W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Process question re. autofocus bug status [was Re: autofocus on links is missing?]

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:23:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAM=Pv=TfA34eTho0=rsYJpoaXc3WYBASMhZ5OtekGbzSgRK1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 24 February 2012 21:19, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>
> (This is a response in terms of how I'm editing the spec, not how the
> chairs might want the process to work.)

Thanks. Your system makes pragmatic sense under the circumstances,
though WONTFIX does seem a bit leaky.

 (we don't
> yet know if it's a good idea that should be spread to more of the spec, a
> bad idea that we should regret and try to stamp out, or something in
> between).

Ok, but what concerns me is that the current approach is inconsistent.
I personally was surprised to find that input fields could
automatically gain focus but hyperlinks couldn't. I don't think that
kind of surprise is desirable.

>> So when will that be on the Milestone timeline?
>
> I don't follow any particular timeline.

But the specification does: LC, CR, PR, Rec. So if your activity on
this issue happens after Rec, the spec remains inconsistent.

 When we should add features, etc,
> is based primarily on implementation and authoring experience.

There's clearly correlation between experience and what gets added,
but it doesn't seem to be as directly connected as that implies
(otherwise there wouldn't be any new features).

Whatever, there *is* a fair amount of material relating to
implementation of autofocus behaviour available - focus() has been
around a long while, and a quick search suggests a popular time to use
this is on page load (for both input fields and links). Ok, triggering
the behaviour directly from markup is a qualitative difference - but
it sounds like there's some experience there now too.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 
http://dannyayers.com

http://webbeep.it  - text to tones and back again
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 23:23:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:46 GMT