W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Customize HTML5 forms placeholder style

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:34:09 -0700
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1003191734p5d537352l3f86f978e5d240bc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Mounir Lamouri
<mounir.lamouri@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even if that may work in most situations, I think forcing the
> placeholder to a specific opacity value by the UA is not a good
> solution. Indeed, the opacity may work in most situations but with no
> doubt, some websites will not use the placeholder attribute because they
> will not like the default value.

I'm confused.  By this logic, *any* value for *anything* for the
placeholder would be bad.  The point is to find an opacity value that,
for standard black-on-white, approximates a dark-gray-on-white.
Authors can always change this if they want.

> In addition, forcing the placeholder to
> a specific opacity value will remove per-platform styling possibility.

No more so than any other line in HTML's suggested UA style sheet does.

> For example, we want to have an italic placeholder for Gecko.
> I think we can't prevent the placeholder style customization with the
> opacity. However, we may specify a specific opacity value as the default
> placeholder style but I have an other simple concern against this idea:
> opacity is less eye-candy than darkgrey.

I'm confused.  The point of the opacity is that it transforms
black-on-white into dark-gray-on-white.  What is less eye-candy about
it?  It just has the additional benefit that it should work
analogously for all text and background color combinations.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 20 March 2010 00:35:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:25 GMT