- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 13:49:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `selectors 4 pub`, and agreed to the following resolutions: * `RESOLVED: take changes outlined in 3rd comment in the issue https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1240, with Tab's amendment re: must not match focus` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <astearns> topic: selectors 4 pub<br> <astearns> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Jul/0022.html<br> <tantek> scribenick: tantek<br> <tantek> dbaron: one of the reasons is that there was a section of text added in the editor's draft that I disagreed with and didn't have a chance to review it<br> <tantek> tab: I think we should update this four year old WD regardless<br> <tantek> fantasai: I'm co-editor of the spec and I don't know what's in the ED<br> <tantek> action fantasai: review current state of Selectors 4 and determine what if anything is blocking publishing a new WD<br> <trackbot> Created ACTION-854 - Review current state of selectors 4 and determine what if anything is blocking publishing a new wd [on Elika Etemad - due 2017-08-09].<br> <tantek> dbaron: I put a note in about ... but I think it might be wrong<br> <tantek> tab: I'm happy to review the algorithm, dealing with issues as they come. I don't think they should block anything<br> <tantek> dbaron: one other note, does bikeshed have a way to find specs that reference the term that I just removed?<br> <tantek> tab: not yet<br> <tantek> tab: I'd like to expose it<br> <tantek> tab: and give you a way to track it<br> <tantek> tab: it's imminently possible, just haven't done the actual work<br> <tantek> dbaron: I removed "evaluate a selector" and suggested replacement is ".... selector against a tree"<br> <tantek> dbaron: I put a suggestion in the changes section in a fragment, but that might not stay around<br> <tantek> dbaron: these are API hooks for other specs to reference<br> <tantek> astearns: anything else on Selectors 4?<br> <tantek> astearns: let's go onto the propagation of the :focus pseudo<br> <astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1240<br> <tantek> Florian: we've discussed this a couple of times already<br> <tantek> Florian: we defined how :active works deferred to HTML, we did also for :focus but incorrectly deferred to HTML<br> <tantek> Florian: so our spec makes no sense<br> <tantek> Florian: easiest fix, leave :active as is, point :focus at the right thing<br> <tantek> Florian: or we could define what :focus does<br> <tantek> Florian: 3rd aspect, open issue on *how* it should work<br> <tantek> Florian: without being specific about hover and active but not focus propagate from a labeled form control to the form control but not back<br> <tantek> Florian: at some point we defined that all three should propagate both directions<br> <tantek> Florian: if we defer to them there, it overturns our prev resolution<br> <tantek> Florian: if we define it here, we may be able keep current resolution<br> <tantek> Florian: IE used to propagate both dirs, but Edge does not<br> <tantek> Rossen: we might've done something for interop<br> <tantek> Florian: I tested this a few months ago<br> <tantek> Florian: do we just defer to whichever group manages HTML these days? or do we takeover? How much do we takeover?<br> <tantek> TabAtkins: I think it is still a host language thing, I don't think we should take over<br> <tantek> TabAtkins: should be easy enough to get WHATWG to fix that<br> <astearns> testcase from previous discussion? data:text/html;charset=utf-8;base64,PCFET0NUWVBFIGh0bWw+DQogIDxzdHlsZT4NCiAgICA6Zm9jdXMgeyBiYWNrZ3JvdW5kOiBvcmFuZ2U7fQ0KICA8L3N0eWxlPg0KICA8bGFiZWwgZm9yPXlvPkZvbzwvbGFiZWw+DQogIDxpbnB1dCBpZD15bz4=<br> <tantek> TabAtkins: whether or not active and focus prop. to their ancestors is ... ?<br> <tantek> s/TabAtkins: whether/Florian: whether<br> <tantek> Florian: so in the gh issue I proposed a phrasing<br> <tantek> Florian: open issue to get them to fix it<br> <tantek> Florian: shall we do that or shall we takeover more<br> <tantek> TabAtkins: I disagree with your proposal<br> <tantek> TabAtkins: would prefer to defer to host language for parent element too<br> <tantek> TabAtkins: regarding prop. upward<br> <tantek> Florian: ok I can fix that<br> <tantek> TabAtkins: otherwise it seems pretty good<br> <tantek> Florian: is that a resolution? accept Florian's changes with Tab's fix?<br> <tantek> Florian: separately we may want to continue to debate whether not they prop. to label/form control?<br> <tantek> Florian: regarding whether we should make a statement to the WHATWG on this<br> <tantek> astearns: Tab's change is to ... ?<br> <tantek> astearns: is this in a draft?<br> <tantek> Florian: just in the issue, I can turn it into a pull request<br> <tantek> astearns: proposed resolution is to take changes outlined in 3rd comment in the issue, with Tab's amendment re: must not match focus<br> <tantek> astearns: any objections to taking Florian's change?<br> <tantek> RESOLVED: take changes outlined in 3rd comment in the issue https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1240, with Tab's amendment re: must not match focus<br> <tantek> Florian: shall also discuss next issue? we have also resolved on not what the HTML spec says<br> <tantek> astearns: I'm unclear whether a group resolution would help<br> <tantek> astearns: they have our input already<br> <tantek> Florian: kinda. last time two people objected. one was bz with a well reasoned argument. and the other was ryosuke who said we don't need this because we have the :has selector - which we don't have , so that objection is invalid<br> <tantek> Florian: but bz objection is still valid<br> <tantek> astearns: can you update the issue that we made this change and are still waiting?<br> <tantek> Florian: a major part of the pushback from WHATWG is that for hover in particular this is expensive because hover events can fire a lot around the page<br> <tantek> Florian: some people say just active, and some say ... ?<br> <tantek> Florian: or the other thing with IDref (?) like selector?<br> <tantek> Florian: shall I write something?<br> <tantek> Florian: or does WG not care?<br> <tantek> tantek: I think we can't follow<br> <tantek> action Florian follow-up on the issue<br> <trackbot> Created ACTION-855 - Follow-up on the issue [on Florian Rivoal - due 2017-08-09].<br> <tantek> Florian: static vs dynamic profile?<br> <tantek> Florian: important to change the name<br> <tantek> Florian: everyone misunderstands static vs dynamic - as in this means JS or not<br> <tantek> TabAtkins: I agree - too much confusion - I want to change the names also<br> <tantek> Florian: this is related because it sounded like Apple engineers were confused<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1240#issuecomment-319677593 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2017 13:49:15 UTC