canvas id="canvas1"></canvas>
</shadow-root>
</div>
<div id="host2">
<shadow-root id="root2">
<canvas id="canvas2"></canvas>
</shadow-root>
</div>
</
body
>
The
example
uses
fictional
shadow-root
element
to
denote
a
shadow
root
instance.
If
#canvas1
is
the
target,
document.pointerLockElement
returns
#host1
,
and
root1.pointerLockElement
returns
#canvas1
.
The
result
of
retargeting
#canvas1
against
#root2
is
#host1
,
but
as
#host1
is
not
in
the
same
tree
as
#root2
,
null
will
be
returned
for
root2.pointerLockElement
.
WebIDLpartial interface MouseEvent {
readonly attribute double movementX;
readonly attribute double movementY;
};
movementX
attribute
movementY
attribute
The
attributes
movementX
and
movementY
must
provide
the
change
in
position
of
the
pointer,
as
if
the
values
of
screenX
,
screenY
,
were
stored
between
two
subsequent
mousemove
events
eNow
and
ePrevious
and
the
difference
taken
movementX
=
eNow.screenX
-
ePrevious.screenX
.
movementX
and
movementY
must
be
zero
for
all
mouse
events
except
mousemove
and
pointermove
.
All
motion
data
must
be
delivered
via
mousemove
events
such
that
between
any
two
mouse
events
earlierEvent
and
currentEvent
the
value
of
currentEvent.screenX
-
earlierEvent.screenX
is
equivalent
to
the
sum
of
all
movementX
in
the
events
after
earlierEvent
,
with
the
exception
of
when
screenX
can
not
be
updated
because
the
pointer
is
clipped
by
the
user
agent
screen
boundaries.
movementX
and
movementY
must
be
updated
regardless
of
pointer
lock
state.
When
unlocked,
the
system
cursor
can
exit
and
re-enter
the
user
agent
window.
If
it
does
so
and
the
user
agent
was
not
the
target
of
operating
system
mouse
move
events
then
the
most
recent
pointer
position
will
be
unknown
to
the
user
agent
and
movementX
/
movementY
can
not
be
computed
and
must
be
set
to
zero.
When
pointer
lock
is
enabled
clientX
,
clientY
,
screenX
,
and
screenY
must
hold
constant
values
as
if
the
pointer
did
not
move
at
all
once
pointer
lock
was
entered.
But
movementX
and
movementY
must
continue
to
provide
the
change
in
position
of
the
pointer
as
when
the
pointer
is
unlocked.
There
will
be
no
limit
to
movementX
and
movementY
values
if
the
mouse
is
continuously
moved
in
a
single
direction.
The
concept
of
the
mouse
cursor
will
have
been
removed,
and
it
will
not
move
off
the
window
or
be
clamped
by
a
screen
edge.
The
un-initialized
value
of
movementX
and
movementY
must
be
0
.
Large
movement
values
must
not
appear
in
situations
when
mouse
input
is
interupted,
such
as
the
mouse
cursor
leaving
the
window
and
then
re-entering
at
another
location.
If
a
user
agent
experiences
a
gap
in
receiving
mouse
input
data
from
the
operating
system
then
the
next
generated
mousemove
event
must
have
movementX
and
movementY
set
to
0
.
These
gaps
may
appear
for
example
when
the
user
agent
receives
a
mouse
leaving
event
at
the
window
system
API.
As
an
exception
mouse
capture
may
allow
the
user
agent
to
continue
receiving
mouse
events
when
the
cursor
moves
outside
the
window.
WebIDLpartial dictionary MouseEventInit {
double movementX = 0;
double movementY = 0;
};
movementX
member
movementY
member
movementX
and
movementY
are
used
to
initialize
respective
members
of
MouseEvent
.
A default unlock gesture must always be available that will exit pointer lock with the user agent 's pointer-lock target .
Pointer lock must be exited if the pointer-lock target becomes disconnected , or the user agent , window, or tab loses focus. Moving focus between elements of active document , including between browsing contexts , does not exit pointer lock . E.g. using the keyboard to move focus between contents of frames or iframes will not exit.
Pointer lock must not be exited when fullscreen [ FULLSCREEN ] is entered or exited unless the pointer is required to enable interaction with the user agent graphical user interface, the default unlock gesture was used to exit both fullscreen and pointer lock, or window or tab focus was lost.
This section is non-normative.
