W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2011

Re: modal dialog and fullscreen API

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:25:51 +0000
Message-Id: <12AA7F30-0A09-49B6-964B-0E94AABE33CA@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Hi Ted 

In order to move this along can you remove the cover detail or mark it 'at editors discretion'? If you don't have time I am happy to mod the proposal.

As this appears to be the only sticking point for consensus.

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Nov 2011, at 14:00, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sam, I read Anne's comments differently
> 
> I think he was suggesting that this part of the proposal[1] be dropped or left out as it defines rendering rules that are in conflict witht the fullscreen stuff:
> 
> "::cover
> This pseudo-element matches the object under the dialog used to cover the rest of the page. Only modal dialogs have covers. When visible, it is fixed positioned, with its top, right, bottom, and left edges at the corresponding edges of the viewport.
> 
> The dialog and its cover, taken together, are siblings within a new stacking context which is placed above all other stacking contexts. The cover has z-index -1 within this stacking context, and the dialog z-index 0."
> 
> I don't see a major issue either way as content is added to the spec all the time by the editor that is later modified or removed, if it would achieve greater consensus this section could be marked "to do"
> The main point is to get the modal spec text in some form into the HTML5 spec for wider reveiw and hopefully implementation.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-133#::cover
> regards
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On 17 November 2011 11:38, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 11/17/2011 05:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:27:12 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> I could have chosen to close this issue by amicable consent last week:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Nov/0016.html
> 
> Instead, I am asking to see if there is anybody actively working on a
> new proposal, and if so, what is the expected timeframe for that
> proposal to be complete?
> 
> Whether fullscreen is new information enough isn't the right question.
> The right question is: is somebody working on a proposal? If not, we
> should simply declare consensus and move on. If so, all I ask is that
> they let us know.
> 
> And what we are saying, is that from the only proposal on the table, the
> exact rendering is still to be determined.
> 
> I read that as you have no objections to the current proposal, and that you are asserting that the "new information" that you cited does not affect the proposal.
> 
> 
> And asking the editor to put
> in the rendering rules from that proposal is thus counter productive.
> 
> Nobody is doing that.
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> with regards
> 
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
> 
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html 
> 
Received on Sunday, 20 November 2011 11:27:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:41 GMT