W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Regarding the appearance property

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:53:31 -0800
To: <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BC84AE05.38859%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 3/22/04 1:55 PM, "Ernest Cline" <ernestcline@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> On 3/21/04 9:20 AM, "Ernest Cline" <ernestcline@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In any case, this property needs rather extensive revision
>>> in my opinion before it becomes usable as a standard.
>> 
>> Why?  There are implementers that would disagree.
> 
> The definition is woefully imprecise.  Exactly which properties 'appearance'
> overrides needs to be defined.  The meaning of "normal" needs to be
> defined, as there are several possible interpretations, of which the one
> you just gave was one I hadn't even initially considered. (Altho, I do like
> it better than my originally preferred interpretation.)  As defined,
> it is implementable, but it is definitely not usable as a _standard_.
> It is too imprecise, as the draft itself acknowledges.

More details are coming in the CR draft, for the most part in response to
last call comments that were made.  Implementation experience during CR will
tell us whether there are any implementability challenges or not.


>>> For instance, why should this property be limited to interactive media?
>> 
>> That doesn't make sense.
>> 
>> If you think there are additional media groups that it should apply to,
>> please provide a list of them with justifications.
> 
> All of the visual media groups.  If someone wants to print out a copy
> of an interactive form, then by default, using the appearance property
> if it were restricted to just interactive groups would mean that it could
> be impossible to duplicate the look of the form when printed.
> 
> It may be possible that only implementers of UA's that handle
> interactive media may wish to implement the 'appearance' property,
> but considered by itself, there in nothing in this property that justifies
> restricting this property to just interactive media.  Indeed based on
> the description of the property itself as currently given, a restriction
> to just the visual media types would be easier to justify.

I think this makes sense.  Perhaps "interactive, visual" (meaning either)
would be better, since we still want it to apply for non-visual interactive
media for voice interfaces etc.

Tantek
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 17:54:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:27 GMT