A player on a first/third person game will need to control the view-port orientation. A widely used method is the use of mouse movements to control the viewing angle. This kind of application can use the Pointer Lock API to allow a complete freedom of control over the viewport's yaw and pitch even when the user is not pressing mouse buttons. Those buttons can be used for other actions while constantly providing navigation via mouse movement.
Users of a three dimensional modeling application will need to rotate models. A application can use the Pointer Lock API to enable the author to rotate the model freely in a drag operation without limiting motion. Without pointer lock a drag would stop providing motion data when the mouse cursor is limited by the edge of the screen.
Similarly, absolute motion panning of a large two dimensional image could be permitted in a single drag operation without cursor / screen limits.
A player on a fast reflexes game controls a paddle to bounce back a ball to the opponent, while allowing the same paddle to execute actions based on different mouse buttons being pressed. The application can use the Pointer Lock API to allow the player to react quickly without being concerned about the mouse cursor leaving the game play area and clicking another system application, thus breaking the game flow.
When modifying numerically magnitudes in applications sometimes the user will prefer to "drag" a numeric control by its button handles to increment or decrement the numeric value. E.g. a spinner with a number entry text box and arrows pointing up and down that can be clicked or dragged on to change the value. An application could use the Pointer Lock API to allow modifying the numeric values beyond what the logical screen bounds allow. The same could apply for a control that fast forwards or rewinds a video or audio stream like a "jog".
Some games use a classical cursor, however they want it to be limited or controlled in some manner. E.g. limited to the bounds of the game, or movable by the game. Locking the pointer enables this if the application creates their own cursor. However HTML and DOM should still be available to use for user interface. Synthetic mouse events should be permitted to allow an application defined cursor to interact with DOM. E.g. the following code should permit a custom cursor to send click events while the pointer is locked:
document.addEventListener("click", function (e) {
if (e._isSynthetic)
return;
// send a synthetic click
var ee = document.createEvent("MouseEvents");
ee._isSynthetic = true;
x = myCursor.x;
y = myCursor.y;
ee.initMouseEvent("click", true, true, null, 1,
x + e.screenX - e.clientX,
y + e.screenY - e.clientY,
x,
y);
var target = document.elementFromPoint(x, y);
if (target)
target.dispatchEvent(ee);
});
Note that synthetic clicks may not be permitted by a user agent to produce the same default action as a non-synthetic click. However, application handlers can still take action and provide user interface with existing HTML & DOM mechanisms.
Real Time Strategy games often use this technique. When the player moves the pointer to the view-port borders, if they "push" the border with a mouse movement, the view-port is panned over the game area according to how much they move the mouse. When moving the mouse cursor within the bounds of the view port it acts at is typically would on a system. Applications may choose to implement this using pointer lock and the previous use case of "Synthetic cursor interaction with HTML DOM UI" to bring cursor behavior completely under their control.
Games that use pointer lock may desire a traditional UI and system cursor while players prepare in a game lobby. Games usually start after a short timer when all players are ready. Ideally the game could then switch to pointer lock mode without a user activation . Players should be able to seamlessly move from the game lobby into game navigation.
Game portals, and other sites such as Facebook and Google Plus, host games for users to play. These games may be hosted and served from a different origin from that of the portal site. Embedded games should be able to lock the pointer, even in non-full screen mode.
This section is non-normative.
Security Concerns:
Responses:
Recommendations:
Pointer lock is a required user interaction mode for certain application types, but carries a usability concern if maliciously used. An attacker could remove the ability for a user to control their mouse cursor on their system. user agents will prevent this by always providing a mechanism to exit pointer lock , by informing the user of how, and by limiting how pointer lock can be entered.
user agents will determine their own appropriate policies, which may be specialized per device or differ based on user options.
This section is non-normative.
Mouse Capture [ MDN-SETCAPTURE ] handles low security risk mouse event target lock for the duration of a mouse drag gesture. Pointer lock removes the concept of the cursor and directs all events to a given target. They are related, but different.
If a browser implemented both, it would be reasonable to support a combination of traits: The security simplicity of "automatically release lock when mouse up" and the increased functionality of total control over mouse input and removal of the system cursor. The security trait would allow more permissive use of the feature for applications that only required a short burst of pointer lock during a drag event.
This functionality is omitted from the initial version of this spec because it helps the minor use cases in windowed mode but we still do not have an implementation solving the major ones. And, to implement this a browser must implement both, which none does yet. It is not clear if this feature should live on .lock or on .setCapture. If both were implemented, either API could be augmented fairly easily to offer the hybrid functionality.
Even in non locked state, the delta values of mouse movement are useful. Changing the meaning of .client or .screen based on lock state would also cause easy errors in code not carefully monitoring the lock state.
When
the
pointer
is
locked
'wheel'
events
should
be
sent
to
the
pointer-lock
target
element
just
as
'mousemove'
events
are.
There
is
a
naming
conflict
with
.deltaX/Y/Z
as
defined
in
DOM
3
'wheel'
event
.
deltaX
/
deltaY
/
deltaZ
[
POINTEREVENTS
].
There are good motivations to provide a more fine grained approach. E.g. the use case "View-port panning by moving a mouse cursor against the bounds of a view-port" doesn't require hiding the mouse cursor, only bounding it and always having delta values available. Also, this specification defines the movement deltas to be taken from how the system mouse cursor moves, which incorporates operating system filtering and acceleration of the mouse movement data. Applications may desire access to a more raw form of movement data prior to adjustments appropriate for a mouse cursor. Also, raw data may provide better than pixel level accuracy for movement, as well as higher frequency updates. Providing the raw delta movement would also not require special permission or mode from a user, and for some set of applications that do not require bounding the cursor may reduce the security barriers and prompts needed.
There are two justifications for postponing this finer grained approach. The first is a concern of specifying what units mouse movement data are provided in. This specification defines .movementX/Y precisely as the same values that could be recorded when the mouse is not under lock by changes in .screenX/Y. Implementations across multiple user agents and operating systems will easily be able to meet that requirement and provide application developers and users with a consistent experience. Further, users are expected to have already configured the full system of hardware input and operating system options resulting in a comfortable control the system mouse cursor. By specifying .movementX/Y in the same units mouse lock API applications will be instantly usable to all users because they have already settled their preferences.
Secondly, the implementation of providing movement data and bounding the mouse cursor is more difficult in the fine grained approach. Bundling the features together gives implementations freedom to use a variety of techniques as appropriate on each operating system and is more practical to implement. Direct APIs do not exist on major desktop platforms (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux) to bound the cursor to a specific rectangle, and prototypes have not yet been developed to demonstrate building that behavior by e.g. invisible windows with Xlib or manual cursor movement on Mac. Unaccelerated Delta values have been proposed to be accessed by reading raw Human Interface Device (HID) data. E.g. WM_INPUT messages on Windows, and USB device APIs on Mac OS X / Linux. The challenge here is interpreting and normalizing the units to some consistent and specifiable scale. Also, most APIs considered to date are limited to USB devices.
It would be reasonable to consider adding these capabilities in the future, as the currently specified pointer lock API would be easy to continue to support if the finer grained delta and confinement features were implemented.
The bundled API is selected for implementation practicality, because the desired use cases are supported, and because it will not conflict with future improvements as discussed here.
Not yet, for the same reasons in the previous question: "Why bundle all functionality (hiding cursor, providing mouse deltas) instead of using CSS to hide the cursor, always providing delta values, and offering an API to restrict the cursor movement to a portion of the web page?" .
When under pointer lock many mouse events remain relevant, e.g. click, mousedown, etc. These all share the same event data structure MouseEvent. If movement data were reported via a new data structure then a new event would be needed for reporting delta movement. The new data structure would have many parallels to MouseEvent to offer the same conveniences, e.g. button and modifier key states. When handling click, down, and up events would the existing mousedown, mouseup be used? If so, they would provide .clientX/Y and .screenX/Y with no useful data, but would lack the convenience of containing the current movement data. Or, new events would also be required for when the mouse is locked.
Also, movementX/Y are convenient even when the mouse is not locked. This spec requires movement members to always be valid, even when the mouse cursor exists. This reduces code required to track the last cursor state and mouseover/mouseout transitions if applications wish to make use of delta motion of the mouse.
The only negative of adding movementX/Y to MouseEvent appears to be the unused values in clientX/Y and screenX/Y when under pointer lock. This does not seem to be a significant problem.
Therefore the minimal change to add movementX/Y to MouseEvent is selected to reduce API and implementation complexity.
Consider a game with a 3D view controlled by moving the mouse cursor, while the user may still chat with other users via a text console. It is reasonable for the application to accept text input to an element that is different than where mouse events are being dispatched. This is similar to pre-existing behavior of receiving mousemove events over any element while typing into a form on a page.
As well as sections marked as non-normative, all authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-normative. Everything else in this specification is normative.
This specification defines conformance criteria that apply to a single product: the user agent that implements the interfaces that it contains.
This section is non-normative.
Many thanks to lots of people who made contributions to the discussions of this specification:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in